I just got banned on Witchcraft.net

Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
I just got banned on Witchcraft.net

Hello,

I just got banned on witchcraft.net. I don't understand. You guys are the only guys who keep me around. I am not a troll, but I was actually interested in things from a Witches perspective.

You guys are the only ones who love me. I appreciate that. I almost have a tear, no no, yeah.

Anyway, they banned me before, then I posted under Moriah. What's going on.

You guys know I'm not a troll. You're my buds, especially Brian over there. He no longer takes PCP before he talks to me. I've influenced him.

Anyway, the occult world can't take me. That's why that Clarin witch girl never talks to me (LOL).

I've also been banned from the legionforsatan.com via Michael W. Ford. Ford doesn't want to talk to me. Either does occult forum.org.

Maybe that Clarin girl can add to this. I'm sure she'll just ignore me or be sarcastic. WOW. Even wimpy Chrisitans ban me. One liberal guy didn't ban me. 

So what's this about. Please don't be sarcastic (like that request is going to happen).  

You've got to admit, I represent Christianity as consistent as they come. I'm in an era where it's so liberal, people hypervenerate when the truth is exposed.

What do you think.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Not sure why they banned you

Not sure why they banned you - you practice magic also.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 We understand that you

 We understand that you can't help being mentally challenged Jean, and we're not as judgemental as theists.  I also think you're pretty funny, sometimes intentionally and sometimes inadvertently.  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Qualinesta
atheist
Qualinesta's picture
Posts: 40
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
I think you provide a

I think you provide a valuable service. Kudos.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 I'm glad you feel the love

 I'm glad you feel the love Jean.  Thanks for the appreciation for not banning you.  While many people here find you annoying I think you provide us with a valuable service.  Thanks for spending your time here.

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2020.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: I'm glad you

Sapient wrote:

 I'm glad you feel the love Jean.  Thanks for the appreciation for not banning you.  While many people here find you annoying I think you provide us with a valuable service.  Thanks for spending your time here.

 

"Annoying" is the understatement of the year.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


The Batlord
atheist
The Batlord's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2011-03-22
User is offlineOffline
After having hung out with a

After having hung out with a sociopath myself for a little while, I think he's actually being sincere in being happy at not being banned. Even sociopaths get lonely sometimes.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Jen, beau coup!

 

             

 

                             Do you now understand the difference between theists and Atheists?  

 

                                               Or maybe hell froze over when you weren't looking.

 

     

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
I still think you should try

I still think you should try your shtick on a theist forum as well.

Just to see what happens.

I devil dog dare you.

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16170
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hello,I

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

I just got banned on witchcraft.net. I don't understand. You guys are the only guys who keep me around. I am not a troll, but I was actually interested in things from a Witches perspective.

You guys are the only ones who love me. I appreciate that. I almost have a tear, no no, yeah.

Anyway, they banned me before, then I posted under Moriah. What's going on.

You guys know I'm not a troll. You're my buds, especially Brian over there. He no longer takes PCP before he talks to me. I've influenced him.

Anyway, the occult world can't take me. That's why that Clarin witch girl never talks to me (LOL).

I've also been banned from the legionforsatan.com via Michael W. Ford. Ford doesn't want to talk to me. Either does occult forum.org.

Maybe that Clarin girl can add to this. I'm sure she'll just ignore me or be sarcastic. WOW. Even wimpy Chrisitans ban me. One liberal guy didn't ban me. 

So what's this about. Please don't be sarcastic (like that request is going to happen).  

You've got to admit, I represent Christianity as consistent as they come. I'm in an era where it's so liberal, people hypervenerate when the truth is exposed.

What do you think.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Because you were acting like the same prick you act like here. Other websites are run by other people. This website has very limited rules when it comes to getting banned. Being a prick alone isn't enough. I will say that you are lucky I don't own this site.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Because you

Brian37 wrote:

Because you were acting like the same prick you act like here. Other websites are run by other people. This website has very limited rules when it comes to getting banned. Being a prick alone isn't enough. I will say that you are lucky I don't own this site.

 

In all honesty, if being a prick was reason enough to ban someone this would be a very lonely forum.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


mrOriginal
atheist
mrOriginal's picture
Posts: 80
Joined: 2011-02-26
User is offlineOffline
As much grief as you catch

As much grief as you catch from time to time, it's a great thing to have your here.  Few, very few, can stand up to the challenge the way you do.  Granted, I have not been very nice to you here on the site, but I always read your posts, and they make me think.  I came here to be challenged as well.

I would certainly hope that they do not ban you from this site. 

Plus, you have a sick sense of humor.  I can relate to that sometimes.

 

Keep posting.

 

mr. O

"Whoever feels predestined to see and not to believe will find all believers too noisy and pushy: he guards against them."

