=-=-=-=-=-=-= To: Robert Lee Message #: 5213 >5639 Subject: Sturm

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

=-=-=-=-=-=-= To: Robert Lee Message #: 5213 >5639 From: Mister Zen Submitted: 01 Aug 92 18:06:00 Subject: Sturm und Drang Status: Public Received: No Group: CULT_WATCH (20) >What your position has achieved is a gutting of the First >Amendment wherein is specifically stated: "Congress shall make >*NO* law regarding establishing a religion or prohibiting the >free exercise thereof." See my recent post regarding the 1st Ammendment. You seem to consistantly refuse to accept that there are MANY limitations to the Ammendments. If I were required by my faith to murder you, I'd still go to jail for it. Do you want that changed? Your argument says you do. I've made this point several times, why do you refuse to address it? Gee, could it be because you're WRONG? >You cannot be a libertarian as your position denies the free >exercise of religious activities... So who said I was a libertarian? You just love to bandy those accusations about, don't you? Shhh, don't tell anyone, but I'm no libertarian - I'm a crypto-fascist-anarchist-republican- neo-marxist/leninist-brownshirt-wobblie-born again-bull moose bully-boy with a few left leanings. Don't tell, OK? >in fact, your position requires that citizens must support with >their tax money institutions which purposefully exclude and often >denigrate citizens' religion... Puh-leeze! My position says nothing about denigrating another's religion. Why do you always fall back on making stuff up or veering off on another tangent when you run out of ammunition? >taxation without representation, no? No. You know as well as I do that the issue of "no taxation without representation" refers to the governed being taxed without having elected representatives to vote on taxation issues. The Boston Tea Party mean anything to you? Sheesh. MZ> >On public property these may be done. If these are done on MZ> >someone's private property without their permission it is a MZ> >matter of trespassing and criminal destruction of property. MZ> MZ> I agree. >You agree that parading a swastika can be done on public property >but prayer or religious displays cannot be done on public >property. Read it again. I agreed to no such thing. You really need to have your eyes examined, Robert. >Your position is untenable. How would you know? You are apparently incapable of determining what my position is. >You are not the libertarian you suggest you are. What kind of a stupid ejaculation is that? May I say, then, that you are not the Nazi you suggest you are. My stars and garters, Robert, get a grip. >The "de jure" assault has been specifically and consistently >directed at Christianity since the early 1960s. Off we go, into the wild blue yonder... facts, please. Your paranoid ravings are getting out of hand. I appreciate a good rant as much as the next Pink Boy, but what the bloody @#$% are you talking about? >By "de jure" it has been criminalized to pray at a public >meeting; Really? I must have missed that one. Do tell. I thought you were just foaming at the mouth about how Congress starts their sessions with a prayer. Can we finally arrest those scoundrels? >it has been criminalized to display Christian symbols of any >kind. Again, I stand agog. Apparently, the city and county of Denver missed that one when they display the Nativity Scene on the Courthouse steps every December. And will I be arrested if I hang a cross on my front door? Bzzzzzt, sorry, wrong answer! >None of these activities, i.e., prayer, public displays, symbols, >etc. have ever hurt anyone whatsoever. R.U. Sirius? Are you telling me that the Klan burning a cross (you know, the Christian symbol) on a man's lawn is not injurious to him in any way? Are you telling me that Jewish children accosted and assaulted in Public Schools at the turn of the century in this country for refusing to take part in mandatory Christian prayers was not hurtful to them? Are you telling me that Athiest children publicly spanked for refusing to take the Pledge of Allegiance were not hurt? Are you a complete nutter? >It will eventually be criminalized to be a Christian at all. According to whom, precisely? >What cannot be done "de facto" is usually done politically via >"de jure." Another off-the-wall statement with absolutly no basis in fact, or even in reason, for that matter. MZ> >Read the Humanist Manifesto I and II for policy objectives. MZ> MZ> You made the assertation - you defend it. >I did. Go read the Humanist Manifestos which very specifically >declare their antiChristianity. No, you most emphatically did NOT! If you wish to make the point that the HM is anti-Christian, you are going to have to quote to me the line and verse upon which you hang your assertation. I will not do your homework for you, sir. That would be the same as my telling to go and read the bible for proof that Jesus said we are all Gods. You would hardly accept that statement without proof, now would you? MZ> >Separation of Church and State is in the Soviet Union's MZ> >constitution and in the United Nations Charter but is *NOT* in MZ> >the United States Constitution. MZ> MZ> Doesn't have to be in the Constitution to be law. >Sounds like something Adolf Eickman would say. When you don't have an argument, you just throw in a misspelled reference to a dead Nazi. Why not just admit that you've reached the end of your capacity to reason? Statements like that have the same effect. MZ> I'd really like to see you speak directly to this issue. I MZ> am publically stating that Christians are doing these MZ> aforementioned horrible things. Defend, please. MZ> MZ> And I'm still waiting. >You assume that those who engage in criminal activities, e.g., >firebombing abortion clinics are Christians. Prove to me that >they are. Oh, here's my chance. YOU go prove that they are Christians. YOU go and read every arrest and conviction record of O.R. members nationwide, and then you'll see. Oh, not willing to do that, eh? That's OK, I've done your work for you. Stand by for your proof. >Civil disobedience, e.g., sit-down strikes, passive resistance, >public gatherings and speeches are all quite defensible. Yep, and I defend them. I do not defend the illegal assaults, threats, bombings, and so on that seem to accompany Operation Rescue from town to town. >Since 1973 there have been over 30,000,000 babies killed... 4,000 >every day. I have no idea where you got your numbers, but let's dissect your emotionally-loaded little statement anyway, shall we? First, you conveniently leave out the fact that there were many abortions prior to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. Your statement implies that no woman ever had an abortion before then. Wrong. Second, although you may refer to a fetus as a baby, calling it one doesn't make it one. The courts and the medical establishment have consistantly called a fetus a fetus. Your attempt to inject emotion via the symbology of calling a fetus a baby is herewith rejected. Third, even assuming for a moment that a fetus is a baby, your statement means little. Medical science tells us that over three-quarters of ALL pregnancies are spontaneously aborted. Using your logic, that means all those miscarriages were actually babies being killed, whether accidentally or not. So, for every man, woman and child in the US today, 3 times that many babies have been killed in our lifetimes. Hogwash. Fourth, your statement assumes that I am in favor of abortion. I have made no such statement. I have simply stated that so-called Christians have been performing illegal acts while demonstrating at abortion clinics. Just because I disagree with the methods Christians use to get their message across does not mean that I am pro-choice. >Can you justify 30,000,000 deaths? That's one of those "Have you stopped beating your wife?" questions. If the question had validity, then there would be no right answer. But, the question has no validity. Its just chock-full of emotional content and no substance. Robert, just so you know, I still have the same agenda that I had the last time we tangled. I fully intend to make you back up your ludicrous accusations, not because I think I'll ever manage to get you to screw your head back on straight, but because I'm fearful of the border-line loonies your brand of paranoia could infect. Given enough doses of your brand of silliness, they might take it into their feeble little heads to grab a gun and put a stop to the awful, terrible, "New Age Conspiracy" garbage you espouse. Then I'll have to stop writing and start shooting, and I'd really hate to have to do that. So, do let's try to stick to the points, eh? I'll do my best to answer your questions, at least the ones of them that don't take a sudden left turn at the astral plane. You answer mine if you can, and can you at least try not to descend into the brand of inanity you're currently engaged in? Yours in Bob, ===[---Mister-Zen--- "In Charge of the Conspiracy since 1961" ---


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank