Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

I missed it. what's the quote?
 

Big boy, how bout you and me meet up some place and discuss this like gentlemen.
 

Asshole just wanted to line up ACLU members and have them shot.

Probably in Jesus' name.

--ER
 

You won't say that to my face, commie.
 

Jesus is a comm(ie)unalist.

--ER
 

How big of an ol' bou are you, anyhow? When's the last time you had a good ol' country ass whuppin'?

--ER
 

My ass-whuppin' money is on E.R.
 

Where'd the bully go? Mouthy jerk.
And what IS this? Ninth grade?
Sigh. We just cain't have anything nice!!!!

--ER
 

I'm hanging myself now. This line is in a story I'm editing:

"Old-timers can remember turning on TV sets years ago and waiting and waiting and waiting for the picture to finally appear ..."

SIGH.

--ER
 

Here's a topim in light of the violence that led to this stupid post:

Anyone been in a fistfight or other stupid physical violence at as adult?

I helped throw a bunch of assholes out of a dancehall in Texas back when I was desperate enough to work Friday-Saturday nights as a bouncer. Other than that, not me.

--ER
 

topim = topic

--ER
 

Netherlands Trio Wed

In the Netherlands, a country that already allows same-sex
marriage, a polygamous civil union has received official
government recognition, sending shockwaves worldwide, the
Brussels Journal reported.

Victor de Bruijn was already married to Bianca, but the
two met Mirjam Geven through an Internet chat-room and
soon Mirjam moved in.

"I love both Bianca and Mirjam, so I am marrying them
both," Bruijn said. "We consider this to be just an
ordinary marriage."

John Stemberger, president and general counsel of the
Florida Family Policy Council, reacted with to the news
with a sense of urgency over the disintegration of
traditional marriage.

"This news story is Exhibit A of why marriage must be
legally defined as between a man and a woman," Stemberger
said Thursday. "If the only criteria for civil marriage is
'love' and 'commitment,' then why not group marriage, or
polygamy, or any other aberrant combination of persons or
things?"

Stemberger pointed out that in Scandinavian countries
where the boundaries for marriage are stretched to include
same-sex couples and more, traditional marriage is
becoming obsolete and the rate of co-habitation and civil
unions is skyrocketing.

"This is also a clear example of why civil unions are a
bad idea," he added. "If marriage can mean anything . . .
then marriage means nothing."
 

Blah blah blah, the ACLU never defended Christians, they hate relgion, etc. Do you all just swallow every word Pat Robertson says, or do you actually look into these things? Because less than five minutes' googling turned up

this
this
this
this
and this.
 

The "asshole trap" brings out "Nick Toper."

I am sure there is no connection. Just. Pure. Coincidence.
 

"Ask and ye shall recieve"

I asked, and B provided. I stand corrected.

But it doesn't change the fact that the ACLU was started by a card carrying communist who admitted his goal was to eliminate Christianity from the world.

I'd rather have a government run by Focus on the Family than by the ACLU anyday. At least FOTF would stand for Christian values.

If the ACLU does stand for free speech that's fine, but remember sometines its best to keep quiet and the ACLU doesn't seem to understand that. Remember the Shouting Fire in a crowded theatre argument?

There are lawsuits going on right now where the ACLU is arguing that Christian Organizations don't have a right to spread their message in public or in government buildings. Christians are mandated by the words of Jesus Christ to "Go and preach the gospel to all nations". Jesus didn't say "but only in Government approved places" That is their first and most important commandment. Any laws that seek to relagate religious expression only to "government approved" places, such as churches or personal homes abridges the rights of Christains to exercise freely their religion which is guaranteed them by the first amendment.
 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Emphasis is on not making a LAW.

Everything else is subject to interpretation -- which generally falls to the court system, acting on case law and precedent. Nothing is simple anymore.

Exercising religion freely isn't guaranteed -- the only guarantee is that Congress shall make no law prohibiting it.
 

Oh, Mark, Bull.

Christian individuals who work in governmebtr buldings have everry right to any mind of personal conversation with any other person that anyone else does. Show me the case that the ACLU , or anyone else has brought, that says otherwise.

Christian organizations, correct, have no such right. Period. Nor should they.

Show me the case. I'll engage it. And I will stand corrected if need be.

One other point: The Great Commission admonsihed us to "go ... into all nations" -- with the Gospel, which is a Gospel of peace, not war, a message of hope, not condemnation, a quiet message, not a bombastic one.