Friedrich Nietzsche


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5505
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Yeah, it is nice to have a

 

Yeah, it is nice to have a forum where you can say almost anything without fear of being banned. GO FREE SPEECH! Even for Jean.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16170
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Yeah,

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Yeah, it is nice to have a forum where you can say almost anything without fear of being banned. GO FREE SPEECH! Even for Jean.

Only from a government constitutional standpoint. If I get kicked off of a private Christian website, I know the rules, or should read the rules before signing up.

Jean should NOT be arrested for being a dick and if some politically correct asshole decided to sue him or create a law saying he couldn't pick on me, Japan, or my father, I'd be the first to defend his right to free speech.

HAVING SAID THAT, this IS a private website. Brian Sapient won't change the rules for me, or anyone. His attitude is pretty open and "hands off" when it comes to blasphemy and language. THAT part I do agree with, but again, this is a private website.

Private property is different than government institutions.

Jean spent time in another thread accusing us of wanting a fascist state and being commies. And I am damned sure if Jefferson ran for office today Jean wouldn't vote for him. None of the atheists here like Fred Phelps but most of us here WOULD defend his right to spew his garbage. But if someone owns a website that Phelps or his bigots join, and they don't want him there, when it is a private website, just like your own house, you don't have to allow them to post.

Which is why I say Jean is lucky I don't run this site. Brian Sapient has much more patience with assholes like Jean than I do, . And I have heard tons of vile things said about atheists and other minorities. This is the first I have run into such persistence prick to his degree.

I think someone else said it best about leaving him here in that it is a record and a display and that part I agree with too.

Am I happy Jean is here, no. Am I happy that everyone who owns a website can run it the way they want, yes.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Brian37

Ktulu wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Because you were acting like the same prick you act like here. Other websites are run by other people. This website has very limited rules when it comes to getting banned. Being a prick alone isn't enough. I will say that you are lucky I don't own this site.

 

In all honesty, if being a prick was reason enough to ban someone this would be a very lonely forum.

Haha, totally.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

So what's this about. Please don't be sarcastic (like that request is going to happen).  

You've got to admit, I represent Christianity as consistent as they come. I'm in an era where it's so liberal, people hypervenerate when the truth is exposed.

What do you think.

 

"A fool uttereth all his anger: but a wise man keepeth it back and stilleth it." Proverbs 29:11

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16170
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You've got to admit, I

Quote:
You've got to admit, I represent Christianity as consistent as they come.

Yes you do, which is why people like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine and any sane person rejected your biblical literalism.

If our country were run by people like you we would look like Iran.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello,

The reason why I got banned well I was banned once before, I because I applied logic to witchcraft. Which is absurd since witchcraft is all about volition and feelings.

I also posted about SRA trauma abuse resulting in programmed MPD/DID slaves via the personality assessment system. This use to be secret, but they have a website now:

http://www.pasf.org/

In Harvard around 20 years ago, parents were going to a class to learn how to get their children to behave via programming.

I've met some high level occultist/satanists with MPD/DID programming (there's a name for it).

But, who knows.

Thanks for all the love. Brian, I wasn't picking on your dad. I was saying that your dad's death at such a young age is what caused you to emotionally react to being an atheist. Why would God take your dad away. I get it.

I'm assuming he was a Christian? (maybe roman catholic?) anyway, I doubt that he would be proud of your language and your attitude and "perspective" on the world.

I have gone on many theist sites. Perhaps they don't like my humor.

Why do Mormons stop having children at 35?

Because 36 is to many. Smiling

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

witchcraft is all about volition and feelings.

See : Free Will

 

According to you "Free will is not the absence of choice".

 

You are free to go fuck yourself, yet you choose not to.

Why are you not free, Jean Jean?

Why are the chains that bind you so?

Why are you so weak, when so many around you are so strong?

Why are you so angry to see so many indulge in their liberty?

Why are you so weak, miserable and inferior?

Why can't you let go of your fears?

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Brian

Hi Brian,

Thomas Paine and Jefferson I admit were pagan. To my knowledge, Jefferson was a Deist. Reason was God via the laws of nature. Paine was into a type of common sense (there were/are 4 common types) that Glenn Beck adopted. I tried to tell Beck that Paine's common sense led to an atheistic approach towards God (not like your atheism). So then, why would Beck write a book on common sense resulting with God, if Paine's common sense lead away from God. This is obviously a logical contradiction.

I know Beck got my message because he devoted his show the next day on the defense of his book common sense. And I was the only one critiqing it on academical grounds.

So what. They were "INFLUENCED" by the gospel nevertheless. And in 1892, the Supreme Court declared this country as a Christian country. Jefferson, Paine, and Franklin were messed up though infliuenced by Christianity.

