 | |
 | | | | Sep 07, 2010 - 03:37 AM | |  |  | |  | View all articles for this topic.
| So THIS is what good religious people do? |  This is taken from an actual event occurring in Louisiana, and reported in local news-
Police Name New Suspect In Cult-Like Church Ring
May 22, 2005
UPDATED: 12:08 pm CDT May 23, 2005
PONCHATOULA, La. -- Authorities have gathered new evidence from the home of a former pastor accused of leading a church group in "cult-like" rituals involving the sexual abuse of children and animals.
Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff's spokeswoman Laura Covington said authorities seized cars belonging to three of the eight arrested suspects in the case and also searched the home of former Hosanna Church pastor Louis Lamonica on Friday night.
Also Sunday, authorities issued an arrest warrant for Trish Pierson, bringing the number of suspects to nine.
Covington said Pierson is the wife of Allen R. Pierson, a 46-year-old man who lived in an apartment on the church complex and has been accused of raping a girl who was nine or 10. Covington would not say what charges Trish Pierson was wanted on. Covington said detectives believed Trish Pierson was somewhere in the southwestern region of the country on Saturday.
Authorities have said more arrests are possible, and the details of the case have become increasingly graphic.
Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff Daniel Edwards said members of a Ponchatoula church carried out the practices for years as part of a devil-worshipping ritual involving cat blood.
Note: The above excerpts are the SOLE property of: "www.theneworleanschannel.com"
DragonzLeyr makes no claims to the above referenced material.
How SICK can you get? Another example of brainwashing by the church, indeed! YUCK! |
|
| Rants: On the third day... god created idiots???? |
Lately, there has been quite the scandal in the news concerning the Evolution vs. Creationism issue. On one hand, we have science, which is basing its arguments on historical findings, carbon dating, discovery of fossilized and frozen remains of Homo Erectus, Cromagnon, Neanderthal, and even older decendants of man, and the study of the actual formation of new stars and planets through the use of modern scientific tools.
On the other hand, we have the church, the die hard conservative religious right wingers, and the parents who fill the minds of their offspring with whatever they feel best fits their own needs and what they believe most benefits the upcoming lives of their children.
The question here is, at what point does it stop being helpful, and actually become a hinderance? At what point does reality become nothing more than a dream and the benefit of the child become nothing but a lesson in falsehood, make believe, and simply shadowing them in a fantasy world?
I recently read a news article in which parents, teachers, and school officials were putting stickers on biology books regarding evolution as nothing more than a theory, and advising their children to regard it as such in spite of the evidence presented to them through science and discovery. The problem arises due to the fact that if these people admit any legitimacy to the scientific proof found through research, they in turn decimate the whole stance they fight to support with the creationism hypothesis and the bible's account of the genesis of man. They willingly toss aside common sense and science to hold fast to their faith no matter how ridiculous or impossible it may be. They grasp their bibles firmly in both hands, literally clenching until their knuckles turn white, and fervently voice their disbelief that the bible could possibly, just possibly be nothing more than a book, a set of texts penned to give a false sense of hope. A book created to establish guidelines, rules if you will, towards a moral standard with hopes that people will base their lives on them to maintain some sense of order and conformity in their day to day lives. To disregard the hypothesis of creationism, no matter how profoundly silly it may appear, would in effect void the validity of the book they grasp so dearly while professing it as the infallable word of the almighty creator.
They claim that the book is the absolute source, the final word of god! Anyone not in 100 percent agreement is shunned as a blasphemer, doomed to the Lords vengeance and wrath, condemned to eternity in the firey pit of darkness and despair forever. They turn their backs on science and knowledge without a second thought, and resort to blind faith as an escape from reality. They crawl back into the shell they have created to shield themselves and their children from the realization that the world is not perfect, and life itself is a struggle just to survive. They do not wish their children to know just how fragile life is. Shielded from the knowledge that at the blink of an eye, life as we know it could be ended. They refuse to accept the fact that from the point of conception, our lives are ending. With every passing second the clock is ticking away towards the day we all die. Nobody knows how long this life may last, be it years, or even a matter of hours or seconds, life still approaches the ultimate end... death.
Note: The obsession in religion encouraged me to write this piece. While this is only my personal view, my hopes are that the readers may take a moment to examine their own lives for signs of the sanctimonious obsession that is being displayed in the world today, and to identify these traits and try to retain some logic when examining ANY interpretation on religion as a whole. Although I try to maintain a sense of humor in the text, these issues are VERY real, and can be VERY detrimental to life and family. |
|
| Thanks for the exposure! | I found this while searching for links on my site... Scan down to the BOLD text...