The strongest faith is the one that has NO GOVERNMENT SUPPORT.

Keep. Church. And. State. Separate.

For Christ's sake, and for the sake of his message.

--ER
 

Thanks, B!

Hey, Nick. That redneck was not more conservative than you. He just had values; you had none, really. He just seemed more conservative.

--ER
 

Say ER, you must have pulled the "post comment" bar off of Foul Facts before I could "play". So I'll put under this one which was inspired by Foul Facts.

1.E,R., I didn't know that Buddah was a child of Abraham.
2. Thomas Jefferson might have had trouble with "In God we trust" If you capitalized the "G" in god.
3. Every time FOTF attacks the ACLU donations go up for both oganizations. A truely win win activity.
4. Can anybody diagram the sentences in article 2 of the Constitution?
 

Dr. B has corrected me. On this matter, I was negligent. For that, I extend an apology to the ACLU.

As for fightin' . . . I'll assume that adult does not correspond to 18 years of age (or I'd never remember them all). Instead, I'll count forward from the receipt of my undergrad degree. I'm guessing that state sanctioned bouts don't count(nor do sparring matches). That leaves me with two fights since becoming an adult. The first occurred at a UF Homecoming game a couple of years after graduation - some little frat-boy punk mouthed off to my wife (just a girlfriend then). I shut him up. The second occured not too long after when I told some guy to watch his mouth when ladies were present (we were at restaurant waiting to get in and he was screaming obscenities into his cell phone). He smarted off to me so I landed a jab and a good hard cross, knocking him down, but not out. His phone went flyin'. That's as far as it went, though. One of my buddies grabbed me and the girls and we high-tailed it out of there.

Since then, I guess there have been a few close calls, but no more blows.
 

Pointing out these few instances where the ACLU protected Religious Freedom is like saying "Yeah, He may have raped and killed twenty children, but he once helped an old lady across the street."

The American Criminal Liberties Union is one of the most un-American and destructive forces in America.
Just Today, they talked a Federal Judge into ordering the release of more Abu Graib photos to the world media, further undermining the War on Terror and sullying the worldwide reputation of our Nation, and further emboldening the enemies of America who want to kill American soldiers and American citizens, and those who actively strive for the destruction of our way of life for religious reasons.
The ACLU are not the defenders of freedom that you guys want to make them out to be, but rather the aiders and comforters of our national enemies, both within and without.
I have no use for them.
 

Oh, and for the record, ER...

Jesus was a Theocrat, not a communist, or communalist.
He absolutely WOULD NOT have supported a policy of "Seperation of Church and State..."

Jesus would have told you that God should be the focus and controlling interest of EVERYTHING, including Government.
 

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's.

Isn't there separation here?
 

Let's read this article one more time:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Now change one word:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of business, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
or
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of education, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of drinking, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Now how would you read the last three? What would they mean? In that context what does the first one mean?
 

Tug, re: "Just Today, they talked a Federal Judge into ordering the release of more Abu Graib photos to the world media, further undermining the War on Terror and sullying the worldwide reputation of our Nation..."

Then just today, the ACLU acted in the cause of liberty. Then just today, the ACLU justified its existence.

The horrors of that prison SHOULD be revealed to the word, the myth that this country has ANY moral high ground should be busted, and the reputation of this country, so sullied and degraded by the right-wing freaks in charge of the government, should be paraded before the world. This country should repent of its arrogance before the world. The U.S. reputation sucks, and it only starts with that prison.

As I've said before, the Republicans can't even run their own war right. Immoral. UnAmerican. Shameless.

And I have no idea what Jesus you're talking about. He is for damn sure not the one who left us the Sermon on the Mount.

--ER
 

OK. By changing your one word, you would get:

No state-sponsored business, educational institution, bar or particular brand of booze(respectively). I don't see where these semantics are supposed to lead me. There is still nothing there that indicates a complete separation. If you want to talk context, then examine the context of where this amendment stems - England and their state-sponsored (then, anyway) Anglican Church. This church suppressed the doctrine of any other denomination (or any other religion, for that matter). That's the context from which the first amendment (the first part, anyway) should be taken.
 

Tug said, Pointing out these few instances where the ACLU protected Religious Freedom is like saying "Yeah, He may have raped and killed twenty children, but he once helped an old lady across the street."

