That’s it, arrest them, charge them with attempting to replace our system of government with a theocracy then let them rot forever.

since roe v wade 4,000 babies are murdred in the wombs of their mother’s every day.that is 43 million innocent babies.it equals the holocaust times seven[7].we no longer have the supply and demand needed by the next generation to fuel our economy,because we have killed the next generation. we must stop the presidents health care reform or we are in serious trouble.

Barry Lynn, who has no serious credentials himself, cites absolutely no facts whatsoever in his lame hit piece against ultimately, what most Americans believe and know to be true concerning our history, at least those of us who were not brainwashed by Liberal “higher” education.
No need to even consider that Wallbuilders or American Center for Law and Justice enjoy millions and millions of supporters who have already critically weighed these arguments years ago.
Barry’s own first statement, that we should all agree not to rewrite history, is a complete howler. It is the left that is notorious for rewwriting all american history, casting all events in terms of skin color, class warfare, gender, or economic position. There are probably more books now being written about how the founding fathers fathered legions of illegitimate babies, than there are books about, well, anything else.
Barry’s description of the other side’s arguments are inaccurate, childish, and appear to be wholly based upon slandering or discrediting his opponents integrity, rather than the veracity of their positions. If you want to learn something about the state of the arguments, no need to read Barry, go direct to Wallbuilders, or ACLJ or elsewhere, Beliefnet appears to be nothing but one sided drivel.
Barry’s arguments amount to nothing more than idealogue rants, nothing of substance here, readers should move on and not waste their time.

Come and take it!

This is truly a shame and sham as it affects so many children. I suppose, if you tell a lie enough times, you start to believe it yourself but that still doesn’t make the lie true!
These conservative activists are clearly re-writing history in the attempt to teach children, that which isn’t true.
They are unabashed in doing this and I hope people take notice at yet again, another attempt by the American Taliban to create a Theocracy of the U.S.
Truth is apparently in short supply in Texas but lie is ok as I’m sure these people feel justified. Didn’t their 10 Commandments say something about lying and baring false witness? Apparently, it’s conditional.

“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
Thomas Jefferson
These people don’t want thinking people, they want stupid sheep that will fall in line. Question authority.

Last year Barton’s group, WallBuilders’ was forced to issue a one-page document titled “Questionable Quotes,” which is a list of 12 statements allegedly made by the Founding Fathers and other prominent historical figures, that are now considered to be false. For years David Barton has traveled the country, putting on programs about America’s alleged “Christian heritage” in which he argued that the separation of church and state is a myth. Instead the United States was supposedly founded by Christians and was intended to be a fundamentalist-style “Christian nation.” What was Barton’s proof for these claims? The quotations he now admits are groundless! At least 9 of the 12 were included in Barton’s 1989 book, The Myth of Separation, and appeared in the video version, “America’s Godly Heritage.” A federal court has ruled that Barton’s materials are inappropriate for use in public schools. Steve cut and pasted an unverified claim made by D. James Kennedy about David Barton having an original document signed by Thomas Jefferson in which he mentioned Christ. Barton has long since been forced to admit this is one of three forgeries done by Barton himself. Just google ‘Forgeries by David Barton’ or ‘the lies of David Barton.’ Also Chris Rodda has a 9-part U-Tube video in which she details many of lies David Barton has told including lies he told about her. Never fear huh? It looks like all you Christians actually have on your side are forgeries and lies. Again.
Yeah Christians really looked at Barton’s forgeries and lies critically. Just as critically as the read their book of magic and fairies, long since debunked by science.

Gwyddion9 says:
Didn’t their 10 Commandments say something about lying and baring false witness?
Mr. Incredible says:
“Lying and baring false witness”? No.
“Lying and bearing false witness”? No.
“Lying”? No.
“Bearing false witness”? Yes. But regarding what?
If YOU consider what I say to be a lie, does what I say violate The Ten Commandments? Not necessarily, unless the statement “violates” YOUR commandments.

“God who gave us life and liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” — Jefferson
Not the words of a deist.
In a letter to Benjamim Rush aril 21 1803- I am a Christian in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Apr. 21, 1803:
“I am a Christian…”

if they are lying why do the president and all elected officials swear on the Bible?, the money says “in God we Trust”?, the senate and congress have a chaplain and start with prayer?, the Supreme Court “had” the 10 commandments posted, there “was” prayer in school daily, there “was” Sunday off (blue laws in every state)and the United States “was” known as a Christian nation with Christian laws and values. That’s why abortion “was” illegal. living and having children out of wedlock was frowned upon, and why homosexuals are fighting to wed when in the sixties they said it was unnecessary. AND why are you trying so hard to remove laws and values that never existed?
The pharisees and sadducees were religious men too so don’t let the Rev. before a name fool you.

Anti-Fundi Christian says:
That’s it, arrest them…
Mr. Incredible asks:
On what charge?
Anti-Fundi Christian says:
…charge them with attempting to replace our system of government with a theocracy…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Of which law, on what planet, is THAT a charge?
Of course, we’re not trying to crfeate a theocracy here. You people misrepresent and inflate our efforts and argue against your inflation.

In Texas, we’re beginning to correct the Liberal slant on things, and they don’t like it. Isn’t THAT too bad.

Mr. Incredible, would you consider the following to be the words of a Christian?
“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823.
Jefferson thought the Christian religion was so messed up that he assembled his own bible, throwing out much of what they believe.
Again, would those be the actions of a Christian?
Jefferson thought that Jesus was a great, but entirely human, philosopher whose ideas had been distorted beyond recognition by the Christian churches.
It’s simply dishonest to portray Jefferson as anything other than a deist.

Your Name says:
if they are lying why do the president and all elected officials swear on the Bible?
Mr. Incredible asks:
And, if those who swear on It believe that God is lying, then the ones taking the oath are lying.
If they are not lying, then they must believe that God is not lying.
Your Name says:
The pharisees and sadducees were religious men too so don’t let the Rev. before a name fool you
Mr. Incredible says:
No problemo. It doesn’t.

JimCA says:
Mr. Incredible, would you consider the following to be the words of a Christian?
“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823.
Mr. Incredible says:
They are, Jefferson was not expressing an opinion about Christianity. He was predicting the future.
JimCA says:
Jefferson thought the Christian religion was so messed up that he assembled his own bible, throwing out much of what they believe.
Mr. Incredible says:
Not true.
The Jefferson Bible is a consolidation of the Words of Jesus. He felt that Christian doctrine was better taught by His, unadulterated Words.
JimCA says:
Again, would those be the actions of a Christian?
Mr. Incredible says:
As I’ve explained it, yes.
JimCA says:
Jefferson thought that Jesus was a great, but entirely human, philosopher whose ideas had been distorted beyond recognition by the Christian churches.
Mr. Incredible says:
Probably. However, that does not condemn the Church.
JimCA says:
It’s simply dishonest to portray Jefferson as anything other than a deist.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that he said, “I am a Christian…”

JimCA says:
It’s simply dishonest to portray Jefferson as anything other than a deist.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that he said, “I am a Christian…” and I’ll take his word for it.

JimCA says:
Jefferson thought the Christian religion was so messed up that he assembled his own bible, throwing out much of what they believe.
Mr. Incredible says:
What do Christians believe? Of that, what did he “throw out”?

“The real object of the [First A]mendment was not to continents, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects.” — Justice Story [Story, "Commentaries," Volume III, page 728, §1871].
“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?” — Jefferson, “Notes on the State of Virginia” (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, page 237.
“[S]eventy years ago…Lemuel Bryant was my parish priest, and Joseph Cleverly my Latin schoolmaster. Lemuel was a jocular and liberal scholar and divine. Joseph a scholar and gentlemen… The parson and the pedagogue lived much together, but were eternally disputing about government and religion. One day when the schoolmaster had been more than commonly fanatical and declared ‘if he were a monarch, he would have but one religion in his dominions;” the parson coolly replied, ‘Cleverly! you would be the best man in the world if you have no religion.’” — John Adams to Jefferson, April 19, 1817; John Adams, “The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States,” Charles Francis Adams, Editor (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1856), Volume X, Page 254.
Adams, then:
“Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, ‘This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!’ But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.” — John Adams to Jefferson.
John Jay described the Christianity practiced in America as being “enlightened.” — [William Jay, "The Life of John J." (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833), page 80, from his "Charge to the Grand Jury of Ulster County" on September 9, 1777.]
John Quincy Adams called it “civilized.” — [John Quincy Adams, "An Oration Delivered before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at the Request on the Sixty First Anniversary of the Declaration Of Independence" (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), Page 17.]
John Adams called it “rational.” — [John Adams, "Works," Volume IX, page 121, in a speech to both houses of Congress, November 23, 1797.]
“The general principles upon which the fathers achieved independence were… the general principles of Christianity… I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.” — John Adams, “Works,” Volume X, page 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.
“The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will.” — John Adams, of Thomas Paine’s views; John Adams, “Works,” Volume III, page 421, diary entry for July 26, 1796.
“My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away… the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances His disciples in asserting that he He was God.” — John Quincy Adams; John Adams and John Quincy Adams, “The Selected Writings of John and John Quincy Adams,” Adrian Koch and William Peden, editors (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1946), page 292, John Quincy Adams to John Adams, January 3, 1817.
“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” — Thomas Jefferson, “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, DC: To Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Volume XIV, page 385, Charles Thomson on January 9, 1816.
“The attempt by the rulers of the nation [France] to destroy all religious opinion and to pervert a whole people to atheism is a phenomenon of profligacy… [T]o establish atheism on the ruins of Christianity [is] to deprive mankind of its best consolations and most animating hopes and to make a gloomy desert of the universe.” — Alexander Hamilton, “Papers,” Volume XXI, page 402-404, “The Stand No. III,” New York, April 7, 1798
“You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ… Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.” — George Washington, “Writings” (1932), Volume XV, page 55, from his speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779.
“[O]nly one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation.” — John J., “The Correspondents and Public Papers of John Jay,” Henry P. Johnson, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1893), Volume IV, page 52, 2 Lindley Murray on August 22, 1794.
“[T]he Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom and government… and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence.” — Noah Webster; K. Allen Snyder, “Defining Noah Webster: Mind and Morals in the Early Republic” (New York: University Press of America, 1990), Page 253, to James Madison on October 16, 1829.
“From the day of the Declaration, the people of the North American Union and of its constituent states were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians… They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct. [John Quincy Adams, "Address Delivered at the Request of the Committee of Arrangements for Celebrating the Anniversary of Independence at the City of Washington on the Fourth of July 1821, Upon the Occasion of Reading the Declaration Of Independence" (Cambridge: Hilliard and Metcalf, 1821), page 28.] The Declaration of Independence cast off all the shackles of this dependency. The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians.” [John Quincy Adams, "An Oration... on... July 4, 1837," Page 18.]
“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet,’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal,’ we’re not Commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams; John Adams, “A Defense of the Constitution of Government of the United States Of America” (Philadelphia: William Young, 1797), Volume III, Page 217, from “The Right Constitution of the Commonwealth Examined,” Letter IV.
“The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code… laws is essential to the existence of men in society and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws. [John Quincy Adams, "Letters... to His Son," page 61.] Vain indeed would be the search among the writings of profane antiquity (secular history)… to find so broad, so complete and so solid basis for morality as this Decalogue lays down.” — John Quincy Adams; John Quincy Adams, “Letters… to His Son,” page 70-71.
“[T]he Ten Commandments… are the sum of the moral law.” John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence; Witherspoon, “Works,” (1815), Volume IV, page 95, “Seasonable Advice to Young Persons,” Sermons XIX, February 21, 1762.
“Let it simply be asked, ‘Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert…?’” — George Washington; Washington, “Address… Preparatory to His Declination,” page 23
“All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from there despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” — Noah Webster; Noah Webster, “History,” page 339, paragraph 53.
“Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.” — George Washington; Washington, “Writings” (1932), Volume XXXV, page 416, to the Clergy of Different Denominations Residing in and Near the City of Philadelphia on March 3, 1797.
“No people ought to feel greater obligations to celebrate the goodness of the Great Disposer of Events and the Destiny of Nations than the people of the United States… And to the same Divine Author of every good and perfect gift we are indebted for all those privileges and advantages, religious as well as civil, which are so richly enjoyed in this favored land.” — James Madison; James D. Richardson, “A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897″ (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Volume I, page 561, March 4, 1815.
“I… recommended general and public return of praise and thanksgiving to Him from whose goodness these blessings descend. The most effectual means of securing the continuance of our civil and religious liberties, is always to remember with reverence and gratitude the source from which they flow.” — John Jay; William Jay, “The Life of John Jay: With Selections from His Correspondence and Miscellaneous Papers” (New York: J. and J. Harper, 1833), Volume I, page 457-458, to the Committee of the Corporation of the City of New York on June 29, 1826.
“[O]ur citizens should really understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.” — Noah Webster; Noah Webster, “History of the United States” (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), page 6

Mr. Incredible, quotes taken out of context are the hallmark of fabricators.
Here is the full sentence you started:
“I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other. ”
I don’t have a copy of the original manuscript handy, but my memory is that Jefferson emphasizes the word “human”.
Another hallmark of fabricators is to establish a fact about one use of a word (“theory”, “human”, “Christian”, etc.) and then pretend the speaker intended to say something about an entirely different use of that word.
Jefferson made it abundantly clear that he had a different definition of “Christian” than any member of a Christian sect would agree to.
If you want to use Jefferson’s definition to argue he was a Christian, then you must use that same definition to argue that every Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Mormon, etc. is NOT a Christian. He made it clear that his definition of Christian is not the same as theirs.
So which is it? Do you define “Christian” as Jefferson did, or as every major Christian religion does?

These ones, particularly, stand out:
“From the day of the Declaration, the people of the North American Union and of its constituent states were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians… They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct. [John Quincy Adams, "Address Delivered at the Request of the Committee of Arrangements for Celebrating the Anniversary of Independence at the City of Washington on the Fourth of July 1821, Upon the Occasion of Reading the Declaration Of Independence" (Cambridge: Hilliard and Metcalf, 1821), page 28.]
“The Declaration of Independence cast off all the shackles of this dependency. The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians.” [John Quincy Adams, "An Oration... on... July 4, 1837," Page 18.]
After that, somebody needs to take the secularists’ shoelaces and belts from them.

JimCA says:
Mr. Incredible, quotes taken out of context…
Mr. Incredible says:
Out of which context to YOU say are they taken?
JimCA says:
Here is the full sentence you started:
“I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other. ”
Mr. Incredible says:
That doesn’t say anything I didn’t say. Christianity is all about following Christ.
JimCA says:
… Jefferson emphasizes the word “human”.[sic]
Mr. Incredible says:
Jefferson was endorsing the Words of Jesus Who said that men are able to turn to God. Jesus never said men are “excellent.” In fact, God, through Christ, says that men are wicked. That can’t be excellent.
JimCA says:
Another hallmark of fabricators is to establish a fact about one use of a word (“theory”, “human”, “Christian”, etc.) and then pretend the speaker intended to say something about an entirely different use of that word.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that, when he said, “Christian,” he means that he was a follower of Jesus.
JimCA says:
Jefferson made it abundantly clear that he had a different definition of “Christian” than any member of a Christian sect would agree to.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which Christian “sect”?
JimCA says:
If you want to use Jefferson’s definition to argue he was a Christian, then you must use that same definition to argue that every Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Mormon, etc. is NOT a Christian. He made it clear that his definition of Christian is not the same as theirs.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Where is this “clear”?
JimCA says:
Do you define “Christian” as Jefferson did…
Mr. Incredible asks:
What definition is that, and where is it?
JimCA says:
…or as every major Christian religion does?
Mr. Incredible asks:
Does every, Christian denomination define “Christian” the same?

JimCA says:
… Jefferson emphasizes the word “human”.[sic]
Mr. Incredible asks:
In what way does he emphasize the word? Does he italicize it? Does he bold it? Does he block-letter it? Or does the word stand out merely cuz the imperatives you’ve arranged in your mind command you to see it that way?

Out of which context to YOU say are they taken? — – > Out of which context do YOU say are they taken?

JimCA asks:
Do you define “Christian” as Jefferson did, or as every major Christian religion does?
Mr. Incredible says:
Explain the difference between Jefferson’s “definition” of “Christian,” and the definition used by each of the major Christian “religions.”

By the way, I don’t subscribe to denomination. I don’t care about denomination. So, any attempt to connect me to one denomination, or the other denomination, or to all denominations, is useless.
I am Christian. I was born again about this time seven years ago. All I care about is what the Word of God says. I listen to the teaching of some others, but I always compare what they say to what the Word says. What THEY say is not Word; what the Word says is the Word.
Jefferson compiled the Words of Jesus, consolidating them — or, as YOU would say, taking them out of context.

Mr. Incredible:
In an earlier comment, I indicated that I thought (from memory) that Jefferson himself emphasized the word “human” when referring to Jesus.
I tracked down an image of the actual manuscript and it appears he did not add emphasis. That seems to be an artifact added by others quoting him without proper annotation of their tweaks. My apologies if I misled anyone–as I said I was recalling from memory. Live and learn.

JimCA says:
Here is the full sentence you started:
“I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other. ”
Mr. Incredible says:
That doesn’t say anything I didn’t say. Christianity is all about following Christ.
JimCA says:
… Jefferson emphasizes the word “human”.[sic]
Mr. Incredible asks:
It’s no revelation that Christ came to Earth as a man, an understandable form. An example, He embodied the excellence God made Man to be but lost, thanks to Adam and Eve. He came to help men restore that excellence which is not attainable unless men are born again. That’s the Offer of Reconciliation. Those who receive it are saved. Those who do not are not. It’s as simple as that.

Mr. Incredible asks: — – > Mr. Incredible says:

JimCA says:
Mr. Incredible:
In an earlier comment, I indicated that I thought (from memory) that Jefferson himself emphasized the word “human” when referring to Jesus.
I tracked down an image of the actual manuscript and it appears he did not add emphasis. That seems to be an artifact added by others quoting him without proper annotation of their tweaks. My apologies if I misled anyone–as I said I was recalling from memory. Live and learn.
Mr. Incredible says:
Had he emphasized the word, he most certainly would have meant one thing, elevating being human about Man’s real station.
That he didn’t, he is still pointing out that Jesus was a man, but a man the way God originally made Man, and the kind of man men could be again.

about Man’s real station — – > above Man’s real station

In consolidating the Word of God down only to Jesus’ Words, Jefferson tries to clarify His doctrine.
However, as I say, may hinder understanding cuz the context of the particular words may enhance understanding of what Jesus said in that context.
However, again, there are certain Principles He expresses that transcend context.
I’m coming to believe that Jefferson was trying to isolate those Principles. It is no different with those who are born again today; every Christian should be trying to get the Principles expressed by Christ. That is fundamental. Jesus was a fundamentalist. Those who are born again are fundamentalist.
This whole thing, though, does not take away from the fact that Jefferson said he is a Christian — that is, a follower of Christ.

Your Name: if they are lying why do the president and all elected officials swear on the Bible?,
You are confused. The president and elected officials do NOT all swear on the Bible. If you had taken a real civics class and weren’t misled by the kinds of revisionist nonsense they are peddling in Texas you would know that.
The Presidential oath of office, in it’s entirety, from Article II, Section1 of the Constitution of the United States:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Franklin Pierce affirmed rather than swearing.
John Qunicy Adams and Teddy Roosevelt did not use a Bible.
Among congressman, Ellison used a Koran. Pete Stark is an atheist, so I would assume he did not swear any religious oath.
If you were to look at state offices, I think you would find many other examples where elected officials did not swear on a Bible, for a variety of reasons.
When a majority of the population takes religion seriously, it is only to be expected that politicians will be sensitive to that. They say all sorts of nonsense they don’t really believe to avoid alienating various groups of voters.

Back to the subject…
The people on that board were elected. The campaigns reflected their views. The voters knew those views when they voted.
It would be dishonest for those who were elected, based on those views understood by the voters, now to surrender to pressure and to discard those views.

Mr. Incredible: ‘This whole thing, though, does not take away from the fact that Jefferson said he is a Christian — that is, a follower of Christ.”
One more time, slowly.
Except that he thought Jesus was a good and moral philosopher, whose teachings should be followed, Jefferson’s definition of “Christian” was completely at odds with the modern meaning of the word.
You seem to be tying to use a back-door argument to claim that because Jefferson said he liked the teachings of Christ, he is in the same camp as those who think Jesus talks to them and will take them to Heaven.
if you are not claiming that, then please come clean and simply say that you agree he would disagree with the major tenant (the divinity of Christ) that underlies every major Christian church.

JimCA says:
The Presidential oath of office, in it’s [sic] entirety, from Article II, Section1 of the Constitution of the United States:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. Incredible asks:
“Faithfully”? Hmmmm. Full of faith. To whom? About whom? In whom?

JimCA says:
Mr. Incredible: ‘This whole thing, though, does not take away from the fact that Jefferson said he is a Christian — that is, a follower of Christ.”
One more time, slowly.
Except that he thought Jesus was a good and moral philosopher, whose teachings should be followed, Jefferson’s definition of “Christian” was completely at odds with the modern meaning of the word.
Mr. Incredible asks:
What, exactly, is the “modern meaning” of the word, Christian, and how does it conflict with what you say is Jefferson’s meaning?
JimCA says:
You seem to be tying to use a back-door argument…
Mr. Incredible says:
No, if the front door approach.
JimCA says:
… to claim that because Jefferson said he liked the teachings of Christ, he is in the same camp as those who think Jesus talks to them and will take them to Heaven.
Mr. Incredible says:
Jefferson more than liked His teaching.
JimCA says:
if you are not claiming that, then please come clean and simply say that you agree he would disagree with the major tenant (the divinity of Christ) that underlies every major Christian church.
Mr. Incredible says:
Those who are born again know that Jesus was Divine. Resurrection proved it. If Jefferson did not believe that, then he was not a Christian. He was, then, a member of some offshoot club he would claim to be a part of Christianity but was not.
His merely saying that he is Christian doesn’t make him Christian.

Mr. Incredible says:
Those who are born again know that Jesus was Divine. Resurrection proved it. If Jefferson did not believe that, then he was not a Christian. He was, then, a member of some offshoot club he would claim to be a part of Christianity but was not.
His merely saying that he is Christian doesn’t make him Christian.
Finally we are agreed: According to your definition, Jefferson was NOT a Christian.
And while he only obliquely said he was a deist, he certainly never denied it, and in fact vigorously endorsed the standard beliefs of deism, so I think we can also agree he was (in practice) a deist.
Agreed?

Mr. Incredible says:
It would be dishonest for those who were elected, based on those views understood by the voters, now to surrender to pressure and to discard those views.
The problem with that argument is that we don’t live in a pure democracy. The voters don’t get to decide to put religious doctrine into public textbooks.
And more generally, if the voters choose to say that math classes should teach that 9999 is the largest integer they would simply be wrong. Some things are facts and their treatment in textbooks should not be revised based on the desires of even a majority to push some agenda.
In what logical world would the author of the Declaration of Independence be considered less important to American history than a 16th century fundamentalist theologian? That is just plain nuts. And if the voters of Texas asked for that, then the voters of Texas are just plain nuts.

JimCA says:
Mr. Incredible says:
Those who are born again know that Jesus was Divine. Resurrection proved it. If Jefferson did not believe that, then he was not a Christian. He was, then, a member of some offshoot club he would claim to be a part of Christianity but was not.
His merely saying that he is Christian doesn’t make him Christian.
Finally we are agreed: According to your definition, Jefferson was NOT a Christian.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, he followed Christ. THAT makes him a Christian.
JimCA says:
And while he only obliquely said…
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation: “That’s the interpretation I put on it.”
JimCA says:
…he was a deist, he certainly never denied it…
Mr. Incredible says:
I won’t deny that I am the King of England. I never said it, but I won’t deny it.
JimCA says:
…and in fact vigorously endorsed the standard beliefs of deism…
Mr. Incredible says:
“Deism” is the belief that God is not involved in the affairs of Man.
Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. In it, he expresses quite a different sentiment.
JimCA says:
…so I think we can also agree he was (in practice) a deist.
Mr. Incredible says:
Not quite.
JimCA says:
Agreed?
Mr. Incredible says:
Not there yet.

I’m still waiting for the “modern meaning” of the word Christian, according to each of the major denominations JimCA says have different definitions, and how it differs from Jefferson’s definition.

Mr. Incredible asks: “Faithfully”? Hmmmm. Full of faith. To whom? About whom? In whom?
“faithfully execute” means “correctly and reliably execute”
More precisely, it means the actions of the officeholder will be closely aligned to the obligations dictated by that office–they will do everything they are required to do and nothing they are required not to do.
You can talk about a faithful clock, a faithful map, or In mathematics, a faithful functor, etc. No deities involved.