Even Dan Barker via FFRF is influenced by Christianity since he admits freely that he rips off Christian ethics since he doesn't have ethics (LOL.

Nevertheless, the Gospel made an impact on this country.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean, it is probably because

Jean, it is probably because you do 'represent Christianity' so consistently that you got kicked off.

You show what working out the implications of fundamental Christianity, of basing one's world view on Scripture, lead to, and it isn't pretty, or coherent with reality.

Even 'Christians' can see that your views are f**ked-up, as long as they haven't drunk the Kool Aid to the extent that their moral and rational faculties have been totally perverted, as yours seem to have been.

You are the Reductio Ad Absurdum disproof of Christianity.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16170
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Thomas Paine and

Quote:
Thomas Paine and Jefferson I admit were pagan.

So are they your "house niggers"? They are "ok" as long as they don't speak ill of your personal pet god?

Considering that Jefferson mentioned the ability of a person to come to the conclusion that there was no god was within the rights of the individual, I doubt very seriously he would side with the likes of a tribal dickhead like you.

They were for the rights of the individual and any personal beliefs they had never got in the way of that.

They would only defend your right to spew your garbage, they would never agree with you.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16170
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:And in 1892, the

Quote:
And in 1892, the Supreme Court declared this country as a Christian country.

AND LONG BEFORE the right wing stacked deck of THAT Supreme Court{assuming your word in face lack of  citation), THE FOUNDERS WROTE THE LAW, DURING THE TIME OF THE FOUNDERS, RIGHT AFTER THE INK WAS DRY ON THE CONSTITUTION, WROTE THE TREATY OF TRIPOLY,

Article 11 "As the government of the United States Of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" SIGNED BY PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER JOHN ADAMS, JUNE 10TH 1797

The law you allegedly quote was written over 100 years AFTER our congress RIGHT AFTER the war wrote a LAW stating that America's government was not Jesus owned.

OTHERWISE WHY "NO RELIGIOUS TEST" in the oath of office in OUR Constitution?

Our Supreme Court also upheld slavery rights and women not being able to vote rights, until later courts over turned them.

You advocate a revisionist history where the founders only wanted Christians ruling our country.

IF that is what they wanted they should have stated that clearly that only Christians BY NAME OF THE WORD CHRISTIAN can hold office.

They did not do that. They went out of their way in the First Amendment and the oath of office to avoid the very bullshit tribal crap that plagues the middle east today. The very shit that caused an entire congress BACK THEN to tell Muslims that America was not a government owned by Jesus.

Freedom of religion to you is the same thing that freedom of religion to Muslims in the east is. "Freedom to be the alpha male with no competition"

The founders were against all forms of monopolies. Something you are too fucking dense to accept.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:I just

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I just got banned on witchcraft.net. I don't understand.

You obviously struggle understanding both the absolute, and random nature of the world you live in...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Abandoned_Mind
atheist
Abandoned_Mind's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2006-02-15
User is offlineOffline
I totally support free

I totally support free speech rights!

 

Even for silly fools.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Brian

Hi Brian,

The understanding of the individual is unique to Christianity and it made its way into the constitution. Thus you demonstrated my point, thank you. Jefferson was INFLUENCED by Christianity.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:I have

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I have gone on many theist sites.

Have you now ? Liars go to hell, you know.

Link, please ?

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Ktulu

mellestad wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Because you were acting like the same prick you act like here. Other websites are run by other people. This website has very limited rules when it comes to getting banned. Being a prick alone isn't enough. I will say that you are lucky I don't own this site.

 

In all honesty, if being a prick was reason enough to ban someone this would be a very lonely forum.

Haha, totally.

Actually, in all honesty, no, it wouldn't.

(seriously, give yourselves some credit)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16170
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Brian,

The understanding of the individual is unique to Christianity and it made its way into the constitution. Thus you demonstrated my point, thank you. Jefferson was INFLUENCED by Christianity.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Show min IN the United States Constitution the words "Jesus" and or "Christianity", as a mandate to be a citizen or a mandate to hold office?

NOT THERE, you lose.

Did you read a damned thing I posted about his quotes. He, unlike you, knew how to separate his personal views FROM  the government we live under. He valued questioning. He said it was ok to question even the existence of god. He demanded a "wall" between church and state.

He, unlike you, would see me, not as someone to take a back seat to him, but an equal citizen.

I do not owe your god or any god an oath to be a citizen. "No religious test".

I don't need your fucking god and Jefferson would bitch slap your pathetic ass for your theocratic projection.

Go look up the Virgina Religious Freedom Act Jefferson wrote. It became the prototype for the First Amendment.

Freedom of religion is not an entitlement to a monopoly of power dip shit. A Christian monopoly of power is called a THEOCRACY, which is a religious form of fascism DIP SHIT!

