Can Christian Electronic Designers Design?
in [Design]
|
From: RogerN on 22 Apr 2010 06:58 "Jon Kirwan" <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote in message news:dtovs5tomhjhbeqvvv8bnofjfm3tncnn9b(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 22:42:30 -0700, D from BC > <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: > >>In article <GPmdnWflYYOV_lPWnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, >>regor(a)midwest.net says... >>> It's not a national Christian prayer day, it's national prayer day. It >>> wasn't considered unconstitutional in 1975, or when Washington called >>> for it >>> in 1795, or any other time in the history of the United States until >>> some >>> libtarded woman judge decided it was unconstitutional in 2010. What >>> does it >>> mean that the same founding father that penned the very words >>> "separation of >>> church and state" attended church services in a government building, >>> gave >>> money to missionaries, and had a military band play in the church >>> service? >>> It means that libtards are changing the meaning to mean what it never >>> meant. >>> The constitutional words are missing, separation of church and state >>> isn't >>> in the constitution. Libtards have taken the words that congress shall >>> make >> >>'The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the >>Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States >>Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause >>together read:' >>'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or >>prohibiting the free exercise thereof...' >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment >> >>Making a law that respects an establishment of religion means there >>won't be silly laws like fining/jailing guys with an illegal >>uncircumcision. >>Nor will congress make silly laws such as prohibiting grotesque figures >>of a dead guy on a cross. > > None of this matters to Roger. Worse, so far as I can tell, > he's actually ignorant and doesn't care to change any of > that. He hasn't read the decision, but feels totally free to > name-call and label people "libtards" (as well as the judge, > too.) This is exactly what happened when the 1952 law was > first passed, as well. People were labeled communist, anti- > American, and so on if they didn't get in line and support > the bill. > > Billy Graham gave a speech in Washington DC and said he > wanted "the leaders of our country today kneeling before the > Almighty God in prayer." Percy Priest, the next day, > introduced the bill into the House. In Congress, opposition > to the bill was quite literally (not just by inference, but > explicitly with words saying so) equated with being a > communist and anti-American. > > We all know about that particular sad period of McCarthyism > in our history. > > I gather Roger feels perfectly good, though. He doesn't seem > to care about outsiders of his religion. Has no empathy for > them. Hates them, I think. He is unable to follow Jesus' > admonishment, as well, about hating. He is very much like > Billy Graham in many ways, I grow to imagine now. > > Which reminds me of a true story that happened to my wife. > > Bill Graham is a man I will remember till the day I die. My > wife is a Christian (yes, that's a fact) and yet she was > almost killed in Chicago because of Billy Graham. She was > opposed to the Vietnam War and that was a crime in Billy's > eyes. > > She and a few others came to one of Billy's rallies wearing > t-shirts that spoke their opposition to the war -- a belief > born of their Christian love and beliefs. There was a cruel > moment early on in his sermon when Billy turned to the > several thousand in front of him and said, "There are some > people here who may cause trouble." He then looked squarely > at this tiny group of about ten people wearing t-shirts > against the war, and added, "When the time comes, we know > what to do." > > She tells me they had no idea they were causing trouble being > there. They were expressing their political beliefs with > these t-shirts and at the same time they were also expressing > their religious beliefs by being there and listening. But > they didn't plan on being noticed that much -- about like > what you might expect if you went to a fair with a political > t-shirt, perhaps. Certainly, they didn't expect his personal > and public attention to them. > > The sermon was about blood and the bible. A long, long > discussion about blood and blood and blood. She and her > friends grew increasingly frightened as the sermon wore on. > When the sermon was over, and people started to leave, the > crowd immediately (right outside the gates) turned on them > and a number of them were beaten up and very seriously > injured. > > He knew exactly what he was asking for. > > It will NOT be forgotten. > > In any case, Roger is acting in ways that provide much of > what we need to understand about why the establishment clause > exists. Harsh name-calling, harsh and vile judgments, > denigration of others, etc. It's