Mr. Incredible said: “Those who are born again know that Jesus was Divine. Resurrection proved it. If Jefferson did not believe that, then he was not a Christian. ”
Jefferson did not believe that Jesus was Divine. So by your own logic, you are claiming that he was not a Christian.
Then you turn around and say he was a Christian.
Would you PLEASE explain how you can hold those two contradictory beliefs in your head? Or are you just playing word games and using the same letters (“C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n”) to mean two different things in two different sentences?

JimCA says:
Mr. Incredible says:
It would be dishonest for those who were elected, based on those views understood by the voters, now to surrender to pressure and to discard those views.
JimCA says:
The problem with that argument is that we don’t live in a pure democracy.
Mr. Incredible says:
Irrelevant.
JimCA says:
The voters don’t get to decide to put religious doctrine into public textbooks.
Mr. Incredible says:
The voters voted for the candidates they saw and heard. The voters knew what the candidates said. They voted for what the candidates said. They voted for what the candidates said they would do. Those who were elected are doing what they said they would do. That’s the way the system works.
Now, in 2008, supporters of Obammy voted for him. They thought they were voting for change. Since then, that has changed.
Disgruntled Republicans voted for him. They thought they were voting for change. Since then, that has changed.
We will have the opportunity, this coming November, to change all that. Then, we’re goin’ after 2012.
The point is that those people had the chance to vote, based on what they saw and heard. They believed what they saw and heard. Things didn’t turn out.
In Texas, those who were elected to the board are doing what the voters said, in their vote, that they wanted the people that voted for to do. That’s the sentiment of the community. Some people don’t like it. They didn’t vote for these people. That’s too bad. That’s the way the system works. They do things differently in North Korea, Cuba and in China.
JimCA says:
And more generally, if the voters choose to say that math classes should teach that 9999 is the largest integer they would simply be wrong.
Mr. Incredible says:
Mathematics is a different matter. It is precise. It has precise language.
Politics, unfortunately, these days, does not subscribe to the language of mathematics. People with different interests see the world differently. Some of those interests are legitimate, and some are not. You think my interests are not legitimate in this case, and I think that your interests are not legitimate in this case. The answer is to be found in the vote. Voters voted. The elements for which they voted are in place. Those elements are doing the job for which they were voted into office. Those who did not vote for them are not satisfied. That’s the way it is. Vote for somebody else the next time.
JimCA says:
Some things are facts and their treatment in textbooks should not be revised based on the desires of even a majority to push some agenda.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s what they’re trying to fix.
JimCA says:
In what logical world would the author of the Declaration of Independence be considered less important to American history than a 16th century fundamentalist theologian?
Mr. Incredible says:
Depends.
JimCA says:
That is just plain nuts.
Mr. Incredible says:
See? The only way to settle this is with a vote. That’s what happened. We can’t help that those who didn’t vote for the candidates are not satisfied. It’s the best system we have. North Korea, Cuba and China think they have the best system.
JimCA says:
And if the voters of Texas asked for that, then the voters of Texas are just plain nuts.
Mr. Incredible says:
We understand that you wanna substitute your judgment for the judgment of all those voters.

Mr. Incredible asks: “Faithfully”? Hmmmm. Full of faith. To whom? About whom? In whom?
JimCA says:
“faithfully execute” means “correctly and reliably execute”
Mr. Incredible asks:
To whom is the person faithful?
JimCA says:
More precisely, it means the actions of the officeholder will be closely aligned to the obligations dictated by that office–they will do everything they are required to do and nothing they are required not to do.
Mr. Incredible asks:
How do we know? How can we be confident?
JimCA says:
You can talk about a faithful clock, a faithful map, or In mathematics, a faithful functor, etc. No deities involved.
Mr. Incredible says:
Things cannot have faith. You may have faith in them.
Mr. Incredible says: “Those who are born again know that Jesus was Divine. Resurrection proved it. If Jefferson did not believe that, then he was not a Christian. ”
JimCA says:
Jefferson did not believe that Jesus was Divine. So by your own logic, you are claiming that he was not a Christian.
Mr. Incredible says:
In order to accept the Words of Jesus, Jefferson had to accept the Words that tell us that He came from Heaven. From God.

Seems man needs knowledge to agree! No one can agree without possessing it! Faith is something which knowledge helps to build or tear down! Mans problem is he is evil! Faith comes to evil man by way of something far greater than he is! And this is the only place where knowledge can be had and so agreed with by any! Now this leaves us with the definition of “faith” and not “christian” so to agree! And faith comes by hearing of Gods word! His word determines all truth! Even who is a christian having faith! The just shall live by faith! Our problem here is not who is this or that or what anyone thinks but, what is it which gives power to faith? Is it of man to believe or from God to give unbelievers? Did Jefferson have faith? Sure, but what kind of faith? Of man or of God? Was he born from above or not? Maybe he was just ignorant but no matter, God knows! His problem is he believed that their was a god but not that “God is”!! That makes him a deist! A deistic God is not really God! Just a bystander who wound the world up and lets it run down as man govern for him all things! That is not “God” who is the “I am” and does all things for his good pleasure and for those who love me!
No one can come but that God make it possible! No one can believe (true believe, not intellectual facts if existence) but he give to us faith so to believe! Why keep trying to do what you cannot? Give up and really seek the true God and find you are a sinner in great need from Gods wrath! Man can judge you but Gods…

Mr. Incredible asks: “Faithfully”? Hmmmm. Full of faith. To whom? About whom? In whom?
JimCA says:
“faithfully execute” means “correctly and reliably execute”
More precisely, it means the actions of the officeholder will be closely aligned to the obligations dictated by that office–they will do everything they are required to do and nothing they are required not to do.
Mr. Incredible says:
If the oath of office of a board member in Texas is similar, then the board members you criticize are required to do their jobs, with God, by faith, looking over their shoulders. This is how you know that they are serious about doing their jobs — cuz they are not trying to please the world as much as they are trying to please God by their honest efforts. In other words, they don’t have faith in the world. They’re doing their jobs. They’re not there to do the job those who didn’t vote for them are telling them to do.
True, they must do what is right and correct. They believe that they are doing this.
Again, if people don’t like what they’re doing, they can vote them outta office, just as we’re gonna do next November, then, in November, 2012.
In fact, the dude in the center of the Texas controversy has been voted out of office. However, I think his term has some time to go, and, until his term runs out, he is there to do what voters put in there to do.

Crap. This stupid interface destroyed my comment again. What is wrong with this site??
Mr. Incredible, I have to say I’m tired of your nonsense.
jefferson was a deist. This is amply documented and simple historical fact. (In fact, he was reviled in his time as an atheist.)
Jefferson was NOT a Christian in any normal sense of the word. He did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, did not believe in Heaven, did not believe in miracles, thought the teachings of St. Paul and Thomas Aquinas were “nonsense”, and thought that Christianity was a corrupting influence. He even went so far as to rewrite the bible because he thought Christianity was mistaken about Jesus.
It is simply dishonest to claim that Jefferson was a Christian without making the context above abundantly clear, since any normal modern reader will assume you mean he had beliefs completely at odds with his real beliefs. It is a sin of omission.
Barton and his wall-builders have no qualms about lying and misleading people in such ways, but I hope you are better than that.
I leave you with your conscience, and an admonition not to bear false witness.

Mr. Incredible says: “Those who are born again know Jesus was Divine. Resurrection proved it. If Jefferson did not believe that, then he was not a Christian. ”
JimCA says:
Jefferson did not believe that Jesus was Divine.
Mr. Incredible says:
Jefferson had to be confused and conflicted. Schized out.
Jesus said that He came from Above. From God. From Heaven. He referred to His “Father.”
Jefferson condensed and consolidated Jesus’ Words for what he thought is better understanding of His Principles. In other words, Jefferson accepted the Words of Jesus. All the Words.
This means that Jefferson had to contemplate and accept Jesus’ claim that He came from Above. From God. From Heaven. From the Father.
Therefore, Jefferson had to contemplate and accept the Divinity of Jesus.
So, what Jefferson said and what he must have believed are two different things.

Mr. Incredible says: “Things cannot have faith. You may have faith in them.”
I’m sorry, but that is just being dense.
The word being used is “faithfully”, not “faith”. They are different.
Things arguably cannot have faith, but they absolutely can be faithful. My cell phone tells me the time more faithfully than my wall clock.
In general, my computer faithfully executes the programs I give it.
When a President affirms they will faithfully execute their duties, they are affirming that they will strive to do what the law requires them to do. There are no deities involved–it is a promise to the rest of us. What part of that don’t you understand?
I’m sorry. I’m tired, but you seem to be deliberately obtuse or are suffering from severe cognitive dissonance, I can’t figure out which. It’s clear that I might as well be talking to a wall, though.

JimCA says:
Mr. Incredible, I have to say I’m tired of your nonsense.
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation: “You don’t agree with me, and, so, what you have to say is nonsense.”
JimCA says:
jefferson was a deist.
Mr. Incredible says:
He says he was Christian. I take him at his word.
JimCA says:
This is amply documented and simple historical fact.
Mr. Incredible says:
Historical interpretation.
JimCA says:
(In fact, he was reviled in his time as an atheist.)
Mr. incredible says:
He said at the time that everybody misunderstood him. Accused him of being something he is not.
JimCA says:
Jefferson was NOT a Christian in any normal sense of the word.
Mr. Incredible asks:
What’s “normal”? Today’s “normal”?
JimCA says:
He did not believe in the divinity of Jesus…
Mr. Incredible says:
If he believed in ALL the words of Jesus, he had to believe the words that Jesus used, that Jesus came from Heaven. If He came from Heaven, He was Divine. Jefferson was conflicted and confused about this.
JimCA says:
… did not believe in Heaven…
Mr. Incredible says:
And, yet, he believed in ALL the Words of Jesus, including Jesus’ description of Heaven, etc.
JimCA says:
…did not believe in miracles…
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that he would’ve had to believe that Jesus performed miracles, if he accepted ALL the Words of Jesus.
JimCA says:
…thought the teachings of St. Paul and Thomas Aquinas were “nonsense”…
Mr. Incredible says:
So what? He was so taken by the Words of Jesus that he compiled, condensed and consolidated the Words of Jesus for what he thought was better understanding of His Principles. These principles include the claims of Jesus that He came from a Father, from Heaven, from Above.
JimCA says:
… and thought that Christianity was a corrupting influence.
Mr. Incredible says:
No, he thought that churches corrupted Christianity.
JimCA says:
He even went so far as to rewrite the bible because he thought Christianity was mistaken about Jesus.
Mr. Incredible says:
No, he rewrote the Gospels in order to consolidate and condense the Words of Jesus thinking that this would lead to better understanding of His Principles. You would say that he took the Words of Jesus outta context.
JimCA says:
It is simply dishonest to claim that Jefferson was a Christian without making the context above abundantly clear, since any normal modern reader will assume you mean he had beliefs completely at odds with his real beliefs.
Mr. Incredible says:
If he accepted ALL of the Words of Jesus, he had to except the words that say that Jesus came from Above, from the Father, from Heaven. If Jefferson denies that Jesus came from Above, from the Father, from Heaven, Jefferson was confused.
JimCA says:
Barton and his wall-builders have no qualms about lying and misleading people in such ways, but I hope you are better than that.
Mr. Incredible says:
I am. I have been.
JimCA says:
I leave you with your conscience, and an admonition not to bear false witness.
Mr. Incredible says:
False witness about what?

Mr. Incredible says: “Things cannot have faith. You may have faith in them.”
JimCA says:
I’m sorry, but that is just being dense.
Mr. Incredible says:
Oh, well.
JimCA says:
The word being used is “faithfully”, not “faith”. They are different.
Mr. Incredible says:
They are related. The same root.
JimCA says:
Things arguably cannot have faith, but they absolutely can be faithful. My cell phone tells me the time more faithfully than my wall clock.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, the faith is in YOU. Not the clock.
JimCA says:
In general, my computer faithfully executes the programs I give it.
Mr. Incredible says:
You have faith in it, not it in you.
JimCA says:
When a President affirms they will faithfully execute their duties, they are affirming that they will strive to do what the law requires them to do.
Mr. Incredible says:
They are telling us that they are full of faith that they can do the job, with an overseeing influence looking over their shoulder.
JimCA says:
There are no deities involved–it is a promise to the rest of us. What part of that don’t you understand?
Mr. Incredible says:
I’ve explained that I understand it all.
JimCA says:
… you seem to be deliberately obtuse or are suffering from severe cognitive dissonance, I can’t figure out which.
Mr. Incredible says:
It’ll come to you, I’m sure.
JimCA says:
It’s clear that I might as well be talking to a wall, though.
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation: “Why can’t I get you to agree with me!?”
Well, I just don’t. Again, this is why we have polling places.

he had to except the words — – > he had to accept the words

JimCA says:
It’s clear that I might as well be talking to a wall, though.
Mr. Incredible says:
Gee, that must be goin’ around cuz I feel that way, too.