PTh 763/766: PREACHING TO THE POSTMODERN MIND - ... Week Two: Read the ?Note to Christians? found at http://www.dragonzleyr.net/Q/ntcprint2LS.html. How might you respond to someone like this? ...
http://www.acts.twu.ca/files/PTH766.doc
Here is the text from the page-
----------------------------------------------------------
PTh 766 – Preaching and the Emerging Church
Trinity Western University
Cross Listed with TWU MAL: ALDR 644 – Communicating with an Emerging Culture
September 2004 – November 2004 – delivered online
Credit: 3 semester hours
Course Instructor: Kenton C. Anderson, Ph.D.
Description
The course will describe the impact of postmodern culture upon the theory and practice of biblical preaching. Further, the course will examine emerging models of church and the place of preaching within these emergent churches. The course intends to help the student develop skill in the persuasive, public communication of the Bible, suitable for such emergent postmodern contexts.
Objectives
Assuming an acceptable level of interest, aptitude, and diligence, this course will lead the student to…
…understand the implications of postmodern culture for preaching today;
…discover and understand emergent church models;
…develop skill in forms of persuasive, public communication of the Bible suitable for emergent postmodern contexts.
Textbooks
Anderson, Kenton C. Preaching with Conviction: Communicating with
Postmodern Listeners. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2001.
Preaching with Integrity. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2003.
Kimball, Dan. The Emerging Church: Vintage Christianity for New Generations.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.
Webber, Robert E. The Younger Evangelicals: Facing the Challenges of the
New World. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002.
Website and Technical Matters
The course will be facilitated as an online learning experience found at www. ecourses.twu.ca. Students will need to obtain a password and username in order to gain access to the course website. Technical support is available through Trinity Western University’s Global Learning Connections support team. Students will be given a disc with digital lectures offered in Quicktime format. Quicktime can be downloaded from the internet for free. Students should copy the files onto their hard drives before attempting to view them.
Assignments and Evaluation
Discussion Exercises & Forum – 25% - due 8am PST each Monday
Each Monday morning, the professor will post a discussion exercise. The student will access the exercise, follow the directions and then a 400 word reflective comment according to the unique stipulations of each assignment. Students are expected to read all comments posted by classmates and are encouraged to interact with each other’s thoughts.
Culture Research Paper – 25% - due the last day of September.
The student will read the Webber textbook, view the digital lectures, read the professor’s paper, Postmodern Culture and complete the assignment described. This assignment will be in the nature of a research paper, 2500-3000 words in length. Complete expectations for this project will be integrated in the professor’s paper.
Church Exploration Case Studies – 25% - due the last day of October.
The student will read the Kimball textbook, view the digital lectures, read the professor’s paper, Emerging Church and complete the assignment described. This assignment will require the student to engage in a series of explorations and interviews with emerging church leaders. The product of this work will be a reflection paper, 1000-1500 words in length. Complete expectations for this project will be integrated in the professor’s paper.
Communication Preaching Project – 25% - due last day of November.
The student will read the two Anderson textbooks, view the digital lectures, read the professor’s paper, Biblical Communication and complete the assignment described. This assignment will require the student to preach a persuasive biblical “sermon” that conforms to the professor’s model and which the student can show to be suitable for emergent postmodern contexts. Total length for this assignment will be 2500-3000 words. Complete expectations for this project will be integrated in the professor’s paper. Please note, that a “sermon” in this context will describe a persuasive, public presentation of biblical truth.
Note: The professor will be available at all times via email (kenta@twu.ca) or via the telephone (604 888-7511 x3864). All assignments must be written according to accepted patterns of academic form and style, preferably using Microsoft Word or Appleworks. Students using other programs should check with the professor before submitting. Major errors in form and style may result in grade deductions. Late assignments will be penalized. Grade ranges will follow program stipulations for MAL students. For ACTS students, the ranges shall be as follows: “A” – 90-100%; “B” – 75-89%; “C” – 60-74%.
Syllabus Appendix – Discussion Forum Items
Students are required to visit the class website and post a thoughtful response to each of the following issues according to the schedule. Late submissions will elicit a deduction in grade. Students are asked to read all submissions offered by other students. Grades can be enhanced by showing interaction with comments posted previously by fellow students.