No religion has a monopoly on our Constitution or the laws we live under. PERIOD. You do not own me and I am not the property of any god.

If you want to see your self as a thing rather than an independent mind, so be it, but I'll be damned if I am goin to allow you to spread lies about the founders or what the Constitution means.

You are just a whiny brat who cannot stand that other people don't buy your zombie god claim.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
mrOriginal wrote:Plus, you

mrOriginal wrote:

Plus, you have a sick sense of humor.  I can relate to that sometimes.

 

Wait... that's humor?

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2020.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Qualinesta
atheist
Qualinesta's picture
Posts: 40
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Jean

Anonymouse wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I have gone on many theist sites.

Have you now ? Liars go to hell, you know.

Link, please ?

 

 

Hell, he lies in every post...

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Respectfully,

 

"TRBB - Changing the attitude of the forums one thread at a time." - KSti


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Brian

Hi Brian,

Bill Clinton was a liar. But when a liar starts saying a lie over and over and over, the lie appears to the lier to be truth. This is the same thing as Separation of Church and State.

That came out of a private letter in 1802 with Jefferson responding to a group of Northern Baptists. And you take it out of context. Jefferson was really talking about how Christianity ("religion&quotEye-wink does play a role in government and that government can't mess with "religions." Not that "religions' can't mess with government.

You atheists have this so badly backwards, it's like Lady GaGa preaching a sermon on Sunday Morning to how backwards you are.

Have you read the little single letter? Via the context, it is Separation FROM Church and State.

I take it you do not know law. The self proclaiming dumb dumb atheists have twisted this, and the self proclaiming dumb dumb atheists on the bench (a strategy) said, oh yeah, while they were foaming at the mouth has allowed this in some states.

But like usual, you don't know what you're talking about. God back and find that letter and READ IT in context. But many on here don't read me in context, so can I really expect Jefferson to be taken in context.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:You

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You atheists have this so badly backwards

The First Amendment trumps whatever butthurt bullshit you spew.

Deal with it.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5505
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Brian,

Bill Clinton was a liar. But when a liar starts saying a lie over and over and over, the lie appears to the lier to be truth. This is the same thing as Separation of Church and State.

That came out of a private letter in 1802 with Jefferson responding to a group of Northern Baptists. And you take it out of context. Jefferson was really talking about how Christianity ("religion&quotEye-wink does play a role in government and that government can't mess with "religions." Not that "religions' can't mess with government.

You atheists have this so badly backwards, it's like Lady GaGa preaching a sermon on Sunday Morning to how backwards you are.

Have you read the little single letter? Via the context, it is Separation FROM Church and State.

I take it you do not know law. The self proclaiming dumb dumb atheists have twisted this, and the self proclaiming dumb dumb atheists on the bench (a strategy) said, oh yeah, while they were foaming at the mouth has allowed this in some states.

But like usual, you don't know what you're talking about. God back and find that letter and READ IT in context. But many on here don't read me in context, so can I really expect Jefferson to be taken in context.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

The letter in its entirety

 

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

 

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

Somehow I don't see the part where he says religion does/should play a role in government. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean, since your context is

Jean, since your context is the fantasy world of a Biblical God, your comments are irrelevant to anyone concerned with what actually pertains.

How do you go from "a wall of separation between Church & State. " to "Separation FROM Church and State." which is not even a coherent statement.

Separation of what or whom from both Church and State??

With every post your credibility diminishes, and our concern for your mental stability grows.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5505
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Anyone who is interested in

Anyone who is interested in Jefferson's thoughts on this topic should also read his "Notes on the State of Virginia" available at

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/JefBv021.html (Query 17 is where the religious stuff is) 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Jean, since

BobSpence1 wrote:

Jean, since your context is the fantasy world of a Biblical God, your comments are irrelevant to anyone concerned with what actually pertains.

How do you go from "a wall of separation between Church & State. " to "Separation FROM Church and State." which is not even a coherent statement.

Separation of what or whom from both Church and State??

With every post your credibility diminishes, and our concern for your mental stability grows.

Given my experience in college, I'd be lying if I didn't say I was concerned that he actually might be a 'Professor' in real life...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Bob

Hi Bob,

Another example of taking me out of context. I wasn't saying that via an exact quote it says that. I was saying via the context of the letter, it was a response to CHRISTIANS (a postive response) of their "religions" freedoms and how government will not intrude. Not that Christians can't be in government.

The exclusive clause quoted was in referece to government saying it represents only one kind of "religion." Not that it represents no religion.
 

Or maybe Jefferson was talking about the FFRF in there somewhere.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Bob,

Another example of taking me out of context.

False

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Have you read the little single letter? Via the context, it is Separation FROM Church and State.