JimCA says:
When a President affirms they will faithfully execute their duties, they are affirming that they will strive to do what the law requires them to do.
Mr. Incredible says:
They are promising to do their job honestly. “Honesty” has to do with Morality. Morality comes from God.

JimCA says:
Mr. Incredible, I have to say I’m tired of your nonsense.
Mr. Incredible says:
I agree that what I write makes no sense to you. That doesn’t mean that what I write is not sensible.

[Ok, now I'm having a certain morbid fascination with this exchange. Not sure how long I can stay awake, though.]
Mr. Incredible: “In other words, Jefferson accepted the Words of Jesus. All the Words.”
NO HE DID NOT, unless you are wiling to agree that Jesus never said the words in John 14:6 :
“”I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Jefferson deliberately rejected those words. Do you?

The word faithfully, as in full of faith, in the oath, is trying to communicate honesty to those listening. In a way, it is saying that the person who says it says it before God.

Mr. Incredible: “In other words, Jefferson accepted the Words of Jesus. All the Words.”
JimCA says:
NO HE DID NOT, unless you are wiling to agree that Jesus never said the words in John 14:6 :

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jefferson deliberately rejected those words.
Mr. Incredible says:
Jefferson included ALL of the words of Jesus. His name is on his Bible. This means that Jefferson endorsed all of the words of Jesus.

Mark 14
Conspiracy against Christ

Mr. Incredible says:
That heading appears in the Jefferson Bible.
Everybody knows that Christ is Savior . Not only that, but it is capitalized. He shows reverence. Reverence for what? A philosopher??
Then…

Luke 23
34: Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

Who is this “Father” He is talking to there, if He is a mere philosopher?

Mr. Incredible: “Honesty” has to do with Morality. Morality comes from God.
That’s a pretty feeble argument. “Honesty” has to do with many things. Morality is not even the most important aspect.
The essence of honesty is measurement–a comparison of what is promised with what is delivered.
An honest scale is neither moral nor immoral. An honest broker is neither moral nor immoral. They just deliver exactly what is expected of them by the people using them.
.
The problem you seem to be having is that many common words such as “faithful”, “honest”, etc. do NOT necessarily imply any kind of superstition or morality. If we stick to their basic meanings we can communicate, but if you insist on changing their meanings to add unnecessary baggage then you translate them into gibberish from other perspectives.
By analogy, I could demand that “honesty” requires a complete disbelief in gods, and so any honest effort must imply the person doing it is an atheist. That would be as unreasonable as your assumption that honesty has anything to do with gods.
Regarding the Jefferson issue, sorry if I got a bit peevish, but I’m a logician by training and it drives me crazy when people hold forth with internally inconsistent beliefs.
I really, really need to sign off now, but I hope you will think about the stark differences between your beliefs and Jefferson’s regarding such things as the divinity of Jesus, and then think twice about using the same description for both sets of beliefs.

Okay, I get it now.
I skimmed through the Jefferson Bible, as presented by Beliefnet, and I found among an odd group of Christians who join with the spirit of others, even today, in trying to get Christ to say what THEY want Him to say.
Jefferson cut’n'pasted the Word of God, mangled Him, manipulated Him, beat Him down so He would say what Jefferson wanted Him to say. Even the Jews and the Romans facing Him couldn’t get Him to say what they wanted Him to say, though they tried, as many today do.
Preliminarily, until I investigate further, I would say that Jefferson probably wasn’t a Christian, firstly, cuz there is no record
of his being born again; and, secondly, cuz he was too blind to recognize the Divinity of Christ. Those are two requirements without which no one can discern anything about the Word of God.
He further proves this by tearing apart the Word of God, as I say, to try to make Him say what he wants Him to say, rather than leaving the Word of God to say what He says and going from there, letting the chips fall where they may. This is what the Church of England did, with the King of England as the high priest; it’s part of what drove the settlers to the new land.
HOWEVER, remember that Jefferson had nothing to do with the drafting of the Constitution. He was in Europe at the time it was drafted, and, in any case, 52 of the 55 signers of the Declaration of Independence WERE Christian.

JimCA says:

Regarding the Jefferson issue, sorry if I got a bit peevish, but I’m a logician by training and it drives me crazy when people hold forth with internally inconsistent beliefs.

Mr. Incredible says:

WHEW! I’m glad it doesn’t apply to me!

I found among an odd group of Christians — – > I found Jefferson among an odd group of Christians

JimCA says:

… as unreasonable as your assumption that honesty has anything to do with gods.

Mr. Incredible says:

I didn’t say honesty has anything to do with “gods.”

I believe in no god.

I believe in no god — – >I believe in no gods, rather God.

The second to last item there was a test. What I wanted to didn’t work. Enough of everything else I wanna do works, so it doesn’t matter.

“Life in Texas taught me two things. One is that God loves you and you’re going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love.”
- -Butch Hancock

“Lifew in Texas taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you’re going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love.”
–Butch Hancock

Who is Butch Hancock?

Now, in Texas, with this textbook thing…
If these textbooks are used in classes, you can bet that we will file no lawsuits to try to preclude speculative questions and other inquiry during those classes.

They’ll have to rename the class from “History” to “Revised History”. Now kids will learn “Incredible” facts about the Declaration of Independence, but not a word from the actual Constitution–which would present a clear and present danger to the rising Theocracy, …eventually, they’ll get around to rewriting the Constitution, put it a form which can be taught to proud Christians in Texas! Liberties secured by the new Christian Constitution will not be secured to The People, but to the Church elders. Sounds like Iran!

Re: Anti-Fundi Christian
theocracy-
A government ruled by or sublject to religious authority.
Well God is in government, if that is what you are trying to rebel against. Whether you want to be under a submission of a higher power is your choice, God rules no matter what you believe or don’t believe. And if your choice is not to believe, you have that right. Now for our government setting a religious belief as a head, there were Christian settlers and foundational indoctrinating principles in the government which we have today. These principles can be perceived as a religious act or a nonreligious act. Depending on how you view God in these principles. It gives you freedom of choice to believe what you want. So you can not control others in their beliefs by becoming godless by way of your actions. They can choose to believe for themselves or not to believe.
The concern I have is that our Posterity need to be protected from murdering policies regardless of what your belief system is.
C

I suppose our founders were all atheists? I would reconsider, that too many of our young people are unaware that our founding fathers formulated our countries beginings based on principles of Judeo_ Christian values. Its far from Shira law, nor does it suggest any National religion. So please dont lose your secular leaning heads on this..Its time we allow God to be mentioned again, without anyone fearing coversion!

Re: Prudie
What?
You seem a bit upset.
The Constitution does not state a religion.
You have the right to choose yours, that is the Constitution.
C

Re: Elliedee
Please don’t lose your secular leaning heads on this….? I don’t know what exactly you are trying to point out by that statement.
People mention God all the time and don’t have to choose any of your beliefs. They have the right to choose for themselves. That is free will, freedom of choice.
C

You say you hope the Board will do the right thing. Well, hope in one hand and eliminate into the other one and see which one fills up faster. This Board was packed with far right wingnuts and religious bigots, packed by Gov. Hair, so conservative (and delusional) he threatened to secede from the Union when the stimulus bill passed. (He also took the money.) There is a line in the new text about “nature, and nature’s God,” that sounds like intelligent design to me. They took Thomas Jefferson out because he championed science over faith. These folks will stop at nothing to impose their dominionist ideas upon a country that will no longer be a “democracy” but a “constitutional republic.” They’ll stop at nothing until the USA is a theocracy.

Your name: “Re: Prudie
What?
You seem a bit upset.
The Constitution does not state a religion.
You have the right to choose yours, that is the Constitution.”
What what?? ?!
I only get upset when idiots try to insert religion into government in violation of Constitutional principle.
I didn’t say the Constitution “states a religion”, whatever that means!
I have the right to my own religious beliefs, that is one thing the Constitution makes clear. I do not have the right to insinuate my beliefs into the actions of government, and neither does anyone else.

“They’ll stop at nothing until the USA is a theocracy.”
I believe you are correct Mr. Martin. Fortunately, they have very little chance of success. People enjoy their freedoms too much to give them away.

James M. Martin says:

This Board was packed with far right wingnuts and religious bigots, packed by Gov. Hair…

Mr. Incredible says:

They were voted in by any electorate it was informed about the candidates’ views beforehand.

James M. Martin says:

There is a line in the new text about “nature, and nature’s God,” that sounds like intelligent design to me.

Mr. Incredible says:

Oh, yeah, you saw that in the Declaration of Independence, too, huh.

James M. Martin says:

They took Thomas Jefferson out because he championed science over faith.

Mr. Incredible says:

Doesn’t sound like that in the Declaration of Independence.

James M. Martin says:

These folks will stop at nothing to impose their dominionist ideas upon a country that will no longer be a “democracy” but a “constitutional republic.”

Mr. Incredible says:

Sounds like the 2008 election.

James M. Martin says:

They’ll stop at nothing until the USA is a theocracy.

Mr. Incredible says:

Nothin’ like makin’ up an argument and arguing against that.

HG says:

I believe you are correct Mr. Martin.

Mr. Incredible says:

Nobody wants to nor is talking about, creating a theocracy. You people will go to any length to make an argument sounds silly, then argue against the made-up argument.

HG says:

Fortunately, they have very little chance of success.

Mr. Incredible says:

And, while you’re making up an argument to argue against, you may as well predict that you will win the argument. Convenient.

HG says:

People enjoy their freedoms too much to give them away.

Mr. Incredible says:

Then why did they vote to make Congress majority Democrat [only to lose it this coming November], and the presidency Democrat [only to lose that in November, 2012]?

Prudie says:
I only get upset when idiots try to insert religion into government in violation of Constitutional principle.
Mr. Incredible says:
B-b-b-b-b-but you don’t have a problem with a public school teaching Greek and Roman gods and goddesses. We see. We comprehend the hypocrisy.

CORRECTION
They were voted in by any electorate it was informed — – > They were voted in by an electorate that was informed

Prudie says:
I do not have the right to insinuate my beliefs into the actions of government…
Mr. Incredible says:
HUH?
Prudie says:
… and neither does anyone else.
Mr. Incredible says:
When I go into the voting booth, or the jury room, I take, in my mind and heart, whatever God puts there. Nobody else has to like it, just as I don’t have to like it, when they take whatever baggage THEY got twisted up in their minds and hearts just cuz they don’t know which one of their five daddies is their REAL father.

James M. Martin says:
You say you hope Board will do the right thing. Well, hope in one hand and eliminate into the other one and see which one fills up faster.
Mr. Incredible says:
You people said, in November, 2008, that you hope Obammy and his gang do the right thing. Well, hope in one hand and “eliminate” in the other…

I would think that there are enough educated and thinking people in Texas that this attack on U.S. History and Social Studies will fail. I don’t think most states would want to change U.S. History. What would happen when these students want to go to Colleges out of TX? I read recently that perhaps we need to have the important subjects be taught exactly the same in every state so no one is missing the education they need, if they are moved to other states by their families. It sounds like a good idea, after all public schools are pretty remiss in the southern states, and etc. Maybe the children will be able to educate their parents properly as they learn what they need to get ahead in their adult life.

Mr. Incredible says:
B-b-b-b-b-but you don’t have a problem with a public school teaching Greek and Roman gods and goddesses. We see. We comprehend the hypocrisy.
By all means, teach Catholicism, Mormonism, Protestantism, Islam, and Judaism alongside the Greek and Roman gods – all have equal merit (or lack, thereof,) and are born of our innate need to try and explain our existence. Teach the beliefs as beliefs, not as truths.

Let the students determine what speaks to them and what to believe. Anything else is imposing a particular faith.

Here’s the real way the dawn of our nation went: No public prayers of any kind were offered in the Constitutional Convention from the time it convened until it closed. The members of the Convention voiced their opposition to Franklin’s proposal so strongly that a vote wasn’t even taken on it. Franklin said afterward: “The Convention, except three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary.” Another matter they voted on was whether or not to include mention of “God” in the Constitution, and they voted that suggestion down too.” Kinda shoots down the claims that Christians wrote our Constitution doesn’t it?

First Congress opened with prayer:

http://chaplain.house.gov/archive/continental.html

The fact is that God IS referenced in the Constitution by His Covenant Name.
The Founders were Christians who wrote the Constitution:

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Corrin Green says:
Let the students determine what speaks to them and what to believe. Anything else is imposing a particular faith.
Mr. Incredible asks:
What does it mean, under the circumstance YOU present, to impose a faith?

