Church and State separation myth

[wolfstrike]

nowhere in our Constitution does it say the Church must remain separate from the State.
this is nothing more then a re-write of history and the people who spread this lie know it.

when the nation was founded , 20% - 40% of the signers of the Constituion and the Declaration of Independence were ordained ministers.

it simply defies logic to believe the founders of the nation were trying to exclude themselves and their religion from government.

one of the first actions of the newly formed government was to commision and distribute Bibles.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

this refers only to Congress and it's laws,

the reason why this is in the Constitution is because Europe was having problems with kings declaring themselves as head of the church and naming a particular sect of religion as the Nation's religion.

in other words, anything the king did would be considered holy, and everyone in the country would have to change their religion to match the king's, other sects would often be persecuted.



the First Amendmemt is a restriction on government , not the public.

Congress shall make no law ...prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

people may display religious symbols on their person or on their property, businesses , in their government posts, anywhere,
...form religious schools...preach in the public...

the Federal government can not make laws against it , and State governments must abide by the "unalienable right"

[braces4impact]

nowhere in our Constitution does it say the Church must remain separate from the State.
this is nothing more then a re-write of history and the people who spread this lie know it.


Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html
There it is, James Madisons ( the man who authored the first amendment) own words. What is so perplexing to you about this?

Later on in the Detached Memoranda Madison says.. emphasis added by me.


Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?
In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.

What is so perplexing to you about this? What Madison says is very clear.





when the nation was founded , 20% - 40% of the signers of the Constituion and the Declaration of Independence were ordained ministers.
Even if that is true ( which I doubt) it does not follow that they wanted government mixed with religon. Barry Lynn is a Church of Christ minister and he heads Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State.


it simply defies logic to believe the founders of the nation were trying to exclude themselves and their religion from government.

You think that a talking snake and magic apple is how things got started and you want to preach about what defies logic?




one of the first actions of the newly formed government was to commision and distribute Bibles.

Links?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

this refers only to Congress and it's laws,

Your assertion here has another implication that you are not considering. If only congress is prohibited from making laws that prohibit religon then the local government can prohibit it all they want. You can't have it both ways.



the First Amendmemt is a restriction on government , not the public.

Congress shall make no law ...prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

And that applies ( according to you) to only congrees. Ergo local governments can restrict religion all they want. It's a double edge sword.


people may display religious symbols on their person or on their property, businesses , in their government posts, anywhere,
...form religious schools...preach in the public...

You (just like other dishonest findies) are obfucating between public and government property. My front yard is in the public but it's my private property so I can disply what ever religiou symbols I wish. Government property (which is paid for by all tax payers) is another story all together.



The Federal government can not make laws against it , and State governments must abide by the "unalienable right"

So if my religion is to place a worship center right under the intersection of two constilations and that happens to be your front yard does my religious rights trump your property rights?

[refrigeration mafia]

You know what I don't understand about these morons, (And I use the term loosely) is why they feel the need to have government support to spread the word of christ?

Before you know it they'll be sponsoring federal laws to make every non-believer accept jesus as thier personal lord and savior under penalty of enslavement by the rightous.

[James 3528]

Does it equally bother you that government school systems in California is teaching Islam ?

[wolfstrike]

1) Madison's memoranda is not constitutional law
2) it doesn't say what you think it says
3) there is nothing that contradicts what i said
4) "Religious freedom" means the right to choose which religion you want to be , to not be persicuted for it, or to not be religious,

it does not mean, every time an atheist walks out his front door if he sees something religious he gets the ACLU to shut them down.


yeah let's see what Madison says from thesame site you referred me to


from transcripts of the Constituional meetings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mr. Madison said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.

...and the laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience and establish a NATIONAL religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mr. Huntington said that he feared, with the gentleman first up on this subject, that the words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely HURTFUL TO THE CAUSE OF RELIGION
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mr. Madison thought, if the word national was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mr. Livermore was not satisfied with that amendment; but he did not wish them to dwell long on the subject. He thought it would be better if it was altered, and made to read in this manner, that Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mr. Madison conceived this to be the most valuable amendment in the whole list. If there was any reason to RESTRAIN THE GOVERNMENT of the United States from infringing upon these essential rights, it was equally necessary that they should be secured against the State Governments. He thought that if they provided against the one, it was as necessary to provide against the other, and was satisfied that it would be equally grateful to the people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>





they didn't want American government to declare one sect of religion as national and force everyone to be a part of it.

you won't find anything in Constitutional law that justifies groups like the ACLU to go around ripping down everything that is Christian

the ACLU is in clear violation of the law.

[wolfstrike]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Does it equally bother you that government school systems in California is teaching Islam ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


it wouldn't surprise me.

the sickest part of this whole subject is,
after the Liberals import hoards of extremist Muslims into the country, all of the sudden they will change their tune to support the violence.

they will be making Christianity illegal with one hand and defending radical Islam with the other, and they will be defending both actions by quoting from the same Constitution.

[James 3528]

I was asking Refer Madness

[wolfstrike]

i know :)

[braces4impact]

1) Madison's memoranda is not constitutional law

Red herring. It is a straight from the mouth account of what the seperation of religion and government is and clearly proves that it exist in the first amendment.




2) it doesn't say what you think it says

Well because you say so I guess it is so!



3) there is nothing that contradicts what i said

Another nice unsubstantiated claim. But if you say so i guess your right!


it does not mean, every time an atheist walks out his front door if he sees something religious he gets the ACLU to shut them down.

Straw man. Every instance that I am aware of where the (as madison says) "encroachments by Ecclesiastical Bodies" takes place has been with tax payer funded entities.