Good point on the ACLU. I wish I'd have posted it. I pretty well agree with the rest of the stuff you've written here, too.
 

Pointing out the few instances where the right wing stumbled across some good legislation, good for all the people and not just their rich, multinational, big business, money-worshiping, treasury-busting, homo-hating donors is like saying, "Yeah, they might have raped the earth, pillaged the country's coffers, twisted history to suit their own nefarious aims and done near permanent damage to our reputation aborad, not to mention made a complete and utter jokee to any claims of this being a 'Christian nation,' but they do wave flags and make people feel good."

--ER
 

Full disclosure: ThHis is what assanon posted yesterday that caused me to shut down the other post. This kind of crap will get bounced every time.

--ER

Shoot all members of the ACLU !!!!!!!!!

--
Posted by Anonymous to Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A. at 9/29/2005 04:25:16 PM

Shoot all members of the ACLU

--
Posted by Anonymous to Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A. at 9/29/2005 04:25:37 PM


ACLU: They hate the Cross, They hate the Christ, They hate the USA.

--
Posted by Anonymous to Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A. at 9/29/2005 04:26:52 PM


Why do my postings keep disappearing?

--
Posted by Anonymous to Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A. at 9/29/2005 04:27:18 PM


MOE. RON.
 

"Good legislation" is highly subjective.
 

Which is it ER - are we a Christian nation, or must we have complete separation of church and state? I don't see how the two are compatible.
 

They're not.

It's the Right who claims this is a Christian nation, for the mnost part.

It's the Left, but not just the Left, who insists on separation of church and state.

Besides that, yer smarter than that. "Nation" is one thing, "government" -- that, is, "state" -- is another.

I got a sink to fix. Later.

--ER
 

If this is not a Christian nation, Then what kind of nation is it?

Athiest?

No, of course you aren't saying that, but Jesus said "He who is not with me is against me."

If it isn't a Christian nation then it is an athiest nation, no matter what you want to call it.
 

That makes for an intersting discussion. As a student of history, how often do you actually divorce 'government' from 'nation' in historical context? Not often. The reasons for this are simple - the easiest way to examine a society (or nation) is to look at the sum of its parts - the laws it passes, foreign relations, wars fought, etc. From a macroscopic viewpoint, the nation and the government (or state, if you wish) are one in the same. Seldom do we pay much attention on a microscopic scale - and even then, it can still be very difficult to separtate the government from the people that it rules.

For instance, when we speak of Nazi Germany, we do not consider the average citizens. We think of their government - Hitler, Goerbles, Eichman, etc. We consider their laws, the internment and destruction of the Jews, Slavs, and other 'enemies of the state'. For that time period, very seldom do people disassociate Nazi from German.

The same thing goes on today. We consider England as an extension of Blair and his parliament, France an extension of Chirac. When we think of Russia, we think of a former communist giant.

Usually one only divorces government from nation when said nation is in a flux, or when said government is dysfunctional. Current examples could be Iraq or Darfur. Another time they may be disassociated would be when propaganda is geared up such as in Cuba - the citizens of Cuba are never painted with the same brush as the government led by Castro.

Another way to look at it would be to consider for whom the actions of a government have an affect. If the nation of Iran becomes a nuclear player, all of Iran would be affected by the decision of the government. The entire country would be under the protection of the nuclear umbrella. On the flip side, if a country didn't want Iran to become nuclear, the entire country would be fair game in a conflict. Once again, the nation and the government are joined at the hip. Separation of the two is a tricky concept. History would simply record that the nation of Iran became nuclear, making no note of the government's role. That role is just assumed.
 

Mark, have a nother cup of coffee, OK?

This a multicultural nation, with a majority of Christian people (by name), ewith a secular government.

This is no more an theist nation than a Christian one. (If it were a Christian nation, we should change the name to Laodicea).

Back to the sink. Had to look up something on WebMD. Getting. Old. Sucks.

--ER
 

I thought you were an engineer, Rem. Whatja do? Minor in polsc and history? Very good. Let's see how interesting it is to others. "City desk! I got a story for 1A!" ... and then I will fix the sink or Dr. ER will kick my butt.

--ER
 

Hey ER, you didn't repost this: "ACLU = SWINE, swine who should be shot. They are nothing more than lousy rats who hate this country and Christians".
 

The A.C.L.U Really Stands for
Awry Corrupt League
Of the Unconcerned
 

Caught another one. This trap works!