Boris says:
Here’s the real way the dawn of our nation went…
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation: “Here’s the way the dawn of our nation went, with a good dose of my spin for good measure.”

Boris wrote: “Kinda shoots down the claims that Christians wrote our Constitution doesn’t it?”
Shooting down false claims seems to be good sport around here, a little like shooting fish in a barrel using ‘silver bullets’ and an M1A2 Abrams. Fun stuff!

HG says:
Shooting down false claims seems to be good sport around here…
Mr. Incredible says:
I’m pretty good at it, as you know.

You couldn’t hit the ground with your hat in three tries.

HG says:
You couldn’t hit the ground with your hat in three tries.
Mr. Incredible says:
Whatever you have to do to get through the pain.

“The fact is that God IS referenced in the Constitution by His Covenant Name.”
Really? Where is this, Mr. Incredible? I didn’t realize the authors of the document were on a nickname basis with the Creator.

Just read the constitution again, have read it over 20 times, and there is NO reference to a “god” in it. Other than “Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven” in the signatory section, there is no reference to g*d in it at all.

First off god was never mentioned in the Constitution period, unless you count the dating mechanism that they used to sign it. But that was the common place way for dating things so that doesn’t really count.
Secondly Mr. Incredible I notice that when speaking about Jefferson you make mention of the Declaration of Independence a lot. My only issue with this(other than my general problem with your claiming Jefferson wasn’t a deist) is that the Declaration has no importance in the way our government is run. Nobody makes a reference to the Declaration in regards to politics in this modern era, no they all make mention of the Constitution which, as stated prior, is god free.
*side note* If you want I can dig up quotes just as good as the next guy in support of my claims *end side note*
Now, Mr. Incredible, looking past the God argument for a moment I want to at least see if we can agree on something. So I’m curious on your viewpoint on revising History books to down play the importance of minorities in the civil rights movement and women in the women’s rights movement.
According to the revisionists in Texas both these parties were not the true heroes of both movements but instead it was the majority; The whites who were oppressing the minorities in the first place, and the white males who wanted their “Leave it to Beaver” housewives to stay in the kitchen and the house. Do you think it is correct to make such a claim, and more over teach this to our children?

Heh…It’s rather cute how Mr. Incredible thinks he’s ‘debunking claims’.
Mr. “Incredible” (it is amazing how loosely that term is used these days), let’s be clear. Even by high school debate standards, you’re not making the grade. Nitpicking every statement with a question rather than tangible, peer-reviewed contrary facts is just that: nitpicking. As of this point, you’ve accused others of spin, yet engage the same tactics yourself — After all, why answer a question yourself when you can emphasize the fact that their side doesn’t answer it either? Why draw out importance on their biased view when your own biased view is (self-judged to be) less so?
Let’s get the facts straight. One, this country was not founded with Christian ideals in mind. If you want a place founded solely on religion, go to Vatican City – we who respect and admire this country’s Constitution will not miss you. This country was founded with the intent of removing a foreign (though, at the time, sovereign) ruler who was using our founders and their fellow colonizers as a profit machine, at the expense of their financial and physical well-being. And the separation of government from religion was intentionally put into the Constitution, regardless of the Constitution’s framers’ religion, due to the fact that they had just fought a long war for independence from a tyrant that sought to control every aspect of their lives. This is reflected wholly throughout the Bill of Rights, as any history or legal professor/student who paid attention in class will tell you.
Two, the Constitution doesn’t guarantee a separation of church and state, you’re correct on that regards. It has, however, gained that power due to judicial interpretation from -scads- of Supreme Court cases. In addition, it -always- has ensured that, to partially quote, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This means exactly what it says: Congress cannot establish a required religion of the people, nor can it stop people from practicing a religion they choose to. You may not like that it says that (or may not even know, since your theocratic mindset doesn’t allow you to recognize it), but it says it. It’s been reaffirmed by Supreme Court rulings, which carry the same weight as federal law until contradicted by Congress’s laws and the President’s pen.
Finally, this is a joke. You know it, and I know it whole-heartedly. The Constitution says that you can protest the state of things at the moment, and try to get your viewpoints made law, such as making our democracy into a theocracy. This hasn’t worked very well for your side, has it? So, rather than keep fighting a very, very uphill battle, you’re taking it to the next generation, through revisionist history, creationism, and so forth. If you can’t change the minds of the guys and gals in Washington, why not groom the guys and gals who will be in Washington, yeah? It’s clever, I’ll give you that much. But it really can’t stand up to close scrutiny. (But, then, that’s why they’re all professing “liberal colleges ruining our youth”, isn’t it? Gotta get them doubting before they even get in the door. But, alas, that’s a post for another day, my friend.)
I swear, if the Constitution came with illustrations, we wouldn’t even have half the trouble we do today…

Re: Prudie
There is no insert of religion in our government as mandated by the government in believing in God. Yes, there are Christian’s with Christian beliefs as well as other people of different religious backgrounds.
So, just because somebody is stating their preference in government, does not so indicate that they are in violation of The First Amendment. Quite the contrary, they have religious liberty and freedom of speech.
The hypocrasy is when others of let say the godless faith or whatever they are imposing to take God out of government, impose this view as their faith on others, is indeed in violation of letting people believe what they want to believe and practice their faith the way they want. So by your very reference of trying to take God out of government in speaches, pledges, or whatever document, would be indeed a violation of their first amendment, which is religious freedom.
So, if you have no God or whatever your view is your God or no God, does not so indicate any paticular religion when they mention God, only if they are joining it with whatever religion do you get the idea that they are for one. They do have the religious freedom to exercise their freedom of speech towards their religion when indoctrinating it in whatever they so choose, they have free religious exspression, speech, and exercise thereof. So, if your agenda is to not have a paticular view or religion in office you have the right to voice or vote against that person or view. You don’t have however the authority to tell them to leave their God out of their views, their voice, their paperwork. For that may be an infringement on their religion or beliefs. It is religious freedom. So, if you want the godless kind of whatever, that is your choice. Your God could be whatever. So…………
C

RE: Tex-atheist
And your point is what?
Is that supposed to be good that there is not reference other than the one you referenced?
So if your an atheist how do you suppose your body became so complex in design to be able to question others in their belief systems?

“So if your an atheist how do you suppose your body became so complex in design to be able to question others in their belief systems?”
Clearly it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can’t prove otherwise, so I win.

“Jefferson cut’n'pasted the Word of God, mangled Him, manipulated Him, beat Him down so He would say what Jefferson wanted Him to say.”
In that respect he was no different than the original manglers of those writings.

Madigari
If you actually read some of his posts you’ll see that Incredible does debunk many of his own claims but none made by other people. He contradicts himself constantly. His idea of responding to facts that refute his claims is that they are not important to his “spiritual journey.” Long-standing, well-established scientific explanations that refute his claims about the Bible are blown off as “speculation.” He hurls insults and calls people names and then thinks he’s still going to heaven. His excuse: “Jesus called people names.” Yeah he called all Gentiles pigs and dogs and somehow the gentiles think he came to save them!

@ Your Name/Cara?:
You’re absolutely correct in suggesting that people have a right to petition the government for changes in laws and other assorted miscellany as related to the workings of the government. However, removing “God” from, say, the Pledge of Allegiance is covered wholly within the Constitution and is, in fact, constitutional.
You’re making one key mistake as it pertains to atheism, which is that it isn’t a religion. Some people make the mistake of treating it as a religion and practicing it as one, but it is not. Atheism isn’t the disbelief in a Christian God, it’s a disbelief in a higher power/God as a whole. Therefore, to make them acknowledge a God in a government mandated place (I.E., reciting the pledge before class every day under fear of detention, expulsion, peer harrassment/being singled out, etc.) is a violation of their First Amendment rights. If an organization/school is going to take taxpayer money, they do not have the right to force an exposure to the word God as part of their curriculum or procedure. (This is how most private schools are able to avoid such debates, as they are privately funded and receive no government support.)
But, on a personal note as a semi-atheist-mainly-agnostic and legal research aside, yeah. I think it’s blown out of proportion. I’ve never known an atheist to get upset at hearing or saying the word “God,” or generally suffer any damages, emotional or otherwise, for exposure to the word. But, again, that’s my personal opinion, brought on by the hope that some people can just learn to control themselves better and behave in a respectful fashion towards one another.
And yes, for the record, that hope is swiftly dwindling these days.
@Boris:
I attempted to read all of them, I really did. And you’re right to call me out on not doing so. However, I was of limited time, and felt I had seen enough of his machinations through what of his posts I was able to read. They were, after all, fairly similar in structure and tactical approach. If it got worse/better, then I apologize for not making sure my comment appropriately reflected the voracity of his statements.

Re: madigrali
No mistake, I was not petitioning the government for anything only in pointing out that removing God out of anything from previous document form would be in fact a violation of The First Amendment in regards to government affairs. So….
That is my point.
As far as atheism is concerned, you guessed it, I believe that they have not looked clearly at their design enough to know that they are created with not a chance of some wierd set of circumstances of accumulation of cells to create such a design.
If, you are talking about atheism, well from my understanding that is denial of the existance of God or gods. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
So…………….
I know the difference. So, you don’t have to teach me on the subject. No mistake, thank you very much in that decision.
I am tired of people who discriminate against God wanting their godless views in government of pushing that agenda, which I feel is exstremly selfish in nature. So….
C

Re: Madigrali
atheism- disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
So your point is what….
Atheist are wrong and are lieing to themselves. So, to put that view in government as headship would be in fact leading people down a ludicrous , insane view of selfishness. So…… Pushing for godless anything is in fact a doctrine.
C

Boris, do you feel more important in putting others down? Your agenda of mirror nothingness is in fact what it is, nothing. You have not debunked anything about the Bible or proven anything in written form against the Bible. So there is no point in you writing all this garbage. As far as Mr. Incredible in concerned, well he just put you in your place. You were appearing extremely arrogant and self-centered, not to mention completely insane in trying to make it sound as if science created you or something. Basically, I find you to be a liar.

HG, You are what you are. Cruel, insensitive, atheistic in approach. Which is in fact a liar. Your marry-go-round of hell is in fact what you are on….

“HG, You are what you are. Cruel, insensitive, atheistic in approach. Which is in fact a liar. Your marry-go-round of hell is in fact what you are on….”
Oh dear, somebody doesn’t like having all their errors and lies revealed. I wonder who it could be…
Judging from the “marry-go-round of hell” comment (but, I’m single, heh-heh), poor grammar, low mentation…yes, I have a pretty good idea that Cara is having a bad day.

Madigari,
I’m not calling you out for not reading Incredible’s posts. I assumed you had read enough already. Who has time for all that nonsense besides him? I was just pointing something out about them to see if you had noticed it too. Here’s something else: you only have to read a small sample of what he posts before you realize he gets all his propaganda from the same sources all creationists get their propaganda from. When you argue with one creationist you’re arguing with them all. They’re like the Borg on Star Trek in that respect.

Cara,
My agenda of “mirror nothingness?” Coming from someone else I might think that was a sort of ironic play on words, as if there’s nothing there when I look in the mirror. Coming from you however, I’m inclined to think you meant “mere nothingness” correct? I’m not sure which is funnier, this new kind of insult I’ve never heard before, the fact that someone as hapless as you stumbled upon it accidentally or that you can’t spell the word mere.
I have given many examples of why the Bible is inaccurate and you not only can’t refute them, you have ignored them. Before you go on making your absurd claims about the Bible you must first show why the Bible getting the order of creation backwards is not a problem, why evolution and the Big Bang are not problems, why Solomon having two mothers is not a problem, why Rachel being buried in two places is not a problem and so on. So there is no point in you writing all of your garbage about the Bible until you can refute what I’ve said about it. The day will never come when Mr. Incredible or any other Bible believer will put me in my place.
As far as sounding insane, your posts speak for themselves. They’re as incoherent as anything scribbled on a pad in a psycho ward. No one thinks science created life. Nature created life, designed from the bottom up for 4 billion years now and science can tell us a lot about how this was and is being done. This is how we got so complex, complex enough to question religion, 4 billion years of evolution by natural selection. Some of us anyway.

Boris, I have to admit I look forward to your posts; it’s comforting to know that sanity has not been overrun throughout the land. I was wondering what your reply would be in this case, and also admit I wouldn’t have been able to decipher the Cara code and come up with “mere”, …congratulations, I guess. Don’t get me wrong on my other post (re: The Fourteenth, and if The Court had gotten it WRONG(we’d be screwed)).

You and the ACLJ are nothing more than Corporate shills. There is nothing Christian about you. You worship mammon and nothing else.