I am not however aware of any cases where the ACLU or anyone else is trying to tell someone what they can display on their own private property.





yeah let's see what Madison says from thesame site you referred me to

yes lets see your chopped up fragments.





from transcripts of the Constituional meetings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mr. Madison said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.

...and the laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience and establish a NATIONAL religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ok this does nto appear to be on the page I linked. Would you be so kind to provide a link so i can read the full context?

Not only that but there is nothing there that supports your case. care to specify?




>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mr. Huntington said that he feared, with the gentleman first up on this subject, that the words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely HURTFUL TO THE CAUSE OF RELIGION
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ok so that's what Mr Huntington thought. How does this support your case?




>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mr. Madison thought, if the word national was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well this supports my case if anything.



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mr. Livermore was not satisfied with that amendment; but he did not wish them to dwell long on the subject. He thought it would be better if it was altered, and made to read in this manner, that Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

STFW Mr Livermore thought?



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mr. Madison conceived this to be the most valuable amendment in the whole list. If there was any reason to RESTRAIN THE GOVERNMENT of the United States from infringing upon these essential rights, it was equally necessary that they should be secured against the State Governments. He thought that if they provided against the one, it was as necessary to provide against the other, and was satisfied that it would be equally grateful to the people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This is not Mr Madisons words this is someone elses conjecture. Why have you not included a link?






they didn't want American government to declare one sect of religion as national and force everyone to be a part of it.

This statement clearly contradicts madisons own view of what a violation of the first amendment is. Did you not read the part about congresional chaplins being a violation of the first amendment?

Let me post it again for you to read.


Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. Madison, Detached Memoranda

It's clear to anyone that can understand english that 1 .) madison says that simply appointing chaplins violates the constitution and 2. ) that doing so establishes a national religion.




you won't find anything in Constitutional law that justifies groups like the ACLU to go around ripping down everything that is Christian

the ACLU is in clear violation of the law.

Strawman. The ACLU does not go around ripping down everything that is Christians. They are ripping down every violation of government entagelment with religion.

The common thread you will find in all of these cases is that tax payer funded entities are being used to support one view over another. In no case will you find that someones private situation is being threatened.

[Edited by braces4impact on 01-21-2006 at 10:15 PM]

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by wolfstrike
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Does it equally bother you that government school systems in California is teaching Islam ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


it wouldn't surprise me.

the sickest part of this whole subject is,
after the Liberals import hoards of extremist Muslims into the country, all of the sudden they will change their tune to support the violence.

they will be making Christianity illegal with one hand and defending radical Islam with the other, and they will be defending both actions by quoting from the same Constitution.



And if Islam gains ground in this country and they start using the government to force their beliefs, on what gorounds could you argue against it? There is no seperation of religion and government according to you. So you would either have to take it or by hipocrites and be selective about seperating religion and government.

[wolfstrike]

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions53.html


i've done my best to point out what the founders of the nation intended in the First Amendment and why the ACLU is in clear violation.

if you don't wish to see it then you don't wish to see it.


Islam is naturally an intrusive religion, there are other factors in American law that make much of the practise illegal.
respect for other people's rights is usually not part of they're thinking.
but that is a future battle for another day.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by braces4impact
And if Islam gains ground in this country and they start using the government to force their beliefs, on what gorounds could you argue against it? There is no seperation of religion and government according to you. So you would either have to take it or by hipocrites and be selective about seperating religion and government.

Christians are quite intolerant of other religions. They are determined to maintain the majority position even if it means they have to put other belief systems down by force.

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by wolfstrike
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions53.html


i've done my best to point out what the founders of the nation intended in the First Amendment and why the ACLU is in clear violation.

if you don't wish to see it then you don't wish to see it.


Islam is naturally an intrusive religion, there are other factors in American law that make much of the practise illegal.
respect for other people's rights is usually not part of they're thinking.
but that is a future battle for another day.




wolf that link does nothing but show how the debate went. what matters is what was drafted and The Deatched Memoranda clearly reflects what was drafted. At least that's what madison says. But if you say your word carries more weight than the man who authored the first amendment then so be it.

[braces4impact]

Islam is naturally an intrusive religion, there are other factors in American law that make much of the practise illegal.
respect for other people's rights is usually not part of they're thinking.
but that is a future battle for another day.


It's not rather they respect what peoples rights are. Both Christianity and Islam are both guilty of trying to write the book on what rights are.



[Edited by braces4impact on 01-22-2006 at 11:04 AM]

[refrigeration mafia]

Christianity is un-american, just as Islam is un-american.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia
Christianity is un-american, just as Islam is un-american.

Not true. Christianity, as in what Jesus Christ taught, is a faith of free will. Jesus Christ did not condone the execution of non-believers and aided even those who were considered heathens. Christ was all about freedom of choice, which is what the U.S. is based on.

Islam was conceived as, developed as and to this day continues as a direct church/state entity. Islam is the faith and the government all rolled into one.

[snewman24]

The phrase "separation of church and state" came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Assoc. in a response to their letter.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

"In the court's 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" It is only in recent times that separation has come under attack by judges in the federal court system who oppose separation of church and state."

Probably one of the worst decisions the SCOTUS ever rendered.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
Islam was conceived as, developed as and to this day continues as a direct church/state entity. Islam is the faith and the government all rolled into one.

American christians are pushing for a direct church/state entity. They want a state controlled by a faith in jesus. State sponsored faith. How is that different than islam?

[snewman24]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia
American christians are pushing for a direct church/state entity. They want a state controlled by a faith in jesus. State sponsored faith. How is that different than islam? [/B]

Only in YOUR imagination.............................

[James 3528]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
Islam was conceived as, developed as and to this day continues as a direct church/state entity. Islam is the faith and the government all rolled into one.

American christians are pushing for a direct church/state entity. They want a state controlled by a faith in jesus. State sponsored faith.

Give a example that does not contain a generalization as the rest of your postings do.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by snewman24

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia
American christians are pushing for a direct church/state entity. They want a state controlled by a faith in jesus. State sponsored faith. How is that different than islam?

Only in YOUR imagination............................. [/B]

What does being a 501c3, tax-exempt organization mean?

The term "tax-exempt," when used in reference to nonprofit organizations, generally refers to the net profits (proceeds over and above expenses) of an organization being exempt from federal and/or state income tax. While a nonprofit organization can be established by incorporating, the entity is not automatically tax-exempt upon creation with the state. Tax-exemption can usually be achieved only through applying for and receiving Internal Revenue Service (IRS) approval.

---

"Approval of the state."

[Edited by refrigeration mafia on 01-22-2006 at 04:54 PM]

[refrigeration mafia]

Most churches in America have organized as "501c3 tax-exempt religious organizations." This is a fairly recent trend that has only been going on for about fifty years. Churches were only added to section 501c3 of the tax code in 1954.

One need not look far to see the devastating effects 501c3 acceptance has had to the church, and the consequent restrictions placed upon any 501c3 church. 501c3 churches are prohibited from addressing, in any tangible way, the vital issues of the day.

For a 501c3 church to openly speak out, or organize in opposition to, anything that the government declares "legal," even if it is immoral (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, etc.), that church will jeopardize its tax exempt status. The 501c3 has had a "chilling effect" upon the free speech rights of the church. LBJ was a shrewd and cunning politician who seemed to well-appreciate how easily many of the clergy would sell out.

[James 3528]

Laughable. Do you ***** as much when those churches fed and house disater victims that compete for disater victims you are trying to feed and house?

[refrigeration mafia]

Guidance to Faith-Based and Community Organizations on Partnering with the Federal Government.

"The indispensable and transforming work of faith-based and other charitable service groups must be encouraged. Government cannot be replaced by charities, but it can and should welcome them as partners. We must heed the growing consensus across America that successful government social programs work in fruitful partnership with community-serving and faith-based organizations."

~ President George W. Bush

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/guidance/index.html

How do I go about applying for a Federal grant?

All Federal grants must be announced to the public. These announcements (sometimes called a "Program Announcement," "Request for Proposal," "Notice of Funding Availability," or "Solicitation for Grant Applications") are the Federal government's way of looking for charities and other groups to provide a Federally-funded service.

Each grant announcement will contain instructions on how to apply, including where to get an application packet, information the application should contain, the date the application is due, and agency contact information.

Grant announcements are issued throughout the year. Unfortunately, there is no single document that contains every Federal grant announcement and no uniform format for these announcements, although the Administration is working to change this. In the future, it hopes that Federal agencies will publish grant announcements electronically, in a single format and on a single web site (www.fedbizopps.gov).

FedBizOpps.gov is the single government point-of-entry (GPE) for Federal government procurement opportunities over $25,000. Government buyers are able to publicize their business opportunities by posting information directly to FedBizOpps via the Internet. Through one portal - FedBizOpps (FBO) - commercial vendors seeking Federal markets for their products and services can search, monitor and retrieve opportunities solicited by the entire Federal contracting community.

---

Your church doesn't need your donations anymore. It is a tax exempt 501c3 organization approved of by the IRS, which is eligable for federal government grants as long as the pastor and church support the policies of the federal government.

Welcome to state sponsored christianity.

[Edited by refrigeration mafia on 01-22-2006 at 05:20 PM]

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by James 3528

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
Islam was conceived as, developed as and to this day continues as a direct church/state entity. Islam is the faith and the government all rolled into one.

American christians are pushing for a direct church/state entity. They want a state controlled by a faith in jesus. State sponsored faith.

Give a example that does not contain a generalization as the rest of your postings do.

Look no further then this very forum where time and time again the claim that seperation of church and state does not exist is made. What is the only implication of a government with no church state seperation?

Plug the word "Dominionism" into goole one day and take a gander.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
Islam was conceived as, developed as and to this day continues as a direct church/state entity. Islam is the faith and the government all rolled into one.

American christians are pushing for a direct church/state entity. They want a state controlled by a faith in jesus. State sponsored faith. How is that different than islam?

WHO?!!! What American Christians are pushing for this? Give some support for this off the wall claim. I am a believer that Jesus Christ was, as a mortal, God incarnate and that through Jesus Christ as God my spirit can live an immortal existance with God and I will fight to the death to oppose a Christian State.

There never has been a Christian State (governmental body in control of a country) and there never should be one. Christ taught that this physical world is not in His realm of control and I believe that.

In contrast, there have been many and continue to be many Islamic States as the way Islam is set up has no way of seperating Islamic rule from any governing body.

[RoBoTeq]

You idiots are too absorbed in too many atheist sites. A seperation of church and state was designed solely to prevent what King Henry VIII started in England that grew into a catastrophe and was the hallmark for the establishment of what is now the U.S.

We cannot seperate faith based beliefs from how we run our government simply because all moral standards derive from faith based beliefs. There is no Constitutional standing that requires that any faith based belief not be allowed to be used in our government, just that no particular faith based organization could dictate law, and none does.

We have a virtual melting pot of every faith known to man living within the borders of the United States. Most of these faiths share basic elements of faith and all are capable of achieving tax exempt status as well as other governmental perks. As long as all are treated equally, there is no issue.

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
Islam was conceived as, developed as and to this day continues as a direct church/state entity. Islam is the faith and the government all rolled into one.

American christians are pushing for a direct church/state entity. They want a state controlled by a faith in jesus. State sponsored faith. How is that different than islam?