September – Module One – Postmodern Culture
Week One:
Have a look at pages 56-59 in Robert Webber’s The Younger Evangelicals, focusing on Joseph’s Clair’s three stages of “naivete.” Can you think of people who display this sense of “postcritical naivete” on a regular basis? How does this stance help or hinder a responsiveness to the work of God in a person’s life?
Week Two:
View Leonard Sweet’s brief video, The Double Ring. You can find it at http://www.leonardsweet.com/sweetened/video.asp. This will require you to install Real Player which is a free download from real.com. Take two or three paragraphs to describe ways in which you have seen the “double ring” phenomenon at work in your world. Can you think of more of these oxymoronic “double rings” in Scripture? If you are unable to view the video, as an alternate assignment, go to leonardsweet.com and interact with his concept of “the image statement.” In Sweet’s case, he uses a child on a swing. Can you think of your own image statement?
Week Three:
Read Genesis 11:1-9. Read also the piece on “tower-building” found at www.preaching.org/Gen11.html. It seems that problems related to diversity and language have the origin in God’s judgement over people who were arrogant enough to believe that they could position themselves in the place of God. How does an understanding of this text help us understand our current postmodern environment?
Week Four:
Read the piece written by Billy Graham’s grandson, Tullian Tchividjian in Webber’s Younger Evangelicals (p.126-130). How does your current church measure in relation to the churches Tchividjian describes? Do you personally relate to Tchividkian’s hunger for a more authentic church experience? How might you be part of the solution for your church?
October – Emergent Church
Week One:
Go to www.emergentvillage.com and www.theooze.com. Read some of the blog postings. How do the suggestions made by Dan Kimball in The Emerging Church address issues raised by people on these websights.
Week Two:
Read the “Note to Christians” found at http://www.dragonzleyr.net/Q/ntcprint2LS.html. How might you respond to someone like this? Try to craft a few words that might be helpful.
Week Three:
Francis Schaeffer in, The God Who Is There, talked about “taking the roof off” as a means of apologetic argument. His plan was to take people to the end of their argument where they could perceive the bankruptcy of their personal philosophy. Write a brief fictitious dialogue between a believer and an unbeliever that might describe this kind of apologetic.
Week Four:
Go on a “webhunt” and come back with three secular websights that describe a postmodern approach from a secular perspective. Offer a few preliminary suggestions as to how the church might begin to address the needs and issues implied in these websites.
November – Biblical Communication
Week One:
Read the piece on orality found at www.preaching.org/orality.html. A significant portion of our North American communities do not have the literacy skills to process the average literate sermon. Please find a published sermon (online or in print) by a preacher of some prominence. Examine that sermon from the point of view of someone who is oriented more toward orality rather than literacy. How would an oral person hear this sermon? Report briefly on your findings.
Week Two:
Read “Preaching in the ER,” found at www.preaching.org/ER.html. Given the contemporary listener’s ability to juggle several story lines at once, what shape might preaching take in days to come?
Week Three:
Read the article titled, “The Homiletical Schoolbus,” found at www.preaching.org/schoolbus.html. Comment on how preaching sometimes distances the listener from what God wants to say. In what ways could a preacher or bible teacher appropriately “collapse the distance” between text and today.
Week Four:
Congratulations. You’ve made it all the way to the end of this course. Well done! This week I would like to give you the chance to reflect personally on your own future. I have suggested that we are preaching whenever we set out to persuasively communicate the Bible in public forums. My “nutshell definition” is that preaching is helping people hear from God. What opportunities has God given you to preach? What opportunities do you anticipate in the future? How do you think your studies in this course will shape your approach to preaching in the future?
Note: This guy ALMOST deserves a link on my website! Thanks for your help in spreading DragonzLeyr to the world! You are appreciated!
Admin.... |
| 1255 Reads |  |
|
| I swear-... or do I???? (an opinion) | In this country, a country based on freedom and equality for all, it seems many times we forget the meaning of "all". One such instance is within the very boundaries of our judicial system.
How many times have you served on a jury, or been asked to take an oath, and in the process been asked to "place your hand on the bible and repeat after me- 'I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me god'. "? I was told that this practice is no longer in use, but guess what! It still IS in MANY places around the country!
This practice of 'swearing in' may be good for the god fearing religious right, but what of those who hold no value in the bible, and those who do not recognize nor believe in the christian god? Does that make their testimony and/or oath worthless?