I take it you do not know law. The self proclaiming dumb dumb atheists have twisted this, and the self proclaiming dumb dumb atheists on the bench (a strategy) said, oh yeah, while they were foaming at the mouth has allowed this in some states.

But like usual, you don't know what you're talking about. God back and find that letter and READ IT in context. But many on here don't read me in context, so can I really expect Jefferson to be taken in context.

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Yet to meet a Troll that ever acknowledged he/she was a Troll.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
I just got banned on witchcraft.net. I don't understand. You guys are the only guys who keep me around. I am not a troll

 Life isnt always fair. If you come tearing 'in' haste into a board they might have sized you up and banned you outright. I wasnt there.  I have yet to meet a Troll that ever acknowledged  he/she was  a Troll.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Bob,

Another example of taking me out of context. I wasn't saying that via an exact quote it says that. I was saying via the context of the letter, it was a response to CHRISTIANS (a postive response) of their "religions" freedoms and how government will not intrude. Not that Christians can't be in government.

The exclusive clause quoted was in referece to government saying it represents only one kind of "religion." Not that it represents no religion.
 

Or maybe Jefferson was talking about the FFRF in there somewhere.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

I did not assume you meant it as a direct quote, I just don't see what your "translated" phrase even means. What third party is to be kept separate from BOTH Church AND State? The 'people'?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Jean Chauvin wrote:...but

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
...but I was actually interested in things from a Witches perspective.

 

You guys are the only ones who love me. I appreciate that. I almost have a tear, no no, yeah.

 

Anyway, they banned me before, then I posted under Moriah. What's going on...

 

You guys know I'm not a troll. You're my buds, especially Brian over there...

 

I've also been banned from the legionforsatan.com...

 

So what's this about. Please don't be sarcastic (like that request is going to happen).

 

 

What do you think.

 

Respectfully,

 

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

Well Jean, if that is really what you want to know, I can help you out.

 

I am not familiar with those specific web sites but before I was an atheist, I spent many years in the occult. I got up to levels that there is probably no way that you would even know to exist.

 

If you really want to know what it is about, I will teach you.

 

As your faith is so strong, I don't expect you to go very far but I am willing to take you as far as you are willing to go.

 

Ask me some real questions and we will see what comes of matters.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16170
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Brian,

Bill Clinton was a liar. But when a liar starts saying a lie over and over and over, the lie appears to the lier to be truth. This is the same thing as Separation of Church and State.

That came out of a private letter in 1802 with Jefferson responding to a group of Northern Baptists. And you take it out of context. Jefferson was really talking about how Christianity ("religion&quotEye-wink does play a role in government and that government can't mess with "religions." Not that "religions' can't mess with government.

You atheists have this so badly backwards, it's like Lady GaGa preaching a sermon on Sunday Morning to how backwards you are.

Have you read the little single letter? Via the context, it is Separation FROM Church and State.

I take it you do not know law. The self proclaiming dumb dumb atheists have twisted this, and the self proclaiming dumb dumb atheists on the bench (a strategy) said, oh yeah, while they were foaming at the mouth has allowed this in some states.

But like usual, you don't know what you're talking about. God back and find that letter and READ IT in context. But many on here don't read me in context, so can I really expect Jefferson to be taken in context.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

You know damned well that is a bunch of hypocritical bullshit.

When you say "religions can mess with government", what you mean is "My version of Christianity has a right to a monopoly of our government". THAT is what you really mean.

Jefferson and ALL the founders put the First Amendment in place to prevent all forms of monopolies of power on issues of speech and religion and press and assembly.

Your Christianity DOES NOT, nor has have ever had a monopoly on our Constitution or oovernment. PERIOD!

"No religious test" UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

"As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion", Article 11 Barbary Treaty signed WITHOUT DISSENT by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President John Adams June 10th 1797

NOW, if you are going to insist that religion CAN mess with government, then that would mean ANY religion can because there is no mandate that says only Christians can "mess with government".

You are confusing citizen participation  in government, which is EVERYONE'S RIGHT, and replacing it with your theocratic back of the bus attitude which the founders did not want.

If our government was only to be run by Christians, then tell me why Thomas Jefferson WHOM YOU CALLED A PAGAN, was our president? Tell me why Joe Lieberman a Jew serves in our congress. Tell me why Keith Elleson A Muslim serves in our Congress. Tell me why Pete Stark an atheist serves in our congress.

BECAUSE YOU ARE DEAD WRONG, Christians have never owned the rights to the drivers seat and must, like every citizen, compete to get those offices. You are the one who falsely assumes an entitlement program.

Christians do not own our Constitution, there is no litmus test to be an American other than being born here or naturalized citizen.