WHO?!!! What American Christians are pushing for this? Give some support for this off the wall claim. I am a believer that Jesus Christ was, as a mortal, God incarnate and that through Jesus Christ as God my spirit can live an immortal existance with God and I will fight to the death to oppose a Christian State.

There never has been a Christian State (governmental body in control of a country) and there never should be one. Christ taught that this physical world is not in His realm of control and I believe that.

In contrast, there have been many and continue to be many Islamic States as the way Islam is set up has no way of seperating Islamic rule from any governing body.

Rome had adopted Christianity as it's state religion.

In fact much of europe was Christian theocracy in the dark ages. That was in fact why it was the dark ages.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by braces4impact
In fact much of europe was Christian theocracy in the dark ages. That was in fact why it was the dark ages.

No thinking for yourself allowed. New and innovative thoughts must be surpressed as a threat to the old order. There is nothing new under the sun, and if the church/state has it's way, we never will never know anything.

[Edited by refrigeration mafia on 01-22-2006 at 10:48 PM]

[braces4impact]

You idiots are too absorbed in too many atheist sites. A seperation of church and state was designed solely to prevent what King Henry VIII started in England that grew into a catastrophe and was the hallmark for the establishment of what is now the U.S.

"Idiots" is not a rational argument it is an ad hominem. It is however a nice reflection of your character. However this narrow defintion of the first amendment is incorrect and has clearly been rebuttedin this very thread.

Perhaps you did not read Madisons Detached Memoranda? If the first amendment was ONLY to prevent a national religion then why did Madison say that tax exempt status for churches was a violation of the constitution? Why did he say that congessional chaplins was a violation of the first amendment? Why would madison veto a bill that called for the funding of Christain school teachers?

These thing he said and did clearly show that argument to be wrong. Now maybe, Robo, you was not aware of these things that Madison , author of the first amendment, said and did.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html

Do you think the detached memoranda is a fake written by atheist or by the spirt demosn you belive in?


What is so hard to understand about Madisons words here. emphasis added by me...



Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.

"DANGER OF ENCROACHMENT BY ECCLESIATICAL BODIES."


He could not have spelled it out any clearer than that.

So I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were not aware of these things before hand and were forming your conclusion on spurious and fractured information. Now that you have the information, and the facts, if you ever repeat the statement that the first amendment was ONLY to keep a national church from being formed you will in fact be a liar.

But I guess it's ok to lie for Jesus?

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by braces4impact
But I guess it's ok to lie for Jesus?

Isn't a lie really just the truth?

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by braces4impact
But I guess it's ok to lie for Jesus?

Isn't a lie really just the truth?

No. A lie is an attempt to fake reality.

A lie most of the time is wrong. However the context of one can be moral. Such as lying to protect a friend from a violent thug.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by braces4impact
No. A lie is an attempt to fake reality.

Wrong.

The truth is, reality is a lie.

A lie is just a manipulation of a popularly held belief in what is perceived as reality. Reality cannot be the same for everyone. For some a lie is reality, while for others the truth is reality. Either way it is the truth for both parties.

Originally posted by braces4impact
A lie most of the time is wrong. However the context of one can be moral. Such as lying to protect a friend from a violent thug.

You are describing ethics, not truth or a lie.

[Edited by refrigeration mafia on 01-22-2006 at 11:28 PM]

[joey791]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
Yall are too absorbed in too many atheist sites. A seperation of church and state was designed solely to prevent what King Henry VIII started in England that grew into a catastrophe and was the hallmark for the establishment of what is now the U.S.

We cannot seperate faith based beliefs from how we run our government simply because all moral standards derive from faith based beliefs. There is no Constitutional standing that requires that any faith based belief not be allowed to be used in our government, just that no particular faith based organization could dictate law, and none does.

We have a virtual melting pot of every faith known to man living within the borders of the United States. Most of these faiths share basic elements of faith and all are capable of achieving tax exempt status as well as other governmental perks. As long as all are treated equally, there is no issue.

Robo hit it right on the head, while many of yall live in your ACLU denial worlds, that is exactly why seperation of church and state is implied, to make sure that the GOVERNMENT does not tell anyone what faith they must practice, hence what yall can not get through your heads is the 1st amendment gives me the freedom to worship Jesus Christ anytime, anywhere and I use that freedom alot. If I see my son's band recital and I want to stand up and praise Jesus for blessing my son- guess what - I will, because I have that right, but yall want to demolish my rights because you say they go against your beliefs, but hey guess what, I have the freedom to worship Jesus, just like you have the freedom to stay on the road that leads to hell. I was a non-believer just like many of yall a few years back but God shows Himself too some mightily just like He revealed himself to Paul on the road to Damascus and I was blessed, and no matter mafia, whip, etc., what yall choose to call me or choose to say, I will be praying that He reveals Himself to you in a way you cant deny.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by joey791
...no matter mafia, whip, etc., what yall choose to call me or choose to say, I will be praying that He reveals Himself to you in a way you cant deny.

When you speak to god again, you tell him I'm right here waiting for him to reveal himself to me.

<Any time now>

<Come on god, I'm waiting>

<Yup, he should be along any minute now>

[refrigeration mafia]

<Still waiting>

Crap this might just take an eternity.

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/sprachlos/speechless-smiley-034.gif

[Edited by refrigeration mafia on 01-23-2006 at 12:13 AM]

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by braces4impact

Rome had adopted Christianity as it's state religion.

In fact much of europe was Christian theocracy in the dark ages. That was in fact why it was the dark ages.

Sorry; Rome has always had a political governing body. While there was indeed much influence from the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages (I agree that is why) all countries had political governing bodies.

If you actually studied something rather then spew out what those hate forums lie about you just might be able to have an informed discussion.

