"David Hartung" wrote in message
...
Brenda Ann wrote:
"David Hartung" wrote in message
...
How can a provate entity, which has zero legal authority, violate the
constitution?

It's done all the time. Those sorts of things generally result in tort
claims or other civil penalties (i.e., OJ, having been acquitted in his
criminal trial, was then tried for violating the civil (Constitutional)
rights of his victims.

The Constitution (including state constitutions) is a basic document of
law (like the Ten Commandments) and every citizen is subject to it, it is
not reserved only for the government. (though it is generally so that you
hear more about government entities violating it, because it affects so
many more people when they do.)

As I see it, a private entity has no power to force their way upon people,
therefore, it is impossible for a private entity to violate the
constitution.

But this is not the way the law sees it.

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt_Lochner wrote:

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt_Lochner wrote:

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt_Lochner wrote:

David Hartung deleted:

Kurt_Lochner restored the original text/context:

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt_Lochner wrote:

David Hartung wrote:
- - - - - - - - - --
The original claim was not that these men are building empires,
but that the Republicans had the corner on Christianity,

Ask yourself this.. How many non-christians are involved
in the Republican party? Are they a majority, or a minority..

--Get back to me when you can quibble that..

From what I have seen, non-Christians are a majority of both parties.

That presupposes that the so-called "christians" involved in both the
GOP and 'evangelical' churches aren't really "christians", correct?

I gave you a response based upon my own observation

Somehow, your 'observations' are not of an objective observer,
at least in my experiences, David. Having experienced the
results of 'religious politics' here in Oklahoma, I have a
little more than most to say about that, too..

My observations were never meant to be objective.

So I've pointed out, in many instances and postings..

But then neither are yours.

Incorrect. My training, education and experience requires
a great deal of dispassionate observation technique..

You would be hard-pressed to prove otherwise, to be certain..

All of which you seem to put aside when engaging in political discourse.

That would again be a negative claim on your behalf..

Example follows..

Here is an article which goes into the subject in some detail:

http://tinyurl.com/6ktvtk

An evangelical press association member, eh?

--As such, I do not trust their statistics. or numbers..

Your choice

Indeed, and it's the result of critical reasoning..

--You should try it sometime..

Something which you have never demonstrated.

That would be a 'negative claim', yet another example of your
partisan blindness in fact. Have you even approached a textbook
on the subject of logic and critical reasoning?

--That would also require a library card, if necessary for more study..

something which I have possessed and used for the past 40 years.

So, would you prefer an ISBN number to search for the textbook I've
been working from for the past dozen years, I'm certain it's been
reprinted a couple of times since I took those classes..

--Or, will a simple title/author be sufficient in this case?

On Nov 28, 5:22*pm, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:41 am, David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
What's become of the Republican Party? *Kow-towing to religious,
an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept
of separation of church and state..
You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the
government out of your religion will follow along nicely..
You might be surprised to learn that I am in full agreement, although
for different reasons.

Without fail, every time the Church has gotten in bed with the
government, it has proven to be a spiritual disaster for the Church. The
church.

No where in the New Testament do we see any sign that the church was
politically active.

These tow reasons alone are enough for me to want the church to have
nothing to do with the government.

You will notice as our exchange went on, I put Dobson in a different
category from Robertson and Falwell.

- This is because Falwell and Robertson's organizations
- are set up as evangelistic, church groups. Their stated
- purpose is to proclaim the Gospel. Thus it is improper
- for them to be politically active.

So by "Being" Religious Persons-of-Faith : The Automatically
Lose Some of Their Basic Rights as American Citizens !
-re- T h i n k i n g . . . . .

I haven't said that. Constitutionally, these groups have the same rights
as any other group.

My judgment that these ministries ought not to be involved in partisan
politics comes from my understanding of the Office of Holy Ministry.
Ordained ministers have been set aside by God for the purpose of
proclaiming His kingdom.

- Partisan politics is outside their scope.

Are they any less Human ?
- - - and your Equal ?

Do they have any less Rights as Citizens ?
- - - and your Equal ?

- This is my belief, others differ.

Clearly We Differ ~ RHF

On Nov 28, 5:26*pm, David Hartung wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:15:19 -0800 (PST), RHF
wrote:

Real Americans support Equal Political Rights for
both Believers {Persons-of-Faith} and Non-Believers
{Secularist}.

Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, David Dobson
sure as **** don't.

Evidence?

- - Their mission is to replace all secularists with
- - "believers" and to change the function of government
- - from secular to doctrinal----(fundamentalist, of
- - course)

Wrong.

- On this we likely agree.

Wrong Again.

Their Mission is to Transform 'Secularist' into "Believers"
and Transform the Function of Government from a Secular
Anti-Religious Apparatus into an Entity that is Not Hostel
to Persons-of-Faith and Respect the Beliefs of All Citizens.
- - - It's About Equal Treatment and Equality for All :
Believer and Non-Believer Alike.

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State :
It's About Equal Treatment and Equality for All

Pat Robertson chalkboarded his entire strategy for
doing so after his last defeat in a primary
Presidential election.

Cite?

Jerry Falwell funded/paid for a video smearing Clinton

Cite please?

On Nov 28, 5:57*pm, Dave wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 7:16 am, wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 22:25:08 -0600, David Hartung

wrote:
So you don't agree with the observation that Robertson, Falwell
and Dobson's alleged "churches" are predominantly involved in
politics, particularly the Republican party?
May I once again suggest that yo learn to read? your understanding of
the quote I provided is completely wrong.
- If YOU don't understand that Falwell, Dobson, and
- Robertson are as influential as they are in GOP
- politics, promotes the basic belief that republicans
- are the More "moral" party, how in **** can you make
- conclusions credibly?

Knick...,

It is not a question of 'morality' between the Political
Parties : However the is the Issue of Individual Rights
and "Family Values" {Being Family Friendly} -versus-
Big Government Know Best and Government Intrusion
into the Rights and Responsibilities of Parents and
Families : Religious Beliefs and Traditional Teachings.

It is not only that the Conservative "Traditional" Religious
members are Drawn to the Republican Party -as-much-as-
There is a Hostel Attitude in the Democrat Party toward
Conservative "Traditional" Religious members and they
'feel' unwelcome in the Democrat Party : The Democrat
Party's Big Tent has "NO" Room in it for an Active Voice
of Conservative "Traditional" Religious members - So much
for Diversity and Inclusion.

(OT) : Are the Democrat Party's Doors Locked and Shut
to Conservative "Traditional" Religious Members ?

yes - i said that ~ RHF
*.

- Huh? *Wesley Clark is bat-****-crazy religious
- and they let him hang around.

Dave - It would appear that you and Wesley Clark
have much 'in-common' except for Religion. ~ RHF

RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:26 pm, David Hartung wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:15:19 -0800 (PST), RHF
wrote:
Real Americans support Equal Political Rights for
both Believers {Persons-of-Faith} and Non-Believers
{Secularist}.
Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, David Dobson
sure as **** don't.
Evidence?

- - Their mission is to replace all secularists with
- - "believers" and to change the function of government
- - from secular to doctrinal----(fundamentalist, of
- - course)

Wrong.

- On this we likely agree.

Wrong Again.

Their Mission is to Transform 'Secularist' into "Believers"
and Transform the Function of Government from a Secular
Anti-Religious Apparatus into an Entity that is Not Hostel
to Persons-of-Faith and Respect the Beliefs of All Citizens.
- - - It's About Equal Treatment and Equality for All :
Believer and Non-Believer Alike.

I have no doubt that Robertson et al want to "transform" nonbelievers,
into believers. The question is what belief is Robertson looking for.

An evangelist does not "transform" non-Christians into Christians. All
the evangelist does is to proclaim the Kingdom of Heaven. Any
"transforming" which might be done, is done by God.

Robertson and company often seem more interested in the pursuit of the
almighty dollar, in the acquisition of political influence, and in
political power, than they do the proclamation of the Word of God.

This, in my opinion, makes them false prophets.

RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:22 pm, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:41 am, David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
What's become of the Republican Party? Kow-towing to religious,
an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept
of separation of church and state..
You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the
government out of your religion will follow along nicely..
You might be surprised to learn that I am in full agreement, although
for different reasons.
Without fail, every time the Church has gotten in bed with the
government, it has proven to be a spiritual disaster for the Church. The
church.
No where in the New Testament do we see any sign that the church was
politically active.
These tow reasons alone are enough for me to want the church to have
nothing to do with the government.
You will notice as our exchange went on, I put Dobson in a different
category from Robertson and Falwell.
- This is because Falwell and Robertson's organizations
- are set up as evangelistic, church groups. Their stated
- purpose is to proclaim the Gospel. Thus it is improper
- for them to be politically active.
So by "Being" Religious Persons-of-Faith : The Automatically
Lose Some of Their Basic Rights as American Citizens !
-re- T h i n k i n g . . . . .
I haven't said that. Constitutionally, these groups have the same rights
as any other group.

My judgment that these ministries ought not to be involved in partisan
politics comes from my understanding of the Office of Holy Ministry.
Ordained ministers have been set aside by God for the purpose of
proclaiming His kingdom.

- Partisan politics is outside their scope.

Are they any less Human ?
- - - and your Equal ?

Do they have any less Rights as Citizens ?
- - - and your Equal ?

- This is my belief, others differ.

Clearly We Differ ~ RHF

Do you understand that something may be legal and constitutional, but
still be inappropriate?

RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:22 pm, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:41 am, David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
What's become of the Republican Party? Kow-towing to religious,
an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept
of separation of church and state..
You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the
government out of your religion will follow along nicely..
You might be surprised to learn that I am in full agreement,
although for different reasons.

Without fail, every time the Church has gotten in bed with the
government, it has proven to be a spiritual disaster for the
Church. The church.

No where in the New Testament do we see any sign that the church
was politically active.

These tow reasons alone are enough for me to want the church to
have nothing to do with the government.

You will notice as our exchange went on, I put Dobson in a
different category from Robertson and Falwell.

- This is because Falwell and Robertson's organizations
- are set up as evangelistic, church groups. Their stated
- purpose is to proclaim the Gospel. Thus it is improper
- for them to be politically active.

So by "Being" Religious Persons-of-Faith : The Automatically
Lose Some of Their Basic Rights as American Citizens !
-re- T h i n k i n g . . . . .

I haven't said that. Constitutionally, these groups have the same
rights as any other group.

My judgment that these ministries ought not to be involved in
partisan politics comes from my understanding of the Office of Holy
Ministry. Ordained ministers have been set aside by God for the
purpose of proclaiming His kingdom.

- Partisan politics is outside their scope.

Are they any less Human ?
- - - and your Equal ?

Do they have any less Rights as Citizens ?
- - - and your Equal ?

- This is my belief, others differ.

Clearly We Differ ~ RHF
.

If they are to be active politically, they cannot keep tax free status.

RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:26 pm, David Hartung wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:15:19 -0800 (PST), RHF
wrote:

Real Americans support Equal Political Rights for
both Believers {Persons-of-Faith} and Non-Believers
{Secularist}.

Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, David Dobson
sure as **** don't.

Evidence?

- - Their mission is to replace all secularists with
- - "believers" and to change the function of government
- - from secular to doctrinal----(fundamentalist, of
- - course)

Wrong.

- On this we likely agree.

Wrong Again.

Their Mission is to Transform 'Secularist' into "Believers"
and Transform the Function of Government from a Secular
Anti-Religious Apparatus into an Entity that is Not Hostel
to Persons-of-Faith and Respect the Beliefs of All Citizens.
- - - It's About Equal Treatment and Equality for All :
Believer and Non-Believer Alike.

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State :
It's About Equal Treatment and Equality for All

Pat Robertson chalkboarded his entire strategy for
doing so after his last defeat in a primary
Presidential election.

Cite?

Jerry Falwell funded/paid for a video smearing Clinton

Cite please?

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/03/cov_11news.html

RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:24 pm, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:22 pm, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:41 am, David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
What's become of the Republican Party? Kow-towing to religious,
an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept
of separation of church and state..
You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the
government out of your religion will follow along nicely..
You might be surprised to learn that I am in full agreement, although
for different reasons.
Without fail, every time the Church has gotten in bed with the
government, it has proven to be a spiritual disaster for the Church. The
church.
No where in the New Testament do we see any sign that the church was
politically active.
These tow reasons alone are enough for me to want the church to have
nothing to do with the government.
You will notice as our exchange went on, I put Dobson in a different
category from Robertson and Falwell.
- This is because Falwell and Robertson's organizations
- are set up as evangelistic, church groups. Their stated
- purpose is to proclaim the Gospel. Thus it is improper
- for them to be politically active.
So by "Being" Religious Persons-of-Faith : The Automatically
Lose Some of Their Basic Rights as American Citizens !
-re- T h i n k i n g . . . . .
I haven't said that. Constitutionally, these groups have the same rights
as any other group.
My judgment that these ministries ought not to be involved in partisan
politics comes from my understanding of the Office of Holy Ministry.
Ordained ministers have been set aside by God for the purpose of
proclaiming His kingdom.
- Partisan politics is outside their scope.
Are they any less Human ?
- - - and your Equal ?
Do they have any less Rights as Citizens ?
- - - and your Equal ?
- This is my belief, others differ.
Clearly We Differ ~ RHF

- Do you understand that something may be legal
- and constitutional, but still be inappropriate?

OK - So tell me how is exercising one's basic
human rights inappropriate ?

Oh Yeah - They are "Religious" so they should STFU
when it comes to Politics.



? Are People-of-Faith To Be Denied a Seat . . .
at the Table of American Politics ?
* And Thereby be Relegated to the Role of Second-Class
Political Citizens.
* Hey may be Ministers, Preachers, Rabbis, Imams,
Priests, etc should not even be allowed to Vote.

Has Religion become "The-R-Word" in American Politics ?

has god -proclaimed- thou shall not
be political and religious too ~ RHF

A question, if I may.

In you eyes, what is the job of an ordained minister?