If ANYONE, atheist, Jew, Muslim Asian, black, gay, wants to run for office, and convinces enough people to vote for them, and the meet the age requirements and are born here or naturalized, and they win enough votes, they have legally won that office. No one owes your zombie god an oath to hold public office.

NO RELIGIOUS TEST    YOU LOSE IDIOT!

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5505
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Another

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Another example of taking me out of context. I wasn't saying that via an exact quote it says that. I was saying via the context of the letter, it was a response to CHRISTIANS (a postive response) of their "religions" freedoms and how government will not intrude. Not that Christians can't be in government.

No one has said that Christians can't be in government. We are simply refuting your claim that we are a "Christian nation" when our government was clearly formed with the intention of leaving a man's personal religious beliefs outside the realm of government interference.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


BethK
atheist
BethK's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2011-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Brian, Of COURSE religions

Brian,

Of COURSE religions can mess with government. If the majority of voters are Christian, they can put their religious-based ideas into law... provided those laws are written without reference to religion.

All sorts of churches print voter guides - quasi-legally or sometimes illegally. They preach politics from their pulpits at times. Of course, according to IRS rules, they lose their tax-exempt status if they so politic, but someone has to complain and to report it.

I've considered going to "visit" some of these churches I suspect of politicking, write down what was said by whom and under what circumstances, and report it. If no one reports it, nothing will change. If someone does report it, they might have to fear for their physical safety.

We are a Christian nation, as the majority identify with some sect of Christianity or other - even if they haven't been to church or opened a Bible for years. As the Constitution, the Treaty of Tripoli, the founding fathers all said, this is not a Christian State.

Realisticly though, do you really think that an atheist, a Pagan, a Buddhist, a Muslim could be elected? The US seems to be becoming more religious - and Protestant fundamentalist: Do you really think that JFK being a Roman Catholic could be elected today because of his faith? In fact, could Richard Nixon, with his dubious ties to the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) be elected today because of his faith?

How's my proselytizing? Call 1-800-FANATIC

Beth


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Jean Chauvin wrote:You

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
You guys know I'm not a troll.

 

Well, actually you are a troll. However, you are our troll and we love you. In the same sense that Jesus loved sinners.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
I just got banned on witchcraft.net. I don't understand.

 

Well, I am sorry to hear that. Perhaps making a second account to get around the first temp ban is relevant to the IP# ban you have to deal with.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
You're my buds, especially Brian over there. He no longer takes PCP before he talks to me. I've influenced him.

 

Oh yah, you and us are definitely buds. No questions there. Perhaps you might consider not posting adhoms though. That is fairly annoying. Since we are all buds, not annoying each other is probably a good thing.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Anyway, the occult world can't take me.

 

I would not expect that they would. Certainly not the way that you are rolling. From the occult perspective, it is pretty clear that your god is about the same as the Egyptian god Mat. If you would be honest about that, then you would have far fewer issues to deal with.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Even wimpy Chrisitans ban me. One liberal guy didn't ban me.

 

Which goes to show that there is a difference between politics and religion. As we have already covered, I am about as conservative as they come. In fact. I am a member of the tea party. And I am a hard core atheist. In fact, I almost see the weak atheists as the wimpy ones but I keep my council on that to myself for the most part.

 

That being said, I would ask that you comment on this thread:

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29211

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BethK wrote: Brian, Of

BethK wrote:
Brian, Of COURSE religions can mess with government. If the majority of voters are Christian, they can put their religious-based ideas into law... provided those laws are written without reference to religion.

And they can be overturned, when they're found to be unconstitutional.

BethK wrote:
We are a Christian nation, as the majority identify with some sect of Christianity or other

No that has always been incorrect. It has always been a multicultural nation. Did you think the Native American Indians became extinct? Do you think that heretics and skeptics were never here?

"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness.

We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth."  : Barack Obama - 44th President of the United States of America

 

Obama is no fool. He knows that this soundbite will be a significant statement and paradigm, moving into the future. Just like the groundwork that was set by the forefathers of the US, before him, set the paradigm that one day would mean that a woman and black person could become President.

He's planted a very significant seed, about 'non believers' being part of the 'fabric' of the nation. That's a radical acknowledgment.

 

BethK wrote:
  Realisticly though, do you really think that an atheist, a Pagan, a Buddhist, a Muslim could be elected?

An atheist?

Yes.

Easily.

BethK wrote:
  The US seems to be becoming more religious

I don't see that among the more educated and socially aware of the current and upcoming generations. No.

I see older hard core fundies getting desperate to make their presence known and felt, and sympathized with.

But, I think they are fighting an uphill battle.

Secular laws, and the constitution are powerful paradigms for civil rights of individuals.

If anyone in power were to try and overturn civil rights and freedom of choice, and moved towards a 'police state', or a 'theocracy', there would be hell to pay for that move.