why that clause was in the > FIRST amendment. It was that important. Luckily, folks then > were smart enough to figure this issue out well enough to > know how to design something to help us live together > > As the judge mentions in her decision, which I still assume > Roger hasn't read and will never read, in Sep. 1774, John Jay > and John Rutledge (both of whom would one day become Chief > Justices of the Supreme Court) objected to the idea of > opening sessions with prayer on the grounds that the Congress > was "so divided in religious Sentiments that we could not > join in the same Act of Worship." > > As I've cited before, in 1785 when the interim Continental > Congress was desperately struggling with the details of > surveying the land they'd won in the war with Britain and > trying to determine how land in townships would be used. The > proposal to require one square mile for religious purposes, > in addition to one square mile for educational purposes, was > unable to pass. Not enough of the members wanted the > religious entanglements and that part of the bill had to be > removed before it could be passed. > > The National Day of Prayer is a symbol of division, not unity > (see the May 12th, 2007 editorial in Albany Times Union, by > Matt Cherry, titled, "Using day of prayer to divide us," for > more on that point. There is no valid secular purpose, it is > nothing short of lending government support to religion, it > is divisive, it splits us up instead of bringing us together, > it causes people to be called communists, anti-American, or > worse, and is everything that is wrong about mixing up > religion and state. > > The judge showed courage and wisdom and intelligence in the > decision she wrote. Roger should at least read it before > spouting off. I read multiple pages and skipped to near the end. It was late at night and I have to get up early for work, so I didn't read the entire 60 pages. In 60 pages you can do a lot of spinning and twisting. I have listened the the lawyer that is appealing the judges decision, he's on the radio when I'm driving home from work. If I could read the decision while driving to/from work (about an hour) I would but I haven't found it safe to try to read and drive. > I don't expect him to agree and I wouldn't want him to, in > fact. But there is no point debating with an uneducated > viewpoint where he won't even listen to other points of view > and consider them and deal with them, fairly. If he doesn't > show the least willingness to do that much, why should he > expect others to listen to his points made without education > or knowledge or information -- nothing other than visceral > bone-jarring emotional responses is NOT the way to respect > others or learn about their points of view so that they can > be addressed. > > Let him first read the decision. Until then, there is > nothing to say to him about this decision and his violent, > cruel, ignorant name-calling. It's just a child ranting and > being stupidly stubborn about being uninformed and uncaring > about others, besides. > > Jon What really offended me is that after years hearing decisions that the Ten Commandments must be removed, or a nativity scene can't be in a public park, on and on and on. After years of the ACLU throwing God out of this country, when the terrorists flew planes into the world trade center, they had the nerve to ask "where was God?". How stupid is it to throw God out and then turn around and ask where he was during the 9/11 attack? To me, the national day of prayer to an Atheist should mean as much as a sign saying "Eat Healthy" to someone that doesn't want to eat healthy. I expect this country to turn against God even more than it already has, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't resist it. I see what the Bible says about the end times being fulfilled, evil triumphing over good, but I still want to stand on the side of God. You know when you hook an oscilloscope probe up and not the ground, the trace is all over the place, that's how liberalism is, they have no ground reference, no solid foundation, they make the constitution mean what it never meant, declare thing unconstitutional that the founding fathers practiced. This legislation is just another example of the fall of the USA, no army destroyed us, we were destroyed from within. I intend to read the Judges decision as time allows, but it takes me some time to read 60 pages, I'm not a speed reader and find much of what was read to be uninteresting. RogerN
From: John Fields on 22 Apr 2010 07:40 On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:23:31 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: >In article <plqus5d82erhcvjojrbtc70d31qb5a602a(a)4ax.com>, >jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... >> >Even if true, God is ridiculous by doing nothing. >> >> --- >> Tou have no clue what God is or isn't doing, and it's _you_ who's >> ridiculous in expecting God to live up to _your_ expectations. >> > >The bible has God doing lots of things in the bible. >Now God does nothing.. That's a strange change. --- After you've done the big stuff, like create a universe and people it, what's to do besides maintenance??? Besides, God isn't limited to existing in our time and space, so He may well be doing stuff that you couldn't possibly get your puny mind around. --- >Perhaps it's the presence of HD camcorders and digital cameras and cell >phone cameras. >There's more evidence that God does nothing compared to evidence that >God does something. --- Nonsense; there's absolutely no evidence that God does nothing, while even the tough old Catholic church accepts that miracles do occur. --- >Prayer doesn't work especially for zero probability events. --- How probable is it that a dead man will come back to life? --- >There's been no recent defiances of physics such burning bushes, parted >seas and killing of 1st born. --- Sure there have. Just for starters, we have the Pioneer and galactic rotation anomalies and the unexplained increasing rate of expansion of the universe: http://www.the-origin.org/Summary%20Presentation.pdf Besides, we could be in the very midst of superluminal phenomena and never be able to detect it. --- >No amputees have had their legs or arms grow back. --- That's not God's fault; read Matthew 17:20. --- >Christian engineers are ridiculous in naming what's unknown as God. --- Since you don't know what the unknown _is_, you're ridiculous in claiming that what's unknown _isn't_ God. JF
From: John Fields on 22 Apr 2010 08:16 On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 18:36:11 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: >In article <plqus5d82erhcvjojrbtc70d31qb5a602a(a)4ax.com>, >jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... >> >It's pointless to pray to an irresponsible God. >> >> --- >> How would _you_ know? >> --- >> > >Pray for malaria to go away instantly. >If nothing happens, it's pointless to pray to an irresponsible God. --- Ask daddy for a car and if he says no, *poof* no daddy --- >God is responsible for the existence of malaria. --- And quinine. --- >People didn't make malaria and people did not make a supernatural angel >that made malaria. >God is evil in neglecting to eliminate malaria. --- Where does it say that our lives on Earth are guaranteed to be cushy by a God who'll satisfy our every whim? --- >Christian engineers are ridiculous in believing prayer does something. --- And you're just plain ridiculous. JF
From: D from BC on 23 Apr 2010 14:25 In article <m7GdnU3iU5XX4UzWnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, regor(a)midwest.net says... > > "Jon Kirwan" <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote in message > news:gvn2t5tne7vnv77r1vh0gl8rfb3g2sdjog(a)4ax.com... > > Roger, when you say that you've read the judge's decision, > > we'll talk about it. Until then, I'm not interested. There > > is a lot of detail in the 66 page decision that needs to be > > addressed between us and there is no point talking until > > you've brought yourself up to speed on at least that much. > > > > Calling her names isn't the right way to deal with this. > > Dealing with her points would be interesting to me. > > > > Repeating your opinion before informing yourself and > > addressing your opinions to her statements, or calling her > > names (or others) isn't interesting to me. > > > > Jon > > I have to play your way or you won't discuss it. What I read of the judges > decision (several pages till about 11:30PM, have to get up at 5AM) was well > reasoned but what I wrote are the facts totally independent of the judges > decision. > > > RogerN If it's a costume party, one wears a costume. If it's a wedding, one often dresses formal. If it's a monster truck show, one can put on a Metallica shirt. If its a day at the beach, it's shorts, bikinis or nothing at all. If dressing for reality, it's not good to put on imaginary clothes. -- D from BC British Columbia
From: RogerN on 22 Apr 2010 21:07
"D from BC" <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote in message news:MPG.263a8c8a79a94bf59897f2(a)209.197.12.12... > In article <qPCdnbj85o5HWk3WnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, > regor(a)midwest.net says... >> I'm amazed that you can get so much wrong. If you were an electronics >> designer, you would probably still be stuck on power supplies. Oops, >> sorry! >> If anyone could get to Heaven the old testament way, by following the >> law, >> then they would be superior to me, because I sure couldn't. A Christian >> is >> such a pathetic person that they don't deserve to go to Heaven, they get > > It's not important where Christians go. > >> there by riding in on the coat tail of Jesus. I guess you overlooked >> that >> information? Quite frankly, if I were an Atheist I would be much better >> at >> it than you. But then again, you are kind of like a rocket scientist >> that >> is working up to Estes level 2 (but failing miserably) :-) >> >> RogerN >> > Running low on the rant level? Where's Dan? I need a "You're Delusional"! RogerN |