End Woman’s suffrage!!!


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – End Woman’s suffrage!!!

End Woman’s suffrage!!!
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

Our biggest mistake as men was allowing women the right to vote. What man in his right mind would have allowed that to pass. I think there must have been voter fraud in that injustice, some tinkering with the ballet boxes perhaps??

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

10-16-2006 02:41 AM

Re: End Woman’s suffrage!!!
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
If you put it that way you gotta go all the way and not allow uneducated people to vote. Not a bad idea imo the most crucial task one could make in a democratic country is not beeing taught and that is how to cast a vote. Who are the candidates, what are their promises and most importantly whom are they beein backed by financially and politically and what does that mean for me. It is strange such basic things are not beeing taught. Imo only who can proove to be able to cast a vote in his best interest should be licensed to vote. Of course the gain of this license must be mandatory content of a basic education.

10-16-2006 06:24 AM

Re: End Woman’s suffrage!!!
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

You really are one of those religious nuts, aren’t you?

10-16-2006 10:22 AM

Re: End Woman’s suffrage!!!
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
On the clips LOL. Also more proof why women need the supervision of a male adult. You think its funny but thats more or less how they got female votes to push anti male laws.

10-16-2006 10:54 AM

Re: End Woman’s suffrage!!!
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

I loved the man show with the original hosts, but when a complete idiot cites it as a basis of fact, it only shows he is batsh*t crazy.  Yes, the law is predisposed to favor wome, that is obvious but whining about it does nothing.  Just protect yourself by:  having a prenuptial agreement, not getting married unless you intend to have children, exercising good judgement and not listening to anyone speaking who is holding the bible or the American flag to legitimize their bullsh*t position.

10-16-2006 11:22 AM

Re: End Woman’s suffrage!!!
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

moneyneversleep wrote:
I loved the man show with the original hosts, but when a complete idiot cites it as a basis of fact, it only shows he is batsh*t crazy.  Yes, the law is predisposed to favor wome, that is obvious but whining about it does nothing.  Just protect yourself by:  having a prenuptial agreement, not getting married unless you intend to have children, exercising good judgement and not listening to anyone speaking who is holding the bible or the American flag to legitimize their bullsh*t position.

Dude stuff a sock in your mounth, would yeah?

Look at woman’s voting record, you know, and I know, they vote for more social services, which leads to higher taxes. They choose security over freedoms and liberty, and in general they will pick the better looking candidate over the uglier one.

Ask any woman you know this, “What are the major headlines in the Newspaper today?” 9 times out of 10 they won’t have a clue. You talk about bat s*it brain crazy, there you have it!!!

They let women vote for a reason, because she will vote 4 bigger government. A woman is easily manipulated.

If we hadn’t let them vote, you would have more of your god, to spend, and marry, and bury with you when you stop breathing. Taxes would still be at 3%, this country would have leaders that care about our national sovernty, not the international bankers, educated in the NWO at Oxford and other elite schools.

Next on woman’s agendacide, are Tax funded day care (expect the divorce rate to increase as women will need men less, and less, and less, yet their bastardized criminal children will need their fathers to not become criminals), tax funded abortion, and Tax funded universal health care. Look at many country’s in Europe, high taxes, high unemployment, huge drug using population. Certainly you can use a Calculator Mr. Knowitall!!! Do the math big mouth!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

10-16-2006 01:39 PM

Re: End Woman’s suffrage!!!
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

You are far more easily led than most women, just wave a bible and you will start salivating like pavlov’s dog.

10-16-2006 03:06 PM

Re: End Woman’s suffrage!!!
porkchops38
Regular Contributor
porkchops38

moneyneversleep wrote:
You are far more easily led than most women, just wave a bible and you will start salivating like pavlov’s dog.

If bibles were such great tools to manipulate the masses, then Hitler, Pol pot, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, etc., would have been handing out bibles instead of burning them. You make this too easy with your assinine assertions. You really sound like you’ve been raped by a priest or something similar, if so then get psychological help or go sue the priest/church that raped you, instead of ranting on here like a lunatic. The United States was founded by bible lovers who couldn’t open their mouths without quoting the bible, like Patrick Henry for example:

March 23, 1775.

“No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not [Jer. 5:21], the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss [Matt. 26:48]. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us [2Chron. 32:8]. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone [Eccl. 9:11]; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace [Jer. 6:14]. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle [Matt. 20:6]? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” -Patrick Henry

10-16-2006 06:19 PM

Re: End Woman’s suffrage!!!
porkchops38
Regular Contributor
porkchops38
As you can see (unless you are intellectually impaired), bible lovers like Patrick Henry don’t make good slaves (or good Dhimmis). Patrick Henry gleans all kinds of notions of personal “freedom” and “liberty” from the bible. This is why dictators don’t hand out bibles, they burn them.

10-16-2006 06:29 PM

Re: End Woman’s suffrage!!!
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Thankfully, most of our founding fathers were secular humanists who directly put the separation of church and state within the constitution, as they feared it’s undue influence, as we have seen for the past 5+ years.  Yes, religious nuts are easily led.  Just like you.

10-17-2006 10:28 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – End Woman’s suffrage!!!

Re: End Woman’s suffrage!!!
porkchops38
Regular Contributor
porkchops38

moneyneversleep wrote:
Thankfully, most of our founding fathers were secular humanists who directly put the separation of church and state within the constitution, as they feared it’s undue influence, as we have seen for the past 5+ years. Yes, religious nuts are easily led. Just like you.

Secular humanists? LMAO! That’s too assinine an assertion to even warrant a reply.

You want to accuse others of being “easily led”, yet you’ve made it clear enough that all one has to do to lead you around by the noose is wave a ben franklin in your face. You don’t speak with any credibility. You’re just pizzing in the wind.

I know it’s not my duty to educate ignorami such as yourself, but here’s some proof that you’re a buffoon who should not be allowed to vote, as you’re brain-dead regarding the US Constitition.

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

The election of Jefferson-America’s first Anti-Federalist President-elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.

Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:

“Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.” (1)

However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for “the free exercise of religion”:

“Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights.” (2)

In short, the inclusion of protection for the “free exercise of religion” in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone’s religious practice caused him to “work ill to his neighbor.”

Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:

[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution.Kentucky Resolution, 1798 (3)

“In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government.” Second Inaugural Address, 1805 (4)

“[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary.” Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 (5)

“I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises.” Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 (6)

Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:

“It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion.” (7)

Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:

“[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly.” (8)

Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.

Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:

“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. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and 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 and State. 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 and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem.” (9)

Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.

By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.” (10) That is, “natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.

So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:

“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?” (11)

Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case-the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today’s Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson’s entire letter and then concluded:

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added) (12)

That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”:

[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. (13)

With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government “to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.”

That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People ), identified actions into which-if perpetrated in the name of religion-the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.

Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were “subversive of good order” and were “overt acts against peace.” However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospel”-whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.

Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given-as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter-words clearly divorced from their context-have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.

For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the “power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.

One further note should be made about the now infamous “separation” dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment-as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.

In summary, the “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.

Endnotes:

1. Letter of October 7, 1801, from Danbury (CT) Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, from the Thomas Jefferson Papers Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.

2. Id.

3. The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, editor (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), p. 977; see also Documents of American History, Henry S. Cummager, editor (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1948), p. 179.

4. Annals of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852, Eighth Congress, Second Session, p. 78, March 4, 1805; see also James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.

5. Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.

6. Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, pp. 103-104, to the Rev. Samuel Millar on January 23, 1808.

7. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. VIII, p. 112-113, to Noah Webster on December 4, 1790.

8. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800.

9. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.

10. Richard Hooker, The Works of Richard Hooker (Oxford: University Press, 1845), Vol. I, p. 207.

11. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237.

12. Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145, 164 (1878).

13. Reynolds at 163.

10-17-2006 09:06 PM

Re: End Woman’s suffrage!!!
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

You probably don’t realize it, but few of us who have brains are reading such long windy posts. Experience shows that when someone with an irrational argument goes on for thousands of words, it’s just enervating to expose ourselves to the endless bushwa. There is no more point in listening to an hour talk that amounts to nothing rational or sensible than to listening to five seconds of it. Zero is zero in any degree.

Good sense (what an awsome concept) informs the intelligence that modern politicians are not the epitomes of religious piety that they MUST pretend in order to survive American political life. Do you think it was different two hundred years ago? Not likely.

And, there is this awkward fact: The leftist, liberal revolutionaries (yes, they were) who struggled to create this nation had to had to believe that the old European system of monarchy was bunk – specifically, that part of it which claimed a god given right to rule over the peasants. If you don’t believe in that, you’re a secularist or deist, or whatever, but you sure ain’t a fundamentalist bible nut.

10-17-2006 10:36 PM

Re: End Woman’s suffrage!!!
porkchops38
Regular Contributor
porkchops38
It’s very logical post. You’re saying it’s long-winded, probably has more to do with the fact that the dissertation invades the native lands of your mind with truths that are foreign to it. Like most mind-numbed robots, rather than allow the foreign truth penetrate the native lands, you rebel against it to preserve your native customs no matter how assinine you inherently know them to be. You’ve written long-winded posts before, but I guess your long-winded posts are just riddled with truth, heh? LMAO!

“they MUST pretend”

“had to had to believe”

These are the words of one who is grasping at straws when some foreign truth invades their native lands. It’s quite entertaining for me to watch you grasp at straws. I wished they woulda coulda woulda shoulda. LMAO!

Jefferson was such a religious zealot, there’s no doubt about that. Jefferson even wrote his own bible, I think it was called “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”. The only thing is that Jefferson didn’t believe in miracles, so he omitted them from his bible. If Jefferson was trying to score political points by espousing religious ideals, then he failed miserably because running around espousing that Jesus didn’t perform any miracles is not going to score brownie points with Christians — only a moron would assert otherwise. Although Jefferson claimed himself to be a “real Christian”, I don’t think anyone took his religious ideas seriously, not then or now, that’s why we only remember his ideas in the political sphere and not his religious zealotry.

10-17-2006 11:55 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: