they may be in the yahoo groups chat room. I'll have to join and check it out.
 |
|
| Click to subscribe to Atheist Coalition Announcements | Click to subscribe to Atheist Coalition |
Posted on 09/30/2005 9:05:22 AM PDT by Coleus
RANCHO SANTA FE, CA — For sixteen years atheist, Phillip Paulson, claiming he wants to maintain neutrality between government and religion, has been waging an unrelenting war against the Mt. Soledad Cross that is the centerpiece of the historic Veterans Memorial in San Diego. However, Paulson’s comments on the website of the Atheist Coalition of San Diego reveals his true motivation is hatred for Christianity.
Paulson goes so far as to state; “We need to attack Jesus…” Those comments, followed by vulgar remarks about Christ, God and the Virgin Mary are so crude and offensive that the Thomas More Law Center will not repeat them. However, Richard Thompson, President of the Law Center commented, “These remarks show the plaintiff to be nothing more than a foul-mouthed anti-Christian whose agenda is not to defend the Constitution, but to attack Christianity.”
In the past two weeks, Paulson’s attorney James McElroy has joined his client in making offensive remarks. He recently compared San Diego City Attorney, Michael Aguirre's, retention of Charles LiMandri, a Christian lawyer from the Thomas More Law Center, to represent the City to hiring the Ku Klux Klan to represent the City in a desegregation case.
McElroy has used this highly offensive analogy in his public comments at least three times over a ten-day period. McElroy, who is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Southern Poverty Law Center based in Alabama, knows very well just how prejudicial that analogy is to most people. In fact, it was McElroy who previously brought suit in San Diego against Tom Metzger, a convicted white supremacist.
McElroy offended African Americans who attended a September 16, 2005 meeting of the Catfish Club in San Diego when he again likened Aguirre's recent retention of LiMandri, West Coast Regional Director of the Thomas More Law Center, to the hiring of Metzger to represent the City. In fact, LiMandri began his career years ago by working for the San Diego City Attorney's Office and is a Board certified civil trial advocate who has been involved with the case for over a year.
Paulson and McElroy's offensive comments reveal that their motivation has nothing whatsoever to do with their claimed purpose, which is allegedly to maintain "neutrality" between government and religion. Rather, their hate-speech manifests their overt hostility toward religion and their desire to intimidate the opposition into submission. It is now all too clear that Paulson and McElroy are seeking to use the courts to advance their anti-religion agenda, which is strictly forbidden by the Constitution.
By Jim Brown
September 27, 2005
(AgapePress) - A coalition of churches in a small Illinois county is protesting a decision by a local junior high school to confiscate pictures of Jesus and The Lord's Supper.
Citing legal liability concerns, the Anna School Board [Anna, Illinois] decided to remove the three religious pictures -- two portraits of Christ and a reproduction of Leonardo Da Vinci's "The Last Supper" -- from the walls of Anna Junior High School, where they had hung for half a century. The move comes after the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State called on the district to remove the pictures, calling their presence in the school "grossly unconstitutional." Upon advice from its legal counsel, the district complied.
Local churches outraged over the decision are now circulating a petition to get the pictures re-hung. Pastor Al Campbell is president of the Union County Alliance of Churches. "It's time to draw a line in the sand, so to speak, and we are going to do everything we can to get those pictures re-hung," the Methodist pastor says.
School superintendent Bob O'Dell expressed to The Southern Illinoisan his belief that many people in the district were fine with their presence, but that it was obvious someone was not and contacted Americans United, which does not have a state chapter. "Those pictures have been up there 50 years at least," O'Dell said. "We felt the community wanted those pictures to be there."
As for Pastor Campbell, he believes ignorance of the Constitution and anti-Christian bigotry are at play. "There's a misunderstanding around the nation as to the separation of church and state," he asserts. "Separation of church and state was never meant to be used in the way it is being used now. But I do feel like the people that forced this action probably are anti-Christian or atheist."
It is not clear, he adds, whether the letter from Americans United came from someone who is a member of the district or someone who does not even live in the area. "[W]e don't know because they still have never signed the letter," he says, "so we don't know who they are."
Campbell says the Alliance of Churches will present the petition to the Anna School Board at its October 18 meeting.
Paulson goes so far as to state; “We need to attack Jesus…”
Give it your best shot daddy-o.
the ACLU is not involved in this at all? I find that very hard to believe.
Or is this the lawyers version of "honor among thieves" ?
that is lawyers vs lawyers in print -- I'm not disparaging the organization and especially NOT the article.
Probably shouldn't have bothered to have said it anyway.
My Apologies to the readers here.
Would they try this against Muslims? I doubt it.
The Southern Poverty Law Center could be more anti American than the ACLU. This is the group that stole a ranch for illegal aliens in Texas.
No aethiest attacks "religious" symbols. They attack Christian symbols. It's not aetheism, they would have a much more neutral view on it. These people are anti-christian. These are the same folks that would fight tooth and nail having a nativity scene on school grounds but would have no problem with that same school celebrating ramadan, even if no muslims were in attendance.
Of course they want to attack Jesus.After all,part of the cornerstone of Jesus's teachings were Commandments that start with "thou shalt not".
How dare Jesus impose his morality on anyone?!?!
Ping-More hyper-skepticism at work.
I'd like to see all of his neighbors put crosses on their lawns.
that's a good idea.
and Jesus forgives this scumbag, but devils in the hell are already dancing.
Wonder which Soros is behind this "activist"?
The closest this guy will ever get to Jesus is standing in front of St. Peter who will be directing him to the hallway across from heaven.
Watch out for that first step!
Hmm. No complete and direct quotes given. Skepticism runs high regarding this article.
Hmm. No complete and direct quotes given. Skepticism runs high regarding this article. >>
I was also wondering when and where too.
Isn't this precisely what Adolf Hitler attempted in Nazi Germany? Here too it shall fail -the rock of offence so many unbelievers stumble over will prevail.Every knee shall bow,every tongue confess.. as it is written so it shall be.
“We need to attack Jesus…” >>
I can't find the quotes.
http://www.atheistcoalition.org/index.html
I can't find the quotes
http://www.atheistcoalition.org/index.html
> Every knee shall bow
How depressing. Humans reduced to that.
Sad.
Hey, did you hear that Bob Bennett wants to abort all the black babies?
> I can't find the quotes
I went digging through there as well, with simialr results. I have the sneaking suspicion that the "quotes" may well never have been there in the first place.
|
|
| Click to subscribe to Atheist Coalition Announcements | Click to subscribe to Atheist Coalition |
“We need to attack Jesus…”
Jesus himself said to Saul(later to become the Apostle Paul),
"And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." Acts 9:5
As many have before him, this man can take his best shot.
As Bennett said: "abort every black baby in this country!"
Context matters, of course.
> The Church's moral code is the foundation our country was built upon.
Ermmmm... a challenge: compare and contrast the "Churchs" (which Church, BTW?) view on having other Gods... and Americas freedom of religion.
later read/ping.
If anyone can find these actual comments by Paulson I'd be grateful. I went to the web site mentioned and Googled it. If those comments were there, they are gone now.
Yes- did hear the original conversation on the Radidio--
Also heard Jesse Jr. claiming Bill Bennett owed America an appology. Have written Jesse Jr. and reminded him that the
Democrats opposed Lincoln, The Democrats began the KKK to
attack Republicans, the Democrats opposed the Civil Rights
act of 1962, and Democratic politicians incorporated the
Confederate flag into many State flags in response to the
Civil Rights movement. And Democrats have made Abortion a litmus test for American Government. It was Margaret Sanger who introduced abortion as a means to limit or destroy the poor blacks in America. I would be in favor of
aborting all babies who would up to serve the ACLU -or as
abortionists but then one would have to extend abortion to
the adult years of these deranged but powerful minority. And
that would be unreasonable and immoral.
And it wasn't Bob Bennett -but his brother Bill.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
> the nation was built upon Judeao-Christian values.
As well as pagan Roman values. And pagan Greek values. And pagan Norse/Teutonic/Anglo/Saxon values. The nation had a very wide and deep foundation.
> Being that most at the time who defined our nation were Christian, their moral beliefs played a great role in defining our nation as a whole.
And while the religious beliefs were largely Christian or some variant thereof, their moral and ethical structure was built upon more than just the one religion.
> The Church, or Christianity as a whole, stands in the way of liberal thought.
A lot of things stand in the way of "liberal thought," including rationalism, objectivism, Darwinism and the basic scientific method. Your religion ain't special.
> it wasn't Bob Bennett -but his brother Bill.
Picky, picky, picky.
"There are those who hate Christianity and call their hatred an all-embracing love for all religions." -GK Chesterton
There is a culture war going on in America.
The minority of Americans who don't believe in God or Judaeo-Christian values wnat to impose their will on the majority of Americans who do.
They are winning.
We are losing.
People like this jerk have got to be stopped and the Courts must be made to think more rationally.
If the Courts DON'T, then our legislators hetter earn their money by figuring a way out of the mess they have permitted the legal "profession" to get America into.
If they don't we should vote them out of office - rgardless of party - and let them know why.
And as such, their activities should be prosecuted as hate crimes. At lease abuse of process.
Blame it on the Supreme Court, which has totally muddled interpretation of the First Amendment.
No, the problem is Hugo Black's definition of an Establishement of Religon, which the Court has made its own. never mind that his authority is Jefferson, who had absolutely nothing to do with the crafting of the First Amendment and who, in any case, put a Baptist spin on the ter, "wall of separation." Want to know ehat Jefferson meant? See what the Baptists say, which is that the wall or hedge is meant to keep government out of the Church.
Anyone who tries to violate the Constitution by mixing church and state.
I called the Thomas More Law Center, and they sent me a .pdf file that contains print-outs of Mr. Paulson's (aka hasd1973, "Humanist Phil Osophy") postings. I found them on their Yahoo Group (the URL is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Atheist_Coalition/message/2626). This is the main excerpt:
Why should such ideas be protected from ridicule? I say, Atheists should rebut the anti-Science religious right with their own claims about talking snakes, plankton eating whales swollowing up one of their biblical characters and spitting him out on land, ad nauseum. Then, we need to make a full attack on Jesus. Jesus wrote nothing of himself or his life, not a line of the New Testament in his own hand. All the books of the New Testament were written after his death, not only of Jesus, but also only by the men to whom they are attibuted. Well, Jesus believed that the earth was flat when he went up to the pentacle and saw the four corners of the earth. When Jesus was carried to the top of the highest mountain and shown all the kingdoms of the world, how is it America was not included? Jesus chased the moneychangers out of the temple. And the religious right republicans put the name of God on the currency. The Bush Bible reads, "And Supply-Side Jesus wept "verily I say unto you, blessed are the wealthy for they shall receive tax cuts and corporate welfare." But then of course there is Deuteronomy 23:2 KJV - "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord..." Well according to the Holy Bible, Jesus Christ was a bastard and a rape baby. After all, the christian god the father raped the Virgin Mary when she was only 13 years of age, and then the all-knowing and all-powerful god became a dead-beat dad who later set up his own bastard son's execution.
He later sums up this last sentence in message 2629 when he said, "America was not around when Jesus, the bastard son of the dead beat father, was living."
Be that as it may, Black was interpreting the First Amendment and it was this that has caused all the mischief. To this day, the Court has devised no settled doctrine, so that as each case that comes up, we are are only sure that the result will be queer. To me the reduction ad adsurdum was the case prohibiting prayers at high school football games.
> Then, we need to make a full attack on Jesus.
Ah, context at last. Somewhat different from the spin that the original article put on it. And given that it's a posting on a news forum and not an editted and proofread article or editorial, some poor phraseology is to be expected. I mean, look at FR. If one were to judge Conservatives by a few cherry-picked postings here...
He's got some loopy anti-Republican ranting going on there, but the message is basically not what was promised.
"Why should such ideas be protected from ridicule?" Why indeed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.