[RoBoTeq]

Like Joey states; we have the freedom to choose whatever we want to believe in and not have our government tell us what we can believe in. In Joey's example, while he is praising Jesus for his son a Buddhist could just as well be thanking Buddha for enlightening him about the days meaning along with the Muslim guy praising Allah and the Pagan thanking the gods. Freedom is about everyone having rights not taking rights away.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
Freedom is about everyone having rights not taking rights away.

There has to be a separation of church and state for a very good reason.

If we allow christians to pray in schools, we'll have to allow muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists, athiests, pagans and whoever else the right to do whatever they do in class as well.

Come to think of it, wouldn't a statue of a hindu elephant, and a fat budda look real nice sitting next to the ten commandments on the court house lawn.

If jesus is who he says he is, 'YOU DON'T NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO HELP YOU'.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
Freedom is about everyone having rights not taking rights away.

There has to be a separation of church and state for a very good reason.

If we allow christians to pray in schools, we'll have to allow muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists, athiests, pagans and whoever else the right to do whatever they do in class as well.

Actually, as long as it is not disruptive, yes. Silent prayer should certainly not be offensive. The individual nuances of particular faiths may need to be altered just a bit, but yes, everyone should be free to pray, not pray etc. as they see fit at any time in any place.

As a matter of fact, it is biblically more appropriate to pray in private places for other then emergency situations for Christians. It would be the Muslims that would be the most disruptive and so would have to accomodate societal standards.


Come to think of it, wouldn't a statue of a hindu elephant, and a fat budda look real nice sitting next to the ten commandments on the court house lawn.

Sure. If we must put up graven images and icons of our faith, then I see nothing wrong with icons of all faiths being allowed to be displayed. Keep in mind that I believe that all faiths are derived from Godly intervention or in the case of Islam, maybe the earthly ruler is the communicator.


If jesus is who he says he is, 'YOU DON'T NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO HELP YOU'.

Jesus stated quite firmly that the physical world is not His domain.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
...it is biblically more appropriate to pray in private places for other then emergency situations for Christians.

How ridiculous that you would only turn to prayer in an emergency situation. What the hell qualifies as an emergency situation worthy of prayer? Perhaps an emergency prayer is in order while you are swan diving to your death from 110 stories up? Who ya gonna call, 911 on your cell phone, while you are plummeting to the ground?

Robo you are a smart guy, but I beleive that you are in denial of reality. But to each there own. Otherwise I agree with the rest of your post.

Well almost. If we did allow all these yahoo's to put graven images of thier faiths on the court house lawn, pretty soon this place would look like ancient rome, with everyone practicing thier own special version of god or denial of him and/or her. It would be best just to deny all and create a separation of church and state.

[Edited by refrigeration mafia on 01-23-2006 at 03:04 AM]

[bootlen]

Refer reminds me of the guy who banged his head against a concrete wall everyday because it felt good when he quit.

[RoBoTeq]

Refer; I did not state that prayer is only for emergency situations. I pray constantly. Prayer is nothing more then communication between us and God.

What I stated is that it seemed that Jesus was teaching that prayer should not be a public display. What Jesus was specifically referring to was those who made a public spectacle of themselves to show the rest of the world how pious they were. How Muslims pray in public would be a good example of what Jesus was referring to.

Then again, when you are about to be hit by that oncoming truck or, yes, when you are plummeting to earth in a certain demise of your mortal self; then it is time to publicly pray....real loud and clear; "JESUS, SAVE ME!" Like you stated; who else ya gonna call?

[braces4impact]

POSTED BY ROBO:

Sorry; Rome has always had a political governing body. While there was indeed much influence from the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages (I agree that is why) all countries had political governing bodies.

Yea Iran has a government to does that mean they are not a theocracy?


POSTED BY ROBO:

If you actually studied something rather then spew out what those hate forums lie about you just might be able to have an informed discussion.

Take you own advice.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ROME/LATE.HTM


Theodosius made his mark in history by declaring Christianity the state religion of Rome; he made all pagan religions illegal.



POSTED BY ROBO:
Like Joey states; we have the freedom to choose whatever we want to believe in and not have our government tell us what we can believe in. In Joey's example, while he is praising Jesus for his son a Buddhist could just as well be thanking Buddha for enlightening him about the days meaning along with the Muslim guy praising Allah and the Pagan thanking the gods. Freedom is about everyone having rights not taking rights away.

Who is trying to stop anyone from praying? The SCOTUS did not take prayer out of school it took government employee led prayer out of school. The Budhhist kid and the Christian kid can all pray when ever the hell they want to. It is only led prayers by government employees that was banned and if you posit yourself as a supporter of religous freedom you should support that decission too.


POSTED BY ROBO:
What I stated is that it seemed that Jesus was teaching that prayer should not be a public display. What Jesus was specifically referring to was those who made a public spectacle of themselves to show the rest of the world how pious they were. How Muslims pray in public would be a good example of what Jesus was referring to.

Or like the President praying on the state of the Union Address or the lantics a few years ago bowing down in front of Roy Moors graven Image?

[Edited by braces4impact on 01-23-2006 at 06:47 PM]

[braces4impact]

POSTED BY REFRIGERATION MAFIA:
A lie is just a manipulation of a popularly held belief in what is perceived as reality. Reality cannot be the same for everyone. For some a lie is reality, while for others the truth is reality. Either way it is the truth for both parties.

So you think that reality conforms to the popular view of people?

Reality is what ever it is regardles of what anyone believes or wishes. Before conscious beings were on this earth reality was what ever it was and it will be what ever it is after we are all gone.

[Special Ed]

To hear you guys (Refer & Braces) tell it us evil Christians are getting ready to overtake the Federal Gov't & the Nation! Sounds eerily familiar.... Ooooooooh, that's why! That's the same argument Hitler used to confuse his ignorant constituents that Jews were bad!

RoBo, Boot, get prepared! We're about to get sent to the death camps thanks to the likes of Braces & Refer Madness!!!


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by special ed
To hear you guys (Refer & Braces) tell it us evil Christians are getting ready to overtake the Federal Gov't & the Nation!

First of all I never called anyone evil or stupid.....


Sounds eerily familiar.... Ooooooooh, that's why! That's the same argument Hitler used to confuse his ignorant constituents that Jews were bad!

....seondy, who has their constituients thinking that a secular government is bad and that there is no such thing as a seperation of church and state?


WTF have you been lately? Have you not seen the religious right try and say that a termanially ill person cannot pass on their own terms?

Have you not seen the religous right try to keep gay people from have the same rights as anyone else?

Have you not seen the religious right try and stop stem cell research?

Have you not seen the religous right try and have their fairy tale bible taught in the public schools?


Do they give secular arguments for the things I mentioned above? Of coarse not. They want to write the law according to their b/s "book o fairy tales", the bible, with all of it's absurdies as if it is axiomatic fact.

Na the relgious right is not trying to govern everybody else according to their crack pot ways. It's all an illusion.

Now back to your professinal sports and American Idol sheeple.



[Edited by braces4impact on 01-23-2006 at 08:25 PM]

[RoBoTeq]

For the understanding impaired; declaring a certain religion the State religion is not the same as that religion governing the state. In Iran the religous leader is also the political leader.

I am having a difficult time believing you are that ill informed, therefore I must assume you are simply being manipulative.

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
For the understanding impaired; declaring a certain religion the State religion is not the same as that religion governing the state. In Iran the religous leader is also the political leader.


I am having a difficult time believing you are that ill informed, therefore I must assume you are simply being manipulative.

WRONG, Go get a dictionary.


Main Entry: the·oc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: thE-'ä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Greek theokratia, from the- + -kratia -cracy
1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided



I guess the leader of Rome didn't think he was divinely guided when he made all other religions illegal?

Do you have any straws left?

[wolfstrike]

refrigeration mafia


1) "Seperation of Church and State" is a description , an inaccurate generalization, it's not the law.
this was a phase the ACLU and other anti-religious people pushed.

2) why do you keep resiting Madison's memorandom as the law?

3) Madison is not saying what you think he is.

4) the arguement about religion from that period was because they were afraid ONE group would sneak into government and force worship of that sect.
they were afraid one sect would appoint members to a supremecy.

it has nothing to do with personal religion and the regular process of government, because logic would say that each sect would vote for their own.

that's what they were trying to protect, to assure that people wouldn't be locked out because of their religion(or non religion).

[RoBoTeq]

And again braces, you are just wrong about there ever being a Christian state. While the Roman Catholic Church had it's most powerful influence on European countries, those countries still had political leaders. Kings and Queens were the political rulers.

Let's make it easier on you. Instead of having to actually "read" something, just go rent any of the Musketeer or Man in the Iron Mask movies.

Oh, and just because the Queen of England is officially the head of the Church of England does not make England a Christian state either.

Shintoism came really close to making Japan a religous state, but was still not what Islamic countries are.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by special ed
To hear you guys (Refer & Braces) tell it us evil Christians are getting ready to overtake the Federal Gov't & the Nation! Sounds eerily familiar.... Ooooooooh, that's why! That's the same argument Hitler used to confuse his ignorant constituents that Jews were bad!


Many Christians were, like many non-Christians, deceived by Hitler. They thought him to be a reasonable man - an illusion he was careful to foster - and had no idea of what he would really become. The future horrors of the Third Reich were unimaginable. Of course if the Germans could have foreseen what Hitler would really do they would not have supported him. In the last free election in Germany shortly after Hitler came to power, Hitler obtained less than 50% of the vote.

Many German Christians were Christians in name only, and did not believe in or follow many of the basic tenets of Christianity. They were cultural Christians, not spiritual ones, baptized as infants and thereafter considered
"Christians" irrespective of their beliefs or actions.

The church failed so miserably to confront and expose and resist the evil of Hitler because it was largely a dead church to begin with. Those few who had the spiritual insight to recognize Hitler's evil did not have the power or the influence to accomplish anything.

It was not Christianity that contributed to the rise of Hitler, but the failure of Christianity which left a spiritual vacuum for the Nazis to fill. Many German "Christians" thought human goodness was the essence of being a Christian, and hence suffered from a great spiritual emptiness that left them ripe for deception.

[air1]

When a royal person is crowned in England, it’s a religious ceremony. That’s why the founding fathers put the establishment clause in the constitution. They did not want any resemblance to a Monarchy. They intended for a secular government of free men that was not influenced or controlled by the church. I don’t see how they could have been more clear about their intentions. To read anything else into the first amendment is a stretch.

[Special Ed]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by special ed
To hear you guys (Refer & Braces) tell it us evil Christians are getting ready to overtake the Federal Gov't & the Nation! Sounds eerily familiar.... Ooooooooh, that's why! That's the same argument Hitler used to confuse his ignorant constituents that Jews were bad!


Many Christians were, like many non-Christians, deceived by Hitler. They thought him to be a reasonable man - an illusion he was careful to foster - and had no idea of what he would really become. The future horrors of the Third Reich were unimaginable. Of course if the Germans could have foreseen what Hitler would really do they would not have supported him. In the last free election in Germany shortly after Hitler came to power, Hitler obtained less than 50% of the vote.

Many German Christians were Christians in name only, and did not believe in or follow many of the basic tenets of Christianity. They were cultural Christians, not spiritual ones, baptized as infants and thereafter considered
"Christians" irrespective of their beliefs or actions.

The church failed so miserably to confront and expose and resist the evil of Hitler because it was largely a dead church to begin with. Those few who had the spiritual insight to recognize Hitler's evil did not have the power or the influence to accomplish anything.

It was not Christianity that contributed to the rise of Hitler, but the failure of Christianity which left a spiritual vacuum for the Nazis to fill. Many German "Christians" thought human goodness was the essence of being a Christian, and hence suffered from a great spiritual emptiness that left them ripe for deception.

I actually agree with you here, Refer.

But what concerns me is that many people are living under the false assumption that Christians actually have some kind of hold over the Federal Government. We obviously hold no more sway over any politician than does, say, an Atheist. It all depends on who comes out to vote.

And, just for the record, I am by no means a supporter of the Faith-based program being touted in Washington. If these Faith-based organizations accept funds from the Government then the Government can dictate how those funds will be expended. I believe Christians should be allowed to spend their funds in a way that is consistent with their beliefs, not the Government's.

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
[B]And again braces, you are just wrong about there ever being a Christian state. While the Roman Catholic Church had it's most powerful influence on European countries, those countries still had political leaders. Kings and Queens were the political rulers.


It doesn't make a flip rather they were member of a church or political party members or not. All that matters is that the authority in charge of everything within the confines of its boarders writes law according to the dictates of their interpretation of what ever religion they say is correct. Case in point Rome burning down all temples except for Christian ones.


Let's make it easier on you. Instead of having to actually "read" something, just go rent any of the Musketeer or Man in the Iron Mask movies.

Could you site me a reference to yout defintion of theocracy please instead of just hopeing I will accept yours ?


Oh, and just because the Queen of England is officially the head of the Church of England does not make England a Christian state either.

Strawman. I never siad that it did. I clearly explained the guideline of what constitutes a theocracy and Websters agrees. What's your source again?

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by wolfstrike
refrigeration mafia


1) "Seperation of Church and State" is a description , an inaccurate generalization, it's not the law.
this was a phase the ACLU and other anti-religious people pushed.

2) why do you keep resiting Madison's memorandom as the law?

3) Madison is not saying what you think he is.

4) the arguement about religion from that period was because they were afraid ONE group would sneak into government and force worship of that sect.
they were afraid one sect would appoint members to a supremecy.

it has nothing to do with personal religion and the regular process of government, because logic would say that each sect would vote for their own.

that's what they were trying to protect, to assure that people wouldn't be locked out because of their religion(or non religion).


wolf you are a broken reacord . Instead of just saying that you are right ( which is not convincing) why don't you tell me exactly where it is that I am wrong and let's talk about it?

[RoBoTeq]

Well, it looks like braces is just going to stay in his/her own little world of "I'll believe what I want and you can't make me understand the truth".

This is not even worth arguing over; there are no Christian states and there are Muslim states.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
... there are no Christian states and there are Muslim states.

Christianity is the majority religion in the united states. Islam is the majority religion in saudi arabia. The difference is that in america you have the right to practice another religion which is not the same one practiced by the majority in america.

The only thing that allows that is the government. If christianity takes hold of the government you can bet that you will lose the freedom to practice a non-christian religion in america. Fundemenatlist christians are for the most part ignorant. They believe that they hold the one and only key to the truth lockbox, and are quite determined to convince other people that their non-fundementalist christian perception of the world is wrong.

Do you really want people who believe that the bible is not based on mythology to be running things?

'Senator is it true that you believe in make believe spirit demons? Is it also true that you believe that a man walked on water and rose from the dead? Isn't it also true that you believe that any one who doesn't also believe these things is doomed to goto hell and is being influenced by a make believe fallen demon angel.'

In an alternate reality a senator might be asked this question.

'Senator do you really believe that the sun has always been with us and shines its light down upon the earth so that people can see?'

[Edited by refrigeration mafia on 01-25-2006 at 10:26 AM]

[bootlen]

I have a question for you, refer. Are you gonna be

[Edited by Mod on 01-25-2006 at 12:16 PM]

[tonys]

what next...are the feds going to subpoena Google for internet usage records???


[Edited by Mod on 01-25-2006 at 02:11 PM]

[bootlen]

Originally posted by bootlen
I have a question for you, refer. Are you gonna be

[Edited by Mod on 01-25-2006 at 12:16 PM]

Apologies to you, Mod & refer.

[tonys]

The identification of censorship is now censorship material?

[tonys]

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by bootlen
I have a question for you, refer. Are you gonna be

[Edited by Mod on 01-25-2006 at 12:16 PM]

Apologies to you, Mod & refer.

bowing down to the man, are we?

[bootlen]

Originally posted by tonys

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by bootlen
I have a question for you, refer. Are you gonna be

[Edited by Mod on 01-25-2006 at 12:16 PM]

Apologies to you, Mod & refer.

bowing down to the man, are we?



Maybe this is something you don't understand. This ain't my forum. I just have the distinct privilege of, not the right to, posting here. When you grow up, you might get a handle on that simple little principle.

[tonys]

interesting.

this IS a public forum, run by a private group.
no fee to register, just a mickey-mouse email address.
And, you feel it is valid to control one's posts (via thoughts) on a board open to the public.
Interesting.

On a related note:
How do you feel about the FCC 'regulating' pay-services like TV and Radio? In this case, one is actually paying for services rendered. Should this be under the umbrella of the mind-police - currently on the radar screen of the religious right in the US?

They DO know better, right?

[bootlen]

Originally posted by tonys
interesting.

this IS a public forum, run by a private group.
no fee to register, just a mickey-mouse email address.
And, you feel it is valid to control one's posts (via thoughts) on a board open to the public.
Interesting.

Also owned privately. They have the right to do with it as they please. They reserve the right to ban anyone for any reason at all...what we post, the color of our hair, the breadth of our nose, our general stupidity, or any other nefarious reason. You and I have the privilege to post anything we want as long as it does not cause them to decide to ban us.

On a related note:
How do you feel about the FCC 'regulating' pay-services like TV and Radio? In this case, one is actually paying for services rendered. Should this be under the umbrella of the mind-police - currently on the radar screen of the religious right in the US?

They DO know better, right?

Talk about nefarious.

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
Well, it looks like braces is just going to stay in his/her own little world of "I'll believe what I want and you can't make me understand the truth".

This is not even worth arguing over; there are no Christian states and there are Muslim states.

I simply asked you for a source for your defintion of "theocracy". It seems to be contribed and spurious. Can you link me to a source to your defintion or did you just make it up ad hoc to suit your needs?

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by bootlen
I have a question for you, refer. Are you gonna be

[Edited by Mod on 01-25-2006 at 12:16 PM]

Apologies to you, Mod & refer.

Well I missed your post. Was it bad? I forgive you.

Don't worry about whatever it was that you posted boot. I post all kinds of inflamatory stuff. Mostly as you have guessed, to make someone look foolish. But I also post inflamatory stuff to get people to think.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by tonys
interesting.

this IS a public forum, run by a private group.
no fee to register, just a mickey-mouse email address.
And, you feel it is valid to control one's posts (via thoughts) on a board open to the public.
Interesting.

As long as they pay for the bandwidth we are guests in thier house tony.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by bootlen
I have a question for you, refer. Are you gonna be

[Edited by Mod on 01-25-2006 at 12:16 PM]

Apologies to you, Mod & refer.

Well I missed your post. Was it bad? I forgive you.



I don't think so but it's not my call.

Personally, others I've seen I think were much worse. But if I want to control what's passes and what doesn't, I have to get my own forum. That's the way it is and that's the way it should be.

I hold absolutely nothing against any of the mods for how they run their own forum. I am willing to fight to the death to defend their right to do so. Others just want to cry about it.

Someone hand tony a kleenex.

[RoBoTeq]

Refer; the U.S. allows all religions to flourish even though it may be majority Christian, which by the way the world is also majority Christian.

Saudi Arabia citizens "MUST" be Muslim and absolutely no other religion is allowed to be practiced there.

If you really see a parallel in these two countries attitudes on religion, then you are simply as closed minded as braces is.

[braces4impact]

If you really see a parallel in these two countries attitudes on religion, then you are simply as closed minded as braces is.

If you are going to accuse me of being closed minded why don't you provide us with your defintion of closed minded so that way I can know exactly what charge is being levied against me?

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by braces4impact

If you really see a parallel in these two countries attitudes on religion, then you are simply as closed minded as braces is.

If you are going to accuse me of being closed minded why don't you provide us with your defintion of closed minded so that way I can know exactly what charge is being levied against me?




What's up with you wanting definitions of everything I state? If you don't have a dictionary, Google.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by braces4impact

If you really see a parallel in these two countries attitudes on religion, then you are simply as closed minded as braces is.

If you are going to accuse me of being closed minded why don't you provide us with your defintion of closed minded so that way I can know exactly what charge is being levied against me?




What's up with you wanting definitions of everything I state? If you don't have a dictionary, Google.

Braces apparently went to school in AR, same schools as Billyboy.

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by braces4impact

If you really see a parallel in these two countries attitudes on religion, then you are simply as closed minded as braces is.

If you are going to accuse me of being closed minded why don't you provide us with your defintion of closed minded so that way I can know exactly what charge is being levied against me?




What's up with you wanting definitions of everything I state? If you don't have a dictionary, Google.

Well it's two words so It's not going to be in the dictionary as such. Google is just going to give me everyone elses subjective view of what it is.

Why are you afraid to define the phrase as you are using it? Is it because you know that you are making and empty baseless accusation that cannot stand?

Here's you defintion of the phrse closed minded.

Anyone who rejects Robo's sophistry.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by braces4impact

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by braces4impact

If you really see a parallel in these two countries attitudes on religion, then you are simply as closed minded as braces is.

If you are going to accuse me of being closed minded why don't you provide us with your defintion of closed minded so that way I can know exactly what charge is being levied against me?




What's up with you wanting definitions of everything I state? If you don't have a dictionary, Google.

Well it's two words so It's not going to be in the dictionary as such. Google is just going to give me everyone elses subjective view of what it is.

Why are you afraid to define the phrase as you are using it? Is it because you know that you are making and empty baseless accusation that cannot stand?

Here's you defintion of the phrse closed minded.

Anyone who rejects Robo's sophistry.



I take it you don't have spellchecker either.

It took me all of two seconds to Google this;


closed-minded
A adjective
1 close-minded, closed-minded

not ready to receive to new ideas

While I was using it more for you not being open minded to ideas that you cannot understand because you cannot physically measure them or you refuse to open your mind to ideas other then the negative group of social retards you read and listen to, this is a good enough definition for your inability to receive ideas other then the ones you have closed your mind around.

[braces4impact]

While I was using it more for you not being open minded to ideas that you cannot understand because you cannot physically measure them or you refuse to open your mind to ideas other then the negative group of social retards you read and listen to, this is a good enough definition for your inability to receive ideas other then the ones you have closed your mind around.

Oh but I am open to all ideas. I have read your ideas and considered them. The only reason you have called me closed minded is because I have not acepted them. By your own defintion you to are closed minded.


Here's some advice i think you could use. Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. This seems to be your situation.

gooday,