Re: HG
RE:hg, no in fact I am not embarrassed in telling who I am! Who are you?
Atheist, liar, without a clue in the world of what the truth is. No, in fact I am not having a bad day or grammar errors, thank you very much.
Your spirit is in fact what it is, not of
God. So….
I don’t do deals with the devil or the likes of you.
Good-bye!
p.s. I won’t be seeing you in eternity.
C

Re: Boris
No I meant mirror, thank you very much. I don’t have to be like you, or write like you to be correct. Quite the contrary. I have an old back and neck injury which effects me in the way of a headaches and back pain. So sometimes, heaven forbid, I actually leave a word out or make a spelling error, right Boris. Of course, you don’t believe in heaven or hell, so it is pointless to try and convince a none unbeliever in thinking biblically like me or even trying to convince you that the Bible is true. For you are going to believe what you want and how you want. I won’t be seeing you in eternity, so good-bye.
C
C

I don’t believe that the ACLJ is trying to swindle people out of money. I do not believe that the ACLJ is believing in a false God.

Dingus O’Cara: “p.s. I won’t be seeing you in eternity.”
Hey, congratulations, you finally said something accurate! (Probably accidental.)
(Boris, looks like you didn’t crack the ‘Cara code’ after all! Which makes deciphering what she was trying to say impossible. Better off that way!)

Cara,
Okay, if you meant mirror, define “mirror nothingness” for me. What does that mean exactly? Are you saying that you don’t have to spell words a certain way? I do not believe what I want how I want. I cannot believe something that is evidently false to me and I am forced to believe what I perceive to be true. I can’t decide what I want to believe and what I don’t. You won’t be seeing anyone in eternity. The dead don’t know they’re dead. You will have no mind after you die. But hey, you haven’t missed not having one while you’re alive.
HG,
Perhaps we just need some carafication, if you will. If I can get her to focus and remember what she was talking about we may be able to figure it out yet. If not, her answer is till bound to be hilarious.

dingus-An article whose name is unknown or forgotten.
Looks like I haven’t been forgotten, hence the blog.
C

look in the mirror and you will see it.
C

Carabellum: Latin: literally, “Little Brain”.
Yer crackin’ me up Boris!

A reflection of an empty soul without the Spirit of God.
A mirror of nothingness.
C

That would be: cerebellum-The trilobed strucute of the brain, posterior to the pons and medulla oblongata and inferior to the occipital lobes of the cerebral hemispheres and responsible for the regulation and coordination of complex voluntary muscuar movement and for posture and balance.
C

There is no such word as Carabellum: Latin: “Little Brain”.
C

Phonetically, nearly identical. Literal Latin translation: “Little brain”. (Like a glove!)

Psalm 37: 27
Depart from evil, and do good; And dwell forevermore.
c

Weenie, Weedy, Weaky!

Good-bye HG! Dead as a door nail…..

So, you’re finally gonna do it? Elevate Mr. Incredible to #1?

Who is Mr. Incredible?

I came to realize Mr. Incredible is only an illusion of sorts.
Nobody is perfect. I would like to think there is a Mr. Incredible out there for me ………………………..

incredible- so implausible as to elicit disbelief.
implausible- difficult to believe; not plausible.
plausible- seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible.
So, I am trying to believe there are alot of incredible people out there. It is hard to believe when I have seen such selfish, arrogant people with vedictive behavior and mean spirits. People who will stab you in the back right in front of your face acting as if they are somehow better and then turn around and smile like they didn’t even do a thing, hypocrisy. Whatever………….You’ll reap what you sow and known as Karma.

Cara: “I came to realize Mr. Incredible is only an illusion of sorts.”
Not surprising, so many things are.
Cara: “Nobody is perfect.”
Only in the eyes of a beholder.
Cara: “It is hard to believe when I have seen such selfish, arrogant people with vedictive behavior and mean spirits.”
When it comes to our lives and our individual liberties, yes, I think a little selfishness may be in order from time to time, since either may be removed from us if met with unresisted assault.
I find it arrogant and mean spirited on the part of zealots who tell all people of different belief that they are going to hell, and are no good. You think this is ingratiating behavior?
Cara: “You’ll reap what you sow and known as Karma.”
Karma could be a powerful force, connected to gravity somehow, for all I know (though that would indicate universal sentience to me, which I highly doubt is the case). If so, I’ve had my ups and downs, my bonuses and my kicks in the rear end. No complaints, no worries.

Yes, there are some people who preach when you are not saved or believe in Jesus as your savior that you are going to hell. So you believe everybody goes to one big happy place at the end and nobody has any accountability from God, eh?
Do you believe you just turn into dust and that is that?
It is not a mere coincidence that the people existed in the Bible.

I don’t believe that magnets have anything to do with Karma.
You can emotionally starve people and you can turn self-centered individuals into egocentric maniacs. Giving is a good thing.

Cara: “Yes, there are some people who preach when you are not saved or believe in Jesus as your savior that you are going to hell.”
Believing there is no such place as “hell” is perfectly understandable and true of many people. Your belief that others are to be hell-bound for lack of faith may seem true to you, but you shouldn’t be surprised that is seems quaint or offensive to those whose fate you pretend to know because they don’t share your beliefs. When you try to supplant the Constitution with the Bible, well, “We all want to change your head.”
Cara: “Do you believe you just turn into dust and that is that?”
Yes, that is the leading hypothesis. We are what we are, I find no evidence that a “soul” exists or that a continuation of “life” manifests in any way. Laugh it up kid, the existentialists pegged it, we just need to moderate our dread or narcissism and make our time here “worthwhile”.

Even though history is supposed to be “just the facts and only the facts”, it is inescapable that historians will always have their own bias and that such will be showcased when writing texts. Every point of view has another angle. The criticism depends on which way the top is spinning.

N. Lindzee,
You are correct, for once. The past no longer exists for us and history belongs to those who wrote and write it. The only way we can really decipher the past is through the science of archaeology and other scientific pursuits. History writers are indeed notoriously biased. The ironic thing about this is that it seems like only historians are aware of these facts.

Re: HG
Why not change the “all of us” to an I, when stating “When you try and supplant the Constitution with Bible”.
————————————–
I write down scripture and The Constitution.
I am not writing the Bible as if it were the Constitution.
I am simply stating in regards to The First Amendment, the rights of every citizen in The United States of America to express their belief through writing. So, your opposing my constitutional rights. That would not be indicative of being in line with the Constitution.
————————————–
So if your belief is that you turn into dust and that is it and you have no soul and you were not created by God, well that is your choice. That is not my belief.
Genesis 7:6
Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters were on the earth.
7
So Noah, with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives, went into the ark because of the waters
of the flood.
————————
Amendment 1
Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression Ratified
12/15/1791
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There’s some more for you HG,
C
p.s. 1 Corinthians 6: 9
Do you not know that th unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
10
nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
11
And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Revelation 20: 7
Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison
8
and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the the sea.
C

Cara: “Why not change the “all of us” to an I, when stating “When you try and supplant the Constitution with Bible”.
Because that isn’t the way the song goes, it was a quote. “We” (Not, “all of us”) “all want to change your head.” Revolution, Lennon/McCartney.
Cara: “I write down scripture and The Constitution.”
I don’t read the scripture, and never object to the Constitution as long as you are accurate.
Cara: “I am not writing the Bible as if it were the Constitution.”
Worse, you act as if your own interpretation of the Bible should somehow overrule the Constitution. You call abortion “murder” when it isn’t, you try to insist this is a “Christian nation” when it isn’t, you tried to say embryo’s are protected by the Constitution when they aren’t. Express yourself freely, but don’t be surprised to find others doing the same in shredding such arguments as you have
given.
Cara: “So if your belief is that you turn into dust and that is it and you have no soul and you were not created by God, well that is your choice. That is not my belief.”
That’s okay with me.

CB So if your belief is that you turn into dust and that is it and you have no soul and you were not created by God, well that is your choice.
Boris says: It isn’t a choice. A person cannot make them self believe what is evidently false to them. People don’t choose to disbelieve God. They CANNOT believe.
CB That is not my belief.
Boris says: Yes but your belief is based on a book that talks about a 600 year old man:
CB Genesis 7:6
Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters were on the earth.
Boris says: And a flood for which there is not one shred of evidence in the geological record:
CB 7 Noah, with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives, went into the ark because of the waters of the flood.
Boris says: And the cow jumped over the moon…

Your not a Christian, so I will depart from your evil theology.
I also want to add that I wrote down fragments of The Constitution.
You of course don’t want anything to do with God and you see yourself as some sort of god as self creature. So, leave me alone because I have a right to, write down scripture. You somehow are wrapped up in proving that you are more intelligent then I by consistanly putting me down, when I see you as a wandering lost soul without a concern in the world for any of what Jesus cared about. So we are on different pages and different paths.
I am accurate when writing down the First Ammendment of the Constitution as possible, a possible spelling mistake here or there, minus a comma. So, your trying to write these blogs to prove what? For the beginning of wisdom is to fear the Lord. So, at this point, I don’t see your blogs as any enlightenment, seeing how you don’t believe in the Lord….So, all your secular education and whatever you think you have means nothing to me other than a bunch of blah, blah, blah, because I am dealing with an anti-christ spirit… That is biblical. I am not saying that there are is secular training of things to help people in developing skills for jobs, reading, writing or arithmetic. You get my point.
soul- The animating and vital principle in human beings, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity. The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.
So, at this point you pointed out that you don’t believe in souls. So…..
Another thing, John Lennon would not be putting me down…He stood for loving people. So…..
C

Ephesians 5: 23
For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
24
Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25
Husbands, love your wives, just as SChrist also loved the church and gave Himself for her,
26
that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word.
27
that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.
28
So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.
29
For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.
30
For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.
31
” For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
32
This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33
Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
Ephesians 6
1
Children obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.
2
“Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise:
3
“that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.”
4
And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.
C

HG, you lie…..
Try not taking things out of context, and misquoting me on everything, as if that is what I wrote and said….
I write down scripture alot, parts of historical documents, and the fact that we have religious freedom to write and say what we want in regards to religion. Free exercise therein…
So, you mocking me is an infringement on my religious freedom of the press, and my expression , in regards to the First Amendment right.
I am saying that abortion is murder whether you like it or not. It is… Nobody has to prove when they suck, chop up people in the womb or outside of the womb that it is not ending another persons’ life….
So, go beat your own drum all by yourself…
intellect-The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding. The ability to think abstractly or profoundly.
intellectual-Of or relating to the intellect.
God gave you the ability to learn and reason, so I think you need God to reason and learn… That is my point…
C
p.s. The laws are not in-line with the Constitution, that is what I am saying in reference to abortion.
I am under God’s headship, not yours….for you are the anti-christs’ spirit in motion….
Damned to hell for all eternity, unless you turn from your wicked ways and repent of your wicked behavior…..

Cara: “John Lennon would not be putting me down…He stood for loving people.”
“You say you’ll change the constitution, Well you know, We all want to change your head.”
John Lennon believed in Power to the People, the very People Power you want taken away from the people!
“No Hell below us, above us only sky…” John was cognizant of what you refuse to even Imagine.

Cara: “http://Cara
HG, you lie…..”
Again, where’s the beef? No beef!
Cara: “…So, you mocking me is an infringement on my religious freedom of the press,…”
Ah-HAH-hah-hahahhahahahahha. Now you’re getting your comedic touch back! You have a right to free expression, but I don’t? Puh-leeze!
Carabellum: “I am saying that abortion is murder whether you like it or not. It is…”
Wrong again honeybunch. Lying again is more like it. You want to overthrow the constitution and make it murder? The chances are lower than your IQ!
Carabellum: “So, go beat your own drum all by yourself…”
There is a growing symphony of people who agree with me.
Cara: “God gave you the ability to learn and reason, so I think you need God to reason and learn… That is my point…”
I think you are wrong again.
Carabellum: “p.s. The laws are not in-line with the Constitution, that is what I am saying in reference to abortion.”
I KNOW you are wrong again.
Carabellum: “I am under God’s headship, not yours….for you are the anti-christs’ spirit in motion….”
There is no such thing as God or anti-christ, you seem heavily medicated to me.
Carabellum: “Damned to hell for all eternity, unless you turn from your wicked ways and repent of your wicked behavior…..”
Doomed to a life of low mentation and over-emotional reaction unless you turn from your uneducated ways and observe the dynamic continuum of Mankind’s existence.

