OT: Huckabee, Ughh

Page 12 of 13  


Tim, I know that comes as an amazing surprise to you, but to be called ignorant by an overweening asshole like you is a compliment.
Enjoy the rest of your life with the beliefs you now hold.
May they bring you all the joy you deserve.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

Like I figure ... another entirely content-free subthread from Pompous Charlie.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Holy shit! Anointment from the Ham of Pomp.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote: <SNIP>

Translation: I have absolutely no counterargument or meaningful addition to this discussion, so I will revert to swearing and personal invective in some vain hope no one will notice. I am insecure and unwilling to admit when I am wrong.

Translation: I don't like being attacked for my person. Feel free to argue with my ideas. I was wrong, though. I should never have descended to this level of response, and for that I apologize.

Translation: PLEASE, please, please, take the lights off me.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have no reason to counter your arguments, nor does anyone else. Your Jesuitical mouth has again over-run your peanut brain, so it is pointless to respond. I had forgotten you and your continuing asininities were the reason for filtering you before; unfortunately, my present set up doesn't allow filtering, so I'll have to apply that hardest to use of all filters, will power.
Ta, twit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

Thank you for demonstrating *my* premises... Enjoy *your* religion...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

Uh, Charlie, would you care to define "deist" for us. I think it does not mean what you think it means.

Seems that every time some politican has tried to cram intelligent design down the taxpayers' throats he's gotten fired for his trouble.

Personally I don't care if somebody thinks that he's talked to by God as long as God is telling him good stuff. Unfortunately Bush doesn't seem to be getting advice of the same quality as that vouchsafed to Jehanne du Lis.

--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
Three does not a majority make. Further, deists _are_ "believers".
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

True enough, but it does NOT imply Christians, as hard as that is for many Christians to understand.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

Huh? I've never heard a Christian assert that Deists were Christians. The incorrect assertion that I see is that the Founders were Deists. Three of over two hundred Founders were Deists.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
rOn Sat, 5 Jan 2008 19:13:29 -0500, "J. Clarke"
Believers, sure. Christians? No. The majority of the founding fathers had little good to say about Christianity and most of them had pretty much nothing good to say about organized religion in general.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brian Henderson wrote:

You need to go read some U.S. history. This paragraph above is mostly wrong. It is true that Deists are not necessarily Christian. It is false that the "majority" of the FFs had "little good to say about Christianity". Most of them were steeped in it at some level. And most of them were silent on the question of organized religion, at least as near as I can tell. A good many were, in fact, quite devout in their personal faith as their many letters and other writing attest.
You are, of course, free to disagree with them, but rewriting history to sanitize it of religious references because it makes your rationalist hackles go up is at least bad manners, and verges on outright fraud.
P.S. It is just as fraudulent for the religious right to claim the FFs as their own and turn them all into orthodox Conservative Baptists. I'd suggest we just let the FFs be what they were - brilliant, all over the place, sometimes inconsistent, occasionally wrong, etc. Jamming them into today's political and cultural filters is foolish and betrays the truth of this nation's history.
P.P.S. Your "most had little good to say..." probably comes from isolated readings of Paine and Franklin. You might want to consider reading two books that will give you a far more balanced and thoughtful view of those times: "Patriots" by Languth and "John Adams" by McCullough.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:18:29 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

It has been said that George Washington (an aristocrat at heart) was not "the father of his country." Rather, the fathers(s) were a troika. Jefferson, Franklin, and Paine. Without them, the country would have been very different.
The "lesser lights" among the founding fathers may well have been devout Protestant Christians, with the occasional Jew or Catholic thrown in. But all of them together lacked the candlepower of the three deists who made up the troika.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:19:39 -0600, Tim Daneliuk

Go ahead then, pick out your arguments. Let's see your quotes, but make sure you're providing the WHOLE quote, not taking things out of context like so many God-Squaders do.
In other words, put up or shut up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When Washington invoked spiritual belief in his speeches he used the term 'Providence' rather than even any Deist term. That's about as PC as one could get in those days.
Jefferson wrote whatever he thought would influence his audience du jour. It was not unusual for him to privately contradict, by word or action, his public pronouncements. Contrast, for example, his scathing attack on the English Monarch's support of the slave trade with his own ownership of upward to 1000 slaves. That's like a crack house operator damning the Columbian cocaine cartels.
Patrick Henry, OTOH, was not hesitant to invoke religion and Christianity in his speeches.
It is also instructive to read the last paragraph of the Articles of Confederation.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

Several states already _had_ state sponsored religions. There was no aversion to this. The concern was that the Federal government would override those state religions and impose a different one.
And the authors of the 14th Amendment would likely have worded it very differently if they had realized how it was going to be interpreted.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

I've forgotten specifics of the timeline -- by the time of the Constitutional Convention there weren't any who still a requirement for membership/avowed following for rights though, were there (as opposed to the earlier colonies that were definitely controlling in all aspects)?
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

Massachusetts was the last state to disestablish, in 1833. Prior to that time the Congregational Church was taxpayer supported in MA--I don't know offhand what other laws were in force.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

...
That's a little later than I had thought, but not particularly surprising. Yet still not in violation of "Congress shall..." as it was state, not federal, of course.
Reading Grant, then Sherman I've been forcibly reminded of the strength of state loyalties as opposed to national that we now no longer consider. One state as opposed to another is little more than who one roots for at the football rivalry as opposed to fervent independent pride until after the Civil War and really didn't begin to fade until during the two WW's wherein federal troops were no longer raised and organized by state militias.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

That was the whole point of the Establishment Clause, that Congress could not interfere with the state churches. MA wasn't the only one. Connecticut disestablished in 1829 if I recall correctly, and I don't know the dates on other states that had state religions. In no case was disestablishment forced by the Federal government.

Actually Federal troops were supposed to be independent of state militias. The theory if I understand it correctly was that the state miltias, together, could stand up to the Army at need, but that doing so successfully would require that the states be in agreement that such an action was necessary. One of the checks and balances that has been lost with the National Guard being required to swear fealty to the Union from the git-go.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.