Don't kid yourself.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16170
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BethK wrote:Brian, Of

BethK wrote:
Brian, Of COURSE religions can mess with government. If the majority of voters are Christian, they can put their religious-based ideas into law... provided those laws are written without reference to religion. All sorts of churches print voter guides - quasi-legally or sometimes illegally. They preach politics from their pulpits at times. Of course, according to IRS rules, they lose their tax-exempt status if they so politic, but someone has to complain and to report it. I've considered going to "visit" some of these churches I suspect of politicking, write down what was said by whom and under what circumstances, and report it. If no one reports it, nothing will change. If someone does report it, they might have to fear for their physical safety. We are a Christian nation, as the majority identify with some sect of Christianity or other - even if they haven't been to church or opened a Bible for years. As the Constitution, the Treaty of Tripoli, the founding fathers all said, this is not a Christian State. Realisticly though, do you really think that an atheist, a Pagan, a Buddhist, a Muslim could be elected? The US seems to be becoming more religious - and Protestant fundamentalist: Do you really think that JFK being a Roman Catholic could be elected today because of his faith? In fact, could Richard Nixon, with his dubious ties to the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) be elected today because of his faith?

And writing a law down on paper doesn't make it constitutional. Did you ever consider the "church voting guides" simply have not been challenged. Preachers are NOT allowed to tell their church whom to vote for in the pulpit.

Just because a majority ignores the constitution doesn't make what they do constitutional. And we have had laws once upheld by the Supreme Court later get overturned by future Supreme Courts.

And as far as others outside Christianity getting elected, sure, they wont get elected with your attitude.

Jefferson couldn't get elected today and was during his campaign called an atheist. AND up until JFK no one thought it possible for a Catholic to be elected. Up until Obama no one thought it possible for a black man to become president.

SO do I think an atheist can get elected, HECK YEA! Maybe not today, but eventually ESPECIALLY if we educate the public as to what a citizen's rights are, and the more they know that the more people outside Christianity WILL prove worthy of public office.

If we can have Jews and Muslims and an atheist serving in our congress, it is simply a matter of education and time before the first non-Christian president presides. Australia has not only an atheist PM but a woman as well.

It is up to us to tell the truth at every corner, in every response to media and to our elected officials to remind them that there is no religious test to be a citizen and no religious test to hold office.

Rome wasn't built in a day. But considering where non-Christian citizens OF ALL LABELS were and where they stand now, I do have lots of hope for the future. We even have gay republican party members whom 20 years ago wouldn't have been open about it.

They will not win in our pluralistic society.

The down side to America is that it always takes a hazing (meaning the minority has to fight for it) but once they do, we don't turn back.

Bottom line, there is NOTHING legally stopping a legal citizen of any race or religion from running for office. Sure, they still have to compete, but there is nothing stopping them legally from trying.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BethK
atheist
BethK's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2011-02-27
User is offlineOffline
BethK wrote: Brian, Of

BethK wrote: Brian, Of COURSE religions can mess with government. If the majority of voters are Christian, they can put their religious-based ideas into law... provided those laws are written without reference to religion. RedneF wrote: And they can be overturned, when they're found to be unconstitutional.

IF they are unconstitutional. Some of the morals/ethics/rules extant within Christianity are really Humanistic principles or laws that are required for any orderly society to operate. For instance, just because they have a commandment "Thou shall not bear false witness." does not make the laws against perjury unconstitutional.

BethK wrote: We are a Christian nation, as the majority identify with some sect of Christianity or other

RedneF wrote:
No that has always been incorrect. It has always been a multicultural nation. Did you think the Native American Indians became extinct? Do you think that heretics and skeptics were never here?

We are multicultural. But, we are a Christian nation because the plurality identifies with Christianity. Until recently, I lived on a Native American reservation. I am quite aware that they are not extinct. Many of them also identify as Christian, but many others practice their Native beliefs.

We are clearly NOT a Christian State, even though there are many who would have it that way for their own reasons. They can't change that without overturning the first amendment - which COULD be done. Too few seem to know what it is well enough to challenge them when they say that the "wall of separation" does not exist, or only prohibits the government from meddling in church affairs. People need to read, know, and study the Constitution, which appears to be lacking.

Still, Oklahoma's marriage laws are specifically written so that a lawful marriage may only be performed by a judge, a retired judge, a minister of the gospel, or a rabbi (apparently an afterthought). No mention of a Native American ceremony, tribal elder, nondenominational minister (who does not push the gospel), Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and so forth.

Specifically 2006 Oklahoma Code - Title 43. — Marriage and Family

§43-7. Solemnization of marriages.