Why would someone really care if they made a false statement if the things they are swearing on hold no value to them? Would they care if they made a false statement simply because they placed their hand on the bible? I think not. Myself, it would mean more to me if I was asked to "swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, or forfeit all my valuables and possessions and receive extended holiday
accomodations in the company of 'BUBBA' in our own little love nest at the local Alcatraz Hotel". Now, THAT would be something worth swearing to! LOL!
Furthermore, for those sworn into office, this "swearing to god" is just as useless. So
they take an oath to uphold the laws of the US Constitution and protect 'ALL' (notice that
ALL again...) peoples rights and liberties, without bias or prejudice for race, creed, color, or religious affiliation, yet they start out with an oath that is OBVIOUSLY biased towards the christian faith and belief system. Again, what if... what if they do NOT believe or follow the christian faith, or believe in the christian god? Does this make their oath useless? It seems it would indeed!
My personal thoughts, we (the people of the US) need to reexamine our entire judicial system, to MAINTAIN the impartiality to ALL people of the nation in order to uphold justice equally for one and all!
Note: Support the separation of government and religion, to make America TRULY a nation "Of the people, by the people, and for the people" with TRUE liberty and justice for ALL! |
| 2451 Reads | |
|
| Absurdity In Religion!!! |
This article was given to me by a co-worker. The author is unknown, but I felt it was worthy of being posted to show the ludicrous reasoning of many of the present day religious zealots in our country.
I hope you find it as amusing as I did, and that it makes you question the true motives behind
many of the present day activities currently happening in the world.
This is a conversation between a child (C) and his/her father (F) about the war on Iraq....
C: Daddy, why did we attack Iraq?
F: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
C: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did they?
F: No, that's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
C: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
F: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
C: But, after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
F: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
C: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
F: To use them in a war, silly.
C: I'm confused, if they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
F: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
C: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
F: It's a different culture, it's not supposed to make sense.
C: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
F: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
C: And what was that?
F: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
C: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
F: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
C: Kind of like they do in China?
F: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
C: So, if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
F: Right.
C: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
F: For political crimes mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
C: Isn't that exactly what they do in China?
F: I told you, China is different.
C: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
F: Well, for one thing, Iraq is ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
C: Didn't you once tell me that Communists are bad?
F: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
C: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
F: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
C: Like in Iraq?
F: Exactly.
C: And like in China, too?
F: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
C: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
F: Well, you see, back in the early 1960's, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being Capitalists like us.
C: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become Capitalists?
F: Don't be a smart-ass.
C: I don't think I was being one.
F: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
C: Kind of like China, and the Falun Gong movement?
F: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
C: What's a military coup?
F: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
C: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
F: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
C: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
F: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
C: Didn't you just say that a military leader who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
F: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
C: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
F: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
C: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
F: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men, fifteen of them Saudi Arabians, hijacked four planes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.
C: So, how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
F: Afghanistan is where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
C: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamic who chop off people's heads and hands?
F: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
C: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
F: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
C: Fighting drugs?
F: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
C: How did they do such a good job?
F: Simple, if people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
C: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
F: Yes, it's ok with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
C: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
F: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrranical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
C: Don't Sausi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
F: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
C: What's the difference?
F: The traditional Islamic body covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
C: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
F: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
C: But I thought you said fifteen of the nineteen hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia?
F: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
C: Who trained them?
F: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
C: Was he from Afghanistan?
F: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
C: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
F: Only when we helped him and the Mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
C: Who are the Soviets? Was that the evil Communist empire that Ronald Reagan talked about?
F: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and Capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
C: So the Soviets, I mean, the Russians, are now our friends?
F: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
C: So, the French and Germans are evil, too?
F: Not exactly evil, just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom fries and Freedom toast.
C: Do we always rename food when another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
F: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies we invade.
C: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
F: Well, yeah, for a while.
C: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
F: Yes, but at the time, he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
C: Why did that make him our friend?
F: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
C: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
F: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
C: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
F: Most of the time, yes.
C: And anyone who fights against one of our friends automatically becomes an enemy?
F: Sometimes that's true, too however, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
C: Why?
F: Because war is good for the economy, which means that war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
C: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
F: Yes.
C: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
F: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
C: So, basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
F: YES! You finally understand how the world works. Now, close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Note: GEEZ! It's ALMOST scary!!!! LOL! |
| 1258 Reads | |
|
| Moron by faith! | Ever wonder why people have such a negative image of christianity in the world today? Well, courtesy of one AOL IDIOT, please allow me to supply you with this FINE example of the typical christian, as far as AOL goes, anyway.
To those of you who are REAL christians, why not take some time to work on YOUR OWN FOLLOWERS and back off those of us who OBVIOUSLY have more courtesy for our fellow man/woman than those of your followers profess by example!
So, without further wait, please allow me to introduce a true MORON!.....
OnlineHost: Rwh8382 has entered the room.
Rwh8382: GOD BLESS YOU ALL!!!! GOD BLESS YOU ALL!!!! GOD BLESS YOU ALL!!!!GOD BLESS YOU ALL!!!! GOD BLESS YOU ALL!!!! GOD BLESS YOU ALL!!!!GOD BLESS YOU ALL!!!! GOD BLESS YOU ALL!!!! GOD BLESS YOU ALL!!!!
Rwh8382: GOD BLESS YOU ALL!!!! GOD BLESS YOU ALL!!!! GOD BLESS YOU ALL!!!!GOD BLESS YOU ALL!!!! GOD BLESS YOU ALL!!!! GOD BLESS YOU ALL!!!!GOD BLESS YOU ALL!!!! GOD BLESS YOU ALL!!!! GOD BLESS YOU ALL!!!!
OnlineHost: *** You have ejected Rwh8382 from this room ***
OnlineHost: Rwh8382 has left the room.
That says it all! A FINE UPSTANDING EXAMPLE INDEED! All of you christians must REALLY be proud of this one!
|
| 1286 Reads | |
|
| "WE" The People! | The Constitution of the United States of America
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I find it very distressing that in a nation that our forefathers fought so hard to build and establish, that so many things seem to be overlooked when it comes to religion and government.
It seems to me that those first three words, "WE THE PEOPLE" refer to ALL the people in the United States, not JUST THE CHRISTIANS. Too easily we seem to forget that America was founded on FREEDOM! Freedom for ALL people, freedom to express our beliefs, and freedom to live our OWN lives, without being oppressed by religion or religious based government.
I find it even more distressing that our leaders, the ones who are RESPONSIBLE for making examples, and SUPPORTING the rights of "WE THE PEOPLE" could be so bold as to blatantly and obviously display their OWN religious preferences in our faces, and back them with the power of their positions totally disregarding the very impartiality and support of freedom and rights that "WE THE PEOPLE" are guaranteed under our Constitution. These are the people that are supposed to SUPPORT these laws "UNCONDITIONALLY", Not unconditionally under the guidelines of the church nor of the christian religion.
AMERICA, WE as a nation need to WAKE UP! What good are our rights and laws if they can be so easily manipulated and influenced by an entity, in spite of having laws to "SEPERATE RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT"?
Without these laws, and IMPARTIAL governing, we may as well be a dictatorship like the fallen "Communist Russia", or be under the control of tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, and Castro.
It truly saddens me, being from a family that has roots going all the way back to the original colonists and pioneers who established this very country, that all they have fought and died for can be so easily overlooked. AMERICA, where we are truly free within the boundaries of christianity. America, where we killed the heathenous indians to bring christianity to them under the guise of civilization. PEOPLE! THIS IS NOT what America is about!
Amendment I
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.
Americans, stand up for your rights!
Support "Freedom FROM Religion"!
Return America to the great nation it once was! A nation "OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, and FOR THE PEOPLE!" America, for ALL!
|
| 2213 Reads | |
|
| Rants: More typical illiterate, half-ass reading Christian bullshit! | ========Original Message========
Subj: I read your webpage.
Date: 4/16/2003 10:07:58 AM Central Daylight Time
From: AnabaptistBoyKJB
To: Jeebus Chrystler
Hello, in your webpage you clearly said you believe in Evolution. Evolution is a racist myth made up by a man with a good imagination. No science of any sort points to Evolution but a Supreme God that created all.
RESPONSE
Thank you for your response. I assume by your response, one of two things must be true...
EITHER:
1) You did NOT read the entire page as you state in your email, thereby instantly incriminating yourself as another typical idiot who only half reads things and believes they have the whole concept grasped- (see christian) like so many do with the bible, and proving your initial statement an outright lie.
OR-
2) You are a typical illiterate moron who has no idea what you are reading, yet try to put up a front to cover for your inadequacies, much like a canned hymn spouter. This would be one who memorizes certain texts to give the impression of actually having read the book (or page, or paper, or whatever the case may be), and thereby is a self appointed authority without taking the time to gain knowledge.
PLEASE allow me to point out to you why I would believe this:
Note: click below for entire text: |
|
|
|  | |  |  | |  |
|