Regarding Cara’s post of March 21, 2010 5:26 PM:
When Paul starts the second paragraph: In the same way he lets us know he is comparing the readers who are Christians to something but what? Obviously Paul is talking about replacing the old covenant (the law) with the new covenant (Christ) and making a comparison between a widow and her dead husband and her new husband. So the widow must be Christians or the Church, the law is the dead husband, and Christ the new husband that the widow is free to marry, except that’s not what he said. He said you have died so the Church must be the dead husband (the widow isn’t dead) who is now free to marry Christ and that makes the law the widow. But that can’t be right either because he didn’t say the dead husband should get married to the new husband. So if the widow is not the Church and not the law then it must be Christ. So the law-husband died which made the widow-Christ free to marry the Church except Paul said we are discharged from the law, not Christ.
Maybe we are just looking at this the wrong way. We know Christ died so he must be the dead husband that the Church is free to marry because it has died also which makes the law the new husband—that no one wants to marry. That can’t be right either. Paul said you have died to the law and so the Church has died to the law in Christ but it isn’t the widow or the dead husband so it must be the new husband free to marry the dead husband Christ, and the widow is the law. That’s not right either.
The fact is nobody can make sense out of Paul’s supposed comparison. He became confused and forgot who it was that died, the husband or the wife, or what it was that corresponded to the wife and the husband or the law. The only thing that should have died is the law for this to make sense but that is the only thing that doesn’t die.

No I am not talking about taking constitutional rights away..
I have not studied John Lennon, so I am no expert….
I am for standing up for people who can not defend themselves against the anti-christ spirit in you….I am for protecting the children who are developing in the womb, from people like you….
This is not comedy, this is having to do with murder and it is no joke at all… So save the laughs for the real punch lines which are funny.
—————-
We preach the risen christ, not the dead christ on the cross. Thank you very much…and why do you suppose the very people who denied him when he was crusified went around after, and preached they witnessed him being alive? Do you suppose they saw something, as the bible so indicates, for at that time, sticking up for christ was basically a murder sentence you were bringing on yourself? So it is interesting how they gave their life for their testimony, obviously they saw something….Who would want to be burned in oil or hung on a cross or killed by lyons as the ealier Christians were?
No body was in the tomb after the burial of Jesus.. Christians were brutilly murdered afterward for saying what they witnessed.
C
_______________________________________________

lion- a large carnivorous feline mammal of
Africa and northwest India having a short tawny coat and a long heavy mane in the male.

Cara: “This is not comedy,…”
This is comedy!
Cara: “So, you mocking me is an infringement on my religious freedom of the press,…”
And, really quite funny.
Cara: “…this is having to do with murder…”
No, that is prevarication (again). It is having to do with abortion, which, according to the Supreme Court, is not murder. Let’s see, whose words should I trust, Supreme Court’s or Cara’s? Ooh, that’s a tough one!

“http://Cara
No I am not talking about taking constitutional rights away..”
According to the SCOTUS, there is a constitutionally protected right to have an abortion as delineated in the Roe decision. Are you sure that you aren’t talking about taking this constitutionally protected right away? It sure seems to me like that’s what you’re talking about!

So what
They are letting them murder their children by law!
Which is wrong and should be corrected…
Do you want to murder some more people HG, by way of Embryonic Stem-Cell and abortion right activist writer that you are?
Clearly against the Constitution….
So……
C

“http://Cara
No I am not talking about taking constitutional rights away..”
HG replied: “It sure seems to me like that’s what you’re talking about!”
Carabellum’s briliant response is: “So what”
So, YOU ARE talking about taking constitutionally protected rights away. Just want to make that clear before you go back to saying that you AREN’T.
Carabellum: “Do you want to murder some more people HG, by way of Embryonic Stem-Cell and abortion right activist writer that you are?”
Do you want to murder some more abortionists, by way of theocratic, anti-constitutional, domestic terrorist advocate that you are?
(By the way, unlike abortion, that actually IS murder.)

HG says:
Yer crackin’ me up Boris!
Mr. Incredible asks:
So, how long you guys been “crackin’” each other as a “gay” couple?

HG
Do you want to murder some more abortionists…
Mr. Incredible says:
When and where did Cara murder an abortionist?

HG
According to the SCOTUS, there is a constitutionally protected right to have an abortion as delineated in the Roe decision.
Except that, in Roe, itself, SCOTUS says that abortion MAY be regulated if the State has legitimate interest in doing so. Fo’ reals!
What do you s’pose that “legitimate State interest” would be?
It would be Due Process.
Who, in the Constitution, gets Due Process?
Persons.
So, if one is a person, he gets Due Process.
Justice Blackmun says, in Roe, itself,

“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.”

So, Justice Blackmun gives us a gift. He tells us what the Court needs that it didn’t have when Roe went before SCOTUS. He says that, “personhood” changes everything.

CORRECTION
HG
According to the SCOTUS, there is a constitutionally protected right to have an abortion as delineated in the Roe decision.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that, in Roe, itself, SCOTUS says that abortion MAY be regulated if the State has legitimate interest in doing so. Fo’ reals!
What do you s’pose that “legitimate State interest” would be?
It would be Due Process.
Who, in the Constitution, gets Due Process?
Persons.
So, if one is a person, he gets Due Process.
Justice Blackmun says, in Roe, itself,
“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.”
So, Justice Blackmun gives us a gift. He tells us what the Court needs that it didn’t have when Roe went before SCOTUS. He says that, “personhood” changes everything.

Incredible,
Your person hood argument had been thoroughly refuted. Go peddle your lies somewhere else. We’re all sick of them and know how easily they can be refuted.

Incred: “Justice Blackmun says, in Roe, itself,
“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.”"
That’s right, he CONSIDERED the position that the fetus’ right to life WOULD be guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment IF the Amendment applied to the fetus. The finding of law, the conclusion, the decision was exactly the opposite.
The law is, and will be from here forward:
“…the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.”
There IS no Fourteenth Amendment protection for embryo’s or fetuses. This is law now. Precedent. Set in stone. You want it to be overturned (contrary to what you say).
Furthermore, the Court decision declared:
“(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”
Abortion during the first trimester is a protected liberty. The State has no possible say until after that time period, when it may regulate abortion procedure only in ways reasonably related to maternal health (which is also paramount in any restrictive measures taken by the State during the stage subsequent to viability).
Boris is quite right, your argument is toast, thoroughly refuted.

Boris says:
Incredible,
Your person hood [sic] argument had been thoroughly refuted.
Mr. Incredible says:
You’d like to think so.
Boris says:
Go peddle your lies somewhere else.
Mr. Incredible says:
Mark 1:24
Luke 4:34
Say, aren’t you the child Aunt Jemima and the Cream of Wheat man never talk about?
Boris says:
We’re all sick of them…
Mr. Incredible says:
So what?
Boris says:
…and know how easily they can be refuted.
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation: “We’re persuaded in our foggy world…”

Mr. Incredible says:
Justice Blackmun says, in Roe, itself,

“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.”

HG says:
That’s right…
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s about time you agree with me. You must’ve opened a window and got some fresh air. Now, hammer shut those open paint and paint thinner cans.
HG says:
…he CONSIDERED the position that the fetus’ right to life WOULD be guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment IF the Amendment applied to the fetus.
Mr. Incredible says:
His statement is a gift to pro-life. It advises pro-life what to do in order for the Court to rule the other way.
HG says:
The law is, and will be from here forward:

“…the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.”

Mr. Incredible says:
That’s cuz The Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t define “person.” It defines what it means to be a citizen.
However, Justice Blackmun says, in Roe, itself, that, if somebody brings legal “personhood” to the Court, the Court will have no other option but to give constitutional protection to the unborn person.
HG says:
There IS no Fourteenth Amendment protection for embryo’s or fetuses.
Mr. Incredible says:
Irrelevant. The unborn person is not a citizen. Only unborn person is a citizen. This is why Justice Blackmun said what he said.
HG says:
You want it to be overturned (contrary to what you say).
Mr. Incredible says:
I do not, contrary to what YOU say.
HG says:
Furthermore, the Court decision declared:

“(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”

Abortion during the first trimester is a protected liberty. The State has no possible say until after that time period, when it may regulate abortion procedure only in ways reasonably related to maternal health (which is also paramount in any restrictive measures taken by the State during the stage subsequent to viability).
Mr. Incredible says:
Roe and all subsequent decisions on the subject say that abortion may be regulated. It all depends on “personhood” of the unborn. Justice Blackmun says, in Roe, itself, that, if legal “personhood” is brought before Court, the Court will have-ta rule the other way.
HG says:
Boris is quite right…
Mr. Incredible says:
UN Boris are brew confused.
HG says:
…your argument is toast…
Mr. Incredible says:
That perception is part of your brew confusion.
HG says:
…thoroughly refuted.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s the way you’ve chosen to persuade yourself that you should choose to want to choose to see it.

CORRECTION
UN Boris are brew confused. — – > You and Boris are brew confused.

Mr. Incredible says:
His statement is a gift to pro-life. It advises pro-life what to do in order for the Court to rule the other way.
Boris says: Then why haven’t they done it? Christians actually believe that words have some kind of magical power or they wouldn’t waste their time is such a trivial pursuit as prayer. Mr. Incredibly Stupid thinks that if words could just be presented in a different way then all of a sudden the Court would change its opinion. I mean, how freaking naive can a person get? If that’s what this idiot is hoping for, and it is, then he’s got no hope at all of forcing his will on the women of this country. The thing to remember is that it isn’t life these bigots want to defend. They just don’t want people to have sex for pleasure because they can’t.

Exactly right, no hope. The funny thing is he acts as if he has been sitting on some gem of legal understanding as regards the Roe decision for twenty years, when it is only a figment of his poor reading comprehension. I’ve explained it so that any person with a responsive brain stem could understand it, and am 100% certain they can do virtually nothing (without overturning Roe) to affect abortion law. It is a protected Blessing of Liberty, and fetus’ are not covered (and never will be under this rulilng) by the Fourteenth Amendment.
I’ve seen you crush uncredible (et al) in debate like this many times. It takes a little of the fun out of it when they’re too dumb to even notice their argument has been burned down, but it is funny to watch them present the ashes of their argument as if it’s good as new! It’s pitiful, just pitiful. Their little learning centers are fried.

Abortion is a death law.
People on this sight are defending murderers and the murders of innocent children around the world.
Reality……
C

Stop defending the abortions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

“Your Name
March 24, 2010 4:04 PM
Stop defending the abortions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Stop trying to take away the Constitutionally secured Blessings of Liberty which rightfully belong to The People. We’ve already covered the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t apply to eggs or fetuses, so you should also stop calling it murder. Doing so makes you appear stubbornly resistant to facts.

HG, It isn’t 20 years it’s almost 40 years since the Roe decision. It’s 150 years since Wallace and Darwin discovered natural selection. It’s been over 400 years since Copernicus discovered the earth orbits the sun rather than the sun orbiting the earth the way the Bible says it does. It’s been 1800 years since John 1 was written in a desperate attempt to deflect the claims that Jesus Christ never really existed. Yet dimwits like Mr. Incredibly Dishonest think that somehow they can still refute the long-standing and well-established findings of the Court, and of science. First you would have to find out what those findings are before you can refute them. The thing that is so hilarious about Mr. Incredibly Retarded is that he doesn’t even know the standard arguments his side uses. He just throws anything that his cult leaders have said out there, hoping that we feel taunted by him. If this jerk ever realized how hard other people are laughing at him and how other people really view him, he’d sink even further into his already manic depressive state. He knows very well his arguments are no good. He repeats these arguments because he’s got nothing else to say and nothing else to do. His life is as empty as his arguments. If you don’t think our words devastate him, think again. Every word he reads from us is like a punch in the gut, which is why he disappears for weeks and months at a time. There’s another reason too, but I’d have to share that with you privately. You can contact me at bullwinklefred56@yahoo.com for some inside info on this loser.

Your Name says:
Stop defending the abortions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
HG says:
Stop trying to take away the Constitutionally secured Blessings of Liberty…
Mr. incredible says:
SCOTUS does not say that abortion is a secure Blessing of Liberty. So does, in Roe, itself, says that abortion may be regulated, if the State has a legitimate interest in doing so. That legitimate interest would be Due Process. Only persons get Due Process. That’s why the Court says that, if legal “personhood” is brought before the Court, the Court will hav-ta rule the other way.
HG says:
We’ve already covered the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t apply to eggs or fetuses…
Mr. Incredible says:
Justice Blackmun, in Roe, itself, says that, if legal “personhood” is brought before the Court, The Fourteenth Amendment applies.
HG says:
…so you should also stop calling it murder.
Mr. Incredible says:
VALUE JUDGMENT ALERT! VALUE JUDGMENT ALERT! VALUE JUDGMENT ALERT!

CORRECTION
So does, in Roe — – > SCOTUS, in Roe

Boris says:
It’s 150 years since Wallace and Darwin discovered natural selection.
Mr. Incredible says:
To Darwin also discover this —

Darwin, The Descent of Man, p 584:

“It generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man: but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilisation.”

and

“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman–whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. …We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on ‘Hereditary Genius,’ that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.”

Ahhhh, yes, friends, men are superior to women, according to Darwin who also says, in the same breath, Man descended from ape. You get the picture.
Thus, if Darwin is wrong on this, we may so very seriously doubt his other conclusions on natural selection.
Boris says:
It’s been over 400 years since Copernicus discovered the earth orbits the sun rather than the sun orbiting the earth the way the Bible says it does.
Mr. Incredible says:
Irrelevant. The Word of God is not a Science text.
Boris says:
It’s been 1800 years since John 1 was written in a desperate attempt to deflect the claims that Jesus Christ never really existed.
Mr. incredible says:
And, yet, John was actually in His Presence. He actually saw Him. Heard Him.
Boris says:
Yet dimwits like Mr. Incredibly Dishonest…
Mr. Incredible says:
The energy crisis has reached your head. So, it is not unexpected that your mental power grid shorted out well before even a fraction of an intellectual watt could reach it. It could not meet the demand of even one thought. Not even one, simple idea can squeak by without overloading the circuits. Your negatives and my positives caused, in that giant intellect of yours, what we may call “a mental anomaly” that knocked out your cognitive ability.
Boris says:
…think that somehow they can still refute the long-standing and well-established findings of the Court, and of science.
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation: “In order to make what I say sounds more important, I prefer to call ‘findings’ ‘speculation.’”
Boris says:
The thing that is so hilarious about Mr. Incredibly Retarded is that he doesn’t even know the standard arguments his side uses.
Mr. Incredible says:
What’s the matter, Prozac ain’t working for you anymore?
Boris says:
He just throws anything that his cult leaders have said out there…
Mr. Incredible says:
You must think that in order to justify, in your two heads, all the garbage you spit out here.
Boris says:
… hoping that we feel taunted by him.
Mr. Incredible says:
Please continue to pretend that you haven’t fallen for it.
Boris says:
If this jerk…
Mr. Incredible says:
Intellectually, you’ve retired. Your message is a picture of your mind lounging around and sleeping all the time and collecting intellectual welfare payments from my investments posted here.
Boris says:
… ever realized how hard other people are laughing at him…
Mr. Incredible says:
And, if you ever realized how much it doesn’t matter to me…
Boris says:
…and how other people really view him…
Mr. Incredible says:
… and how much that doesn’t matter to me…
Boris says:
… he’d sink even further into his already manic depressive state.
Mr. Incredible says:
Please apply to the nearest facility where your thought processes can be repaired.
Boris says:
He knows very well his arguments are no good.
Mr. Incredible says:
You know very well that your arguments are no good.
Boris says:
He repeats these arguments because he’s got nothing else to say and nothing else to do.
Mr. Incredible says:
You repeat the same arguments cuz you got nothing else to say and nothing else to do but stalk me.
Boris says:
His life is as empty as his arguments.
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation: “I don’t have any substantive answers for Mr. Incredible’s arguments. So, I may as well say that his arguments are empty so as to make it look as though I got something to say.”
Boris says:
If you don’t think our words devastate him, think again.
Mr. Incredible says:
You know that you people don’t impact me in the least.
Boris says:
Every word he reads from us is like a punch in the gut…
Mr. Incredible says:
A punch-line of laughter.
Boris says:
… which is why he disappears for weeks and months at a time.
Mr. incredible says:
I disappear for some time, at times, cuz I got things to do. Unlike you people who are ALWAYS here.
Boris says:
There’s another reason too, but I’d have to share that with you privately. You can contact me at bullwinklefred56@yahoo.com…
Mr. Incredible says:
“Bullwinkle.” You picked an appropriate name for you. I couldn’t have picked a better one.
Boris says:
… for some inside info on this loser.
Mr. Incredible says:
Ooooooooo, Bad-a$$ Boris thinks I’m a loser! Ooooooo! There goes another night’s sleep.

Boris says:
There’s another reason too, but I’d have to share that with you privately. You can contact me at bullwinklefred56@yahoo.com…
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course, this is a trick to get me to e-mail that goofball, so that he will have my e-mail address and stalk me there, too. It ain’t gonna happen. He’ll just have-ta do all his stalkin’ here, for all to see.

You cant rewrite our history. It is what defines America. Children should be educated on all the different foundations that America may or may not have been founded on. None of the historians were there when America was founded, all we have is our history to move off of and if there is not one opinion that all parties can agree on then there needs to be an agreement on the most probable cause for what our country was founded on.

Funny how, when those people talk about Darwin as some kinda god, they miss this little tidbit:

Darwin, The Descent of Man, p 584:
“It generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man: but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilisation.”

and

“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman–whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. …We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on ‘Hereditary Genius,’ that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.”

Funny how, when those people talk about the Bible having been written by some kinda God, they miss these little tidbits:
Genesis 3:16 Says that all women must suffer great pains during child birth due to Eve eating the fruit of knowledge. (As if it is somehow just that humans should pay for their ancestor’s sins nor is a woman dying in labor some how befitting of a crime she did not commit.) The verse finishes of by saying a husband shall “rule” over his woman, stripping us off all power in between the sexes.
Genesis 19:8 Tells of a man named Lot who offers his daughters to a crowd of would be angel rapers. Later, Lot impregnates his own daughters after God kills his wife for simply looking back at the remains of her city.
Exodus 21:3-4 Says that if a male slave is given a wife by his master (regardless of how long they are wed, how much they love each other or if they have kids) he can not leave servanthood with his wife or children. The woman and children are merely property of the master and their personal happiness or sanctity of family doesn’t matter.
Exodus 21:7 God not only sanctions selling ones daughter into slavery, but he also gives out laws on how it should be done.
Exodus 21:10 God ordains men taking several wives and even sets up laws as to how multiple wives should be handled.
Leviticus 12:1-8 Explains that a woman has to be purified after giving birth because she is “unclean”. It goes on to say that birthing a male is cleaner then birthing a female, hence a mother must purify TWICE as long when having a daughter. This is BLATANT sexism from the point of birth. A woman is dirty simply for being a woman; this is obviously very biased and chauvinistic.
Leviticus 15:19-30 Explains that a woman having her menstruation must be avoided to the point of not even touching what she has touched. It is quite curious that women are punished for simply having a biological function that “God” claims to have created. What is so just about vilifying what you created?
Leviticus 18:19 Goes onto say that even LOOKING at a menstruating woman is wrong.
Leviticus 19:20 Says that if a man has sex with a slave or betrothed woman he must then “scourge” her. Scourging is a term for a severe flogging or whipping. I find it quite curious that the woman shall be punished to the point of a beating for such an occurrence, yet the man gets to go free for the deed.
Leviticus 21:9 Explains that unchaste daughters of priests must be burnt to death. What about his unchaste sons? Of course this isn’t even answered in the Torah, we are to assume yet again that men have the power to do as they wish and a woman must suffer the punishment for BOTH of them.
Leviticus 27:3-7 God places a dollar value on human life; with women worth less than men.
Numbers 1:2 Is the basis for the sexism that remains rampant today. In this verse Moses takes a poll of all the men who are able to fight in war, women aren’t even counted in the census. Apparently back then, just like today, us women are considered the weaker species and unable to battle. (Let’s not forget that during the time the Pentateuch was written women in Pagan cultures were FEARED and revered as the more powerful species. It is because of this patriarchal religion and it’s offshoots that we have been reduced to cowering sub-humans.)
Numbers 30:3-16 A woman can’t make a vow unless her husband allows it.
Numbers 31: 14-18 Moses tells his men to kill all the males, non-virginal women, elderly and children of the Midianite tribe. Of course, the virgin women are kept for raping. If you read later down in the scripture God states that the Jews can not even marry a Midianite woman (with exception to Moses). Hence these women who were captured were repeatedly raped and impregnated and they weren’t even allowed a marital status in which to protect them.
Deuteronomy 20:13-15 Kill all the men and boys in the cities that God “delivers into your hands,” but keep the women for raping.
Deuteronomy 21:11-14 If you see a pretty woman among the captives then just take her home and “go in unto her.”
Deuteronomy 22:5 Women that wear men’s clothing are an “abomination unto the Lord.”
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 is one of the most cruel and sexist passages of the Torah. It says that women who are raped and fail to “cry out loud” in a populated area are most likely enjoying the attack should be killed.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 A rapist must buy his victim from her father for 50 shekels. Is this supposed to be some type of retribution? What about the victim here, what if she doesn’t want to marry a pig who raped her? All that matters is her father receives payment for his “property”.
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 Says that we must cut off a woman’s hand if she touches the “secrets” of a man who is fighting with her husband…“And thine eye shall not pity her.” Once again, there is no punishment for the man she touched, only the woman.
“You [women] are the gateway of the devil…Because of what you deserve, that is, death, even the Son of God had to die…Women, you ought to go about clad in mourning and rays, your eyes filled with tears of remorse, to make us forget you have been mankind’s destruction” – Tertullian (1555-230, Roman Christian priest/theologian)

ok boris, game on…..
if your going to quote the Bible write the whole verse, wrather then a bunch of commentary and no verse. it misleads the people…
Genesis 3: 16
To the woman He said:
” I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”
( this is conditional from the fallen world caused by sin)
Genesis 19: 8
” See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them a s youwih; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.”
(this was referring to Lot..)
———————————————————————
do i need to go on…
you take things out of context and don’t write the whole verse down…
in order to understand scripture…you need to know what they are referencing and who they are referring to, as being the perception stated….
—————————————————————-
cc

you may do to them as you wish……cc
——————————————
this was Lot…..
—————–
ear ache, need to lay down…

Sorry, Boris, those things you post are Jewish laws and customs God held the disobedient to obey cuz they thought they could get closer to God merely by keeping the Law. He was trying to show them that they could not obey ALL the Law.
So, once again, look outside your trailer window and try to look past all the police cruisers and FBI agents keepin’ an eye on you — the loser taxi is right there waiting for you.

blog.beliefnet.com is great! Borrowers can avail payday loans without any hassle These plans are free from any hard condition which can stop them from availing the cash support

A quite nice niche blog, and a good quality design there sparks Simplicity yet complex algorithm of the net. Thank You. pvygqfhqqijndimwgjzlrhwyivnwywkwsps
Mr. Payday Easy Loans Inc.

Usually I do not write on blogs, but I would like to say that this article really convinced me to do so! Congratulations, very nice post.

This web site is a complete world wide web resource for this. You’ll find all you wanted or needed to know, here. nbwriymvlia

This article gives the light in which we can observe the reality. This is very nice one and gives in-depth information. Thanks for this nice article.

I’m happy to have found your very good article! I agree with some of your readers and will eagerly look forward to your coming updates. Just saying thanks will not just be adequate, for the wonderful lucidity in your writing. I will instantly grab your rss feed to stay privy of any updates. Good work and much success in your business efforts.

The post is really the best on this laudable topic. I concur with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to your future updates. Just saying thanks will not just be enough, for the exceptional lucidity in your writing. I will at once grab your rss feed to stay privy of any updates. De delightful work and much success in your business dealings!

Great read, I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on that. And he actually bought me lunch because I found it for him smile So let me rephrase that: Thanks for lunch!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Take care.

Easily, the submit is really the greatest on this laudable topic. I concur with your conclusions and will thirstily look forward to your future updates. Saying thanks will not just be sufficient, for the wonderful lucidity in your writing. I will instantly grab your rss feed to stay privy of any updates. Solid work and much success in your business enterprise!

High-quality submit. Thank for sharing.

Hi webmaster, commencers and everybody else !!! The blog was absolutely amazing! Lots of tremendous information and inspiration, both of which we all need! Keep them coming… You all do such a fantastic job at such Concepts… can’t tell you how much I, for one appreciate all you do!

This is such a impressive resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I love seeing websites that understand the value of providing a quality resource for free. It is the old what goes around comes around routine. Did you acquired lots of links and I see lots of trackbacks??

I’m happy to have found your really superior article! I agree with some of your readers and will eagerly look forward to your coming updates. Just saying thanks will not just be adequate, for the terrific lucidity in your writing. I will instantly grab your rss feed to stay privy of any updates. Good work and much success in your business efforts.

Nice read and good opinion/information! I
believe that other readers will certainly enjoy
this and find it to be quiet helpful. Thank
you for taking the time to share this with us!