A. All marriages must be contracted by a formal ceremony performed or solemnized in the presence of at least two adult, competent persons as witnesses, by a judge or retired judge of any court in this state, or an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi and who is at least eighteen (18) years of age.

http://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2006/os43.html

Now, the law appears to be enforced in the breach. Many people have been married in Oklahoma by people with ministerial ordinations from such organizations as the Universal Life Church ( http://www.ulc.org/ ) which ordains anybody regardless of beliefs. You too can get ordained online right now. In most states, such an officiant is permissible.

For myself, I didn't want the legal status of my marriage called into question at a time of crisis. So, my husband and I took our money and got married in Colorado - which only requires two literate witnesses.

Other things are being enacted which are clearly unconstitutional, including a Christian community center which is being funded with tax money. Even the freethinker nor the native American communities saw nothing wrong with this one! Not until membership forms came out in which you had to state you were a Christian to be a member. And the promised "no fees for taxpayers" turned out to be a false promise. I no longer have any standing to bring suit there myself.

As far as that no atheist/freethinker/nonchristian could be elected with MY attitudes, I cast my votes for the best candidate. I would take religion or its lack, and the emphasis put on it into account whether the person would represent me and adequately do the job for which they are running.

Yes, I would certainly vote for an atheist candidate. Heck, I may BE an atheist candidate for a local office in 2012!

There is no benefit in casting one's ballot for the candidate believed most likely to win. That puts the choice solely in the hands of those taking polls and reporting them. Even if, or especially if, you believe the best candidate is unlikely to win, certainly be sure to cast your vote in that case. You, and others like you, may swing the election and prove the pollsters and reporters wrong.

RedneF wrote: "For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth."  : Barack Obama - 44th President of the United States of America   Obama is no fool. He knows that this soundbite will be a significant statement and paradigm, moving into the future. Just like the groundwork that was set by the forefathers of the US, before him, set the paradigm that one day would mean that a woman and black person could become President. He's planted a very significant seed, about 'non believers' being part of the 'fabric' of the nation. That's a radical acknowledgment.

Obama is no fool, and his statement will move the US into the future. I still also remember, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." George H.W. Bush, August 27, 1987 That also created the current climate. Hopefully, Obama's statement will come to supersede it. Pendulums swing...

BethK wrote:   The US seems to be becoming more religious


RedneF wrote:
I don't see that among the more educated and socially aware of the current and upcoming generations. No.
I see older hard core fundies getting desperate to make their presence known and felt, and sympathized with.

I have had PLENTY of twenty-something, college-educated engineers I've worked with go blathering about fundamentalism and turning discussions about engineering questions into religious ones (somehow). And, teaching their little children these things - including some inappropriate specifics of the "wrongness" of homosexuality.

Perhaps "socially aware" people, but those exist in all age groups.

Brian37 wrote: And writing a law down on paper doesn't make it constitutional. Did you ever consider the "church voting guides" simply have not been challenged. Preachers are NOT allowed to tell their church whom to vote for in the pulpit.

That's what I wrote. Church voting guides violate IRS rules and put their tax exemption at severe risk. They are challenged. It takes not one, but several witnesses to what is said from the pulpit, or someone to go to such a church and get such a printed voting guide and to report it. Many cases are thrown out for lack of evidence. Some do get challenged. Some churches lose their tax exempt status, and become categorized as PACs.

When The Landmark Church in New York placed anti-Clinton ads in the local paper (4 days before the election of 1992), it broke the law. In May of 2000, after a much-appealed court battle, Landmark became the first church in the U.S. to lose its tax exempt status for violating federal IRS regulations. Other churches have had similar issues brought up, or proposed. See http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-08-antiwar-sermon_x.htm http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6100888 http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/04/09/gay-bashing-church-could-lose-tax-exemption/ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/18/politics/uwire/main4613144.shtml

IRS Publication 1828 (Tax guide for churches and religious organizations) discusses at length what types of politicking churches are and are not allowed to do with their tax exempt status.

How's my proselytizing? Call 1-800-FANATIC

Beth


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi

Hi,

The response to the lettter was not to say that "religion" has no place in government. The purpose was to say that religions does have a purpose in government. But govenment will not say one religion is right over another.

You guys have been so programmed via the public school system, you don't know which way is up.

The exclusive clause doesn't say that no religion can be of government, it says that no single religion will be represented by the government only.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BethK wrote:   I still

BethK wrote:
   I still also remember, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." George H.W. Bush, August 27, 1987

That is exactly why atheists really need to be more verbal and proactive.

I remember reading somewhere that George W Bush was babbling about going to fight Gog and Magog from the book of Ezekiel, in Afghanistan, or something like that.

That's just completely batshit crazy.

 

Like I said, I have no doubt that Obama deliberately made a point to mention that 'non believers' are part of the fabric of the US.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris