Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

RECONSTRUCTION THEOLOGY AND HOME EDUCATION [Rushdoony, HSLDA, Gary North]
Houston Unschooling Group ^ | 1999 | Mary McCarthy

Posted on 11/17/2003 8:24:55 AM PST by Chancellor Palpatine

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-241 next last
To: Catspaw; ckca; Boxsford
This article is puke.

It's only after patiently enduring so many puke attacks that someone steps in and calls it like it is.

101 posted on 11/17/2003 2:55:31 PM PST by Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Law
You're mistaken. This thread was designed to be a hit piece on conservative Christians. That's why from the very beginning the main posters don't discuss the article's contents but rather attack Christians.

It's only after attacks like this that Christians such as ckca return fire.

Thank you. Too bad reason is wasted on these anti-Christian goons.

102 posted on 11/17/2003 2:55:57 PM PST by ckca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
Everyone's gonna look at me, go "There's a JOOOOOO...." and rush me. :o)

See??? Told ya. ;^)

103 posted on 11/17/2003 2:59:35 PM PST by Lazamataz (PROUDLY SCARING FELLOW FREEPERS SINCE 1999 !!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw; ckca
Another reason we know this thread was designed primarily to attack and bait conservative Christians is that the thread was posted not in the religion forum, where the most indepth and vigorous discusions of religious articles take place, but in News/Activism, even though it's not news (the article is from 1999) and there's no action for current Freepers.

If this were an isolated incident, one should judge it as a mistake, but as it's part of pattern of such old articles being posted in the News/Activism thread, we must give credit to the poster for deliberate rather than accidental placement.

104 posted on 11/17/2003 3:07:05 PM PST by Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Law
If you had followed my link rather than just spewing, you'd see that Moore's attorneys, if you compare the article and Moore's lawyers filings prior to his removal as chief justice, appear to be word for word from the Chalcedon article,, at least when it comes to comparing William Pryor and Nazi judges, and Pryor's position on Roe v. Wade.  If I'd like to be able to compare the article from Chalcedon with the complete pleadings of Moore's lawyers, but according to the al.com article, Moore's lawyers are quoted as saying this in the Mobile Register:
 

"He probably does not realize it, but Attorney General Pryor shares the jurisprudence of the German judges put on trial at Nuremberg," the chief justice's attorneys wrote in their brief. "... The judges in Germany swore an oath similar to the one taken by the German military" and "... argued that they were simply following the law of obeying orders of higher officials. This is the position (Pryor) has taken with respect to Roe v. Wade."

The Chalcedon article says this:

He probably does not realize it, but Attorney General Pryor shares the jurisprudence of the German judges put on trial at Nuremberg in the case of U. S. v. Alstoetter, a trial made famous in the Hollywood production Judgment at Nuremberg. The judges in Germany swore an oath similar to the one taken by the German military: “I swear by God this sacred oath, that I will render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Fuehrer of the German Reich and people, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces …” The German judges defended their actions in enforcing unjust “laws” and of convicting and even sentencing men and women to death who were innocent of wrongdoing or guilty of only minor wrongs. The German judges argued that they were simply following the law of obeying orders of higher officials. Their actions, they argued, were therefore justified. This is the position that Attorney General Pryor has taken with respect to Roe v. Wade. He has promised to withhold the protection of law from thousands of innocent unborn children until the “law” changes. He doesn’t seem to see that Roe v. Wade is an act of lawlessness. It is not law. Compare that to the situation that the Alstoetter court noted existed in Germany: “[T]he dagger of the assassin was concealed beneath the robe of the jurist.”

If you have a link to the brief Moore's lawyers filed, I'd appreciate it, but it does appear they used the exact wording and phraseology from the Chalcedon article in their brief.  I'm just curious if they quoted the entire article, took parts of the article verbatim, reworded it as a legal pleading or some other variation or combination.  The quotes I've highlighted in red appear that Moore's lawyers did quote the Chalcedon article.

105 posted on 11/17/2003 3:09:04 PM PST by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
All that warmth and Christian charity wafts off this thread. If I weren't a Christian but was looking into it, I'd definitely look with favor on being a reconstructionist after seeing this example.

We're at T+7 on posting the article, and I've not yet seen anyone put up a fact which shows that reconstructionists don't actually believe what their pastors and theologians say they believe.

106 posted on 11/17/2003 3:10:16 PM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine; ckca; Jim Robinson
Dear OPH,

I thought you were an attorney. Don't they still teach logic in law school?

Do you really want to tie yourself to this piece of crap?

"Individuals from a wide variety of backgrounds and ecclesiastical communions are influenced by and committed to these ideals, from conservative Roman Catholics to Episcopalians to Presbyterians to Pentecostals, Arminian and Calvinist, charismatic and non-charismatic, high Church and low Church traditions are all represented in the broader umbrella of Reconstructionism, (often in the form of the 'Christian America' movement)."

Reconstructionism doesn't work for Catholics. You will not find faithful, devout, orthodox Catholics who are "influenced by AND committed to these ideals..."

Of course, the irony is, the article points out that some of the folks allegedly involved in Reconstructionism are anti-Catholic. Yet the article alleges that conservative Catholics believe in this drek. LOL.

"It is difficult for secular homeschoolers to understand the apparent double standard when Christian homeschoolers are discriminatory against them at the local support group level, while at the same time, courting their efforts when it comes to state or national political causes. Understanding Reconstructionist Theology and Theocracy is important because it reflects understanding on the division in the homeschooling community between secular and religious members, and the theocratic motivations of politically manipulating the community."

This is an even bigger load of crap. An intelligent individual would be embarrassed to have posted this.

As a religious homeschooler, who belongs to a number of homeschooling organizations, including HSLDA, and various religious and secular homeschooling groups, I can tell you that this is just pure bs. I know many secular homeschoolers. They don't seem to exhibit any feeling that we evil awful religious homeschoolers are discriminatory against them.

And of course, understanding Reconstructionism has nothing to do with understanding the overwhelming majority of religious homeschoolers, since the overwhelming majority of us aren't actually Reconstructionists.

"The Home School Legal Defense Association/Foundation has many links to Reconstructionism."

Oh puh-leeze. HSLDA is one of the most important homeschool organizations in the country. Your logical turd comes out like this:

- there are Reconstructionists who have worked for or who currently work for HSLDA;

- thus, HSLDA is a Reconstructionist group;

- and therefore, anyone associated with HSLDA is a Reconstructionist.

Barbra Streisand Barbra Streisand Barbra Streisand.

First, not all the folks named as Reconstructionists are actually Reconstructionists.

Second, many of these folks are also registered Republicans as well. By the (pseudo)logic of this author, then the Republican Party is Reconstructionist.

Third, the purpose of the HSLDA doesn't have anything to do with Reconstructionism. The purpose of the HSLDA is to give legal protection to homeschoolers from rapacious state and local governments.

I'm a proud member of HSLDA and I'm not a Reconstructionist. HSLDA is valuable to us because it keeps us up to date on the changing legal environment in our state, because it goes to bat for us when the state tries to harm us through new and regressive laws, rules, and interpretations thereof, because it gives us a central clearing house and rallying point by which we can take grassroots action when the state tries to harm us, and because HSLDA will represent me personally should the state try to persecute me and my homeschooling family.


Bottom line - this is a poorly done, hysterical hatchet job trying to smear Christian homeschoolers by trying to tie us to a small minority of folks, some of whom actually homeschooling. It is anti-Christian and anti-homeschool.

It shocks me that the owner of the site would allow such a vile, ill-willed, vicious, false piece of anti-Christian, anti-homeschooling piece of propaganda to stand. Or permit the original poster to continue to post here at FR.


sitetest
107 posted on 11/17/2003 3:11:46 PM PST by sitetest (St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Law
So the question remains: why is it OK for CP to mock, insult, and abuse conservative Christians here on Free Republic? Why are posts pointing out his own sordid background pulled while his abuse of a large percentage of all FReepers is permitted?

Any DU troll newbie would be banned for his kind of continuous abusive behavior.

108 posted on 11/17/2003 3:11:49 PM PST by ckca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Law
The posting was to news/activism because these folks have been flexing muscles in politics.

Unless you don't think that is important.

109 posted on 11/17/2003 3:12:06 PM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: ckca
So refute the article, if you can.
110 posted on 11/17/2003 3:12:49 PM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
After casually skimming this article, it appears to be saying that all of these people are trying to bring back Christian ethics and morals in our goverment and in our country. What's wrong with that?
111 posted on 11/17/2003 3:14:59 PM PST by irishtenor (Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati ............(When all else fails, play dead))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sitetest; Jim Robinson; Admin Moderator; tpaine
Bottom line - this is a poorly done, hysterical hatchet job trying to smear Christian homeschoolers by trying to tie us to a small minority of folks, some of whom actually homeschooling. It is anti-Christian and anti-homeschool.

It shocks me that the owner of the site would allow such a vile, ill-willed, vicious, false piece of anti-Christian, anti-homeschooling piece of propaganda to stand. Or permit the original poster to continue to post here at FR.

Why no comment, Mr. Robinson?

Why is this one individual FReeper permitted to continue his frequent abuse and insult towards a majority of Free Republic users and donors?

112 posted on 11/17/2003 3:15:22 PM PST by ckca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: ckca
Hey, leave me out of this. I'm not interested in the least.
113 posted on 11/17/2003 3:16:11 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Some may say, "well, this list only shows what churches these men were members of, it doesn't show what they believed." Which is a veiled way of suggesting that these men were liars when they swore to God to adopt the confessions of their churches

Exactly. Most men of quality at the time professed Christianity because they felt it was a good way to control the behavior of the masses that they never dreamed would get the vote. They certainly were too well educated in the Enlightenment to believe it.

They were largely of a mind with Voltaire, a man none would seriously claim was a christian, yet he kept a priest on the payroll at his estates, had him at table, attended mass regularly and was buried in hallowed ground.

It was Noblesse Oblige applied to the Noble of Mind rather than the Noble by Birth.

So9

114 posted on 11/17/2003 3:17:40 PM PST by Servant of the 9 (A Goldwater Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Precisian
Here's an easy refutation. Tim LaHaye is emphatically not a "Reconstructionist".

To amplify, Tim LaHaye can't be a reconstructionist because his Left Behind book series, which he designed in part as a tool for evangelism, depicts a world at the end of time in which Christians are a marginalized minority. Reconstructionists, by contrast, believe the church will be strong worldwide before the end.

115 posted on 11/17/2003 3:18:02 PM PST by Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
Reconstructionism doesn't work for Catholics. You will not find faithful, devout, orthodox Catholics who are "influenced by AND committed to these ideals..."

I've seen some Catholics on FR advocate many of the same things. They wouldn't get along with the Reconstructionists because each considers the other to be heretical, but the mindset is the same.

116 posted on 11/17/2003 3:22:09 PM PST by malakhi (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
There's nothing to refute. Yes there are some marginal, irrelevant folks on the periphery of any religion, who in no way represent the mainstream or even minority views. So yes, your article is true in that just like all religions there are some marginal, irrelevant folks on the periphery of Christianity that are a bit kooky.

You however are attempting to paint all of Christianity with this marginal, irrelevant nonsense, and I'm not going to tolerate it or allow it to go unanswered.

Knock it off.

Better yet, leave the Forum, for you obviously have absolutely NOTHING in common with the conservatives on this Forum, and your sole intent is to bait, insult, and abuse real Christians.

117 posted on 11/17/2003 3:22:32 PM PST by ckca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I don't really care whether you are interested! I didn't ask whether you are interested.

I asked, Why are you permitting this TRASH on your website? Why are you permitting CP to insult and abuse the majority of your donors and users, when you would not tolerate this from anyone else?

118 posted on 11/17/2003 3:25:45 PM PST by ckca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Precisian; Chancellor Palpatine
Nowhere in any "Reconstructionist" literature does anyone advocate anything but complete legal, open-ballot, judicially sustained voting.

This is the key reason all the fear mongering is misplaced and the charges against these people and groups are so dishonorable.

119 posted on 11/17/2003 3:28:01 PM PST by Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: ckca
Haven't read it and don't intend to. Ever thought of just ignoring stuff you're not interested in?
120 posted on 11/17/2003 3:31:32 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Law
"Legal", of course, being the operative term (especially in light of North's goal of claiming a monopoly on the franchise). Eventually, it appears that North would ensure that only the select would have the franchise.

Or did he not mean what he said?

121 posted on 11/17/2003 3:33:22 PM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: ckca
You however are attempting to paint all of Christianity with this marginal, irrelevant nonsense, and I'm not going to tolerate it or allow it to go unanswered.

Please point out where CP has done this. Please be very precise.

122 posted on 11/17/2003 3:41:18 PM PST by Pahuanui (When a foolish man hears of the Tao, he laughs out loud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: ckca; sitetest
Why is this one individual FReeper permitted to continue his frequent abuse and insult towards a majority of Free Republic users and donors?
112 ckca




Hey, leave me out of this.
I don't have a valid clue as to 'why'.


I am interested in, and fully support the home school movement however, and find it hard to believe that some selfstyled 'conservatives' can oppose it with such hatred.

123 posted on 11/17/2003 3:42:56 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out the Rickenbacker in me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
Even if [Reconstructionist parents] are filling their kids heads with [reconstruction theology], I would still fight to the death for their right to do so. I don't see what people would want to do, take away their right to homeschool? What's the issue here?

I don't know about the motivation for this thread, but I have observed that the goal of most homeschool bashing is to take away the right to homeschool. Leftists don't like parents, rather than the state, educating children, as the home educated tend to grow up much more conservative than the average. Even worse, homeschool families tend to be much larger than government school families. If this trend continues for a few generations, the homeschoolers will outvote their opponents.

One would think this outcome would be a cause for rejoicing to Freepers, and I'm sure it would be for most. But as we all know, there are quite a few regular posters on Free Republic that aren't all that conservative. Their aim seems to be to disrupt the free and friendly discussion of conservative ideas and to annoy Christians enough that they exile themselves to the Religion ghetto.

124 posted on 11/17/2003 3:45:50 PM PST by Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9; OrthodoxPresbyterian
Exactly. Most men of quality at the time professed Christianity because they felt it was a good way to control the behavior of the masses that they never dreamed would get the vote. They certainly were too well educated in the Enlightenment to believe it.
> They were largely of a mind with Voltaire, a man none would seriously claim was a christian, yet he kept a priest on the payroll at his estates, had him at table, attended mass regularly and was buried in hallowed ground.
It was Noblesse Oblige applied to the Noble of Mind rather than the Noble by Birth.

So then all the framers were liars and cheats?

Because your idol was a liar..does not translate to 100% of the framers being liars..

When we come to study the influence of Calvinism as a political force in the history of the United States we come to one of the brightest pages of all Calvinistic history. Calvinism came to America in the Mayflower, and Bancroft, the greatest of American historians, pronounces the Pilgrim Fathers "Calvinists in their faith according to the straightest system." John Endicott, the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony; John Winthrop, the second governor of that Colony; Thomas Hooker, the founder of Connecticut; John Davenport, the founder of the New Haven Colony; and Roger Williams, the founder of the Rhode Island Colony, were all Calvinists. William Penn was a disciple of the Huguenots. It is estimated that of the 3,000,000 Americans at the time of the American Revolution, 900,000 were of Scotch or Scotch-Irish origin, 600,000 were Puritan English, and 400,000 were German or Dutch Reformed. In addition to this the Episcopalians had a Calvinistic confession in their Thirty-nine Articles; and many French Huguenots also had come to this western world. Thus we see that about two-thirds of the colonial population had been trained in the school of Calvin. Never in the world's history had a nation been founded by such people as these.

With this background we shall not be surprised to find that the Presbyterians took a very prominent part in the American Revolution. Our own historian Bancroft says: "The Revolution of 1776, so far as it was affected by religion, was a Presbyterian measure. It was the natural outgrowth of the principles which the Presbyterianism of the Old World planted in her sons, the English Puritans, the Scotch Covenanters, the French Huguenots, the Dutch Calvinists, and the Presbyterians of Ulster." So intense, universal, and aggressive were the Presbyterians in their zeal for liberty that the war was spoken of in England as "The Presbyterian Rebellion." An ardent colonial supporter of King George III wrote home: "I fix all the blame for these extraordinary proceedings upon the Presbyterians. They have been the chief and principal instruments in all these flaming measures. They always do and ever will act against government from that restless and turbulent anti-monarchial spirit which has always distinguished them everywhere." When the news of "these extraordinary proceedings" reached England, Prime Minister Horace Walpole said in Parliament, "Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson" (John Witherspoon, president of {Calvinist Presbyterian} Princeton, signer of Declaration of Independence).

History is eloquent in declaring that American democracy was born of Christianity and that that Christianity was Calvinism. The great Revolutionary conflict which resulted in the formation of the American nation, was carried out mainly by Calvinists, many of whom had been trained in the rigidly Presbyterian College at Princeton, and this nation is their gift to all liberty loving people.

J. R. Sizoo tells us: "When Cornwallis was driven back to ultimate retreat and surrender at Yorktown, all of the colonels of the Colonial Army but one were Presbyterian elders. More than one-half of all the soldiers and officers of the American Army during the Revolution were Presbyterians."

The testimony of Emilio Castelar, the famous Spanish statesman, orator and scholar, is interesting and valuable. Castelar had been professor of Philosophy in the University of Madrid before he entered politics, and he was made president of the republic which was set up by the Liberals in 1873. As a Roman Catholic he hated Calvin and Calvinism. Says he: "It was necessary for the republican movement that there should come a morality more austere than Luther's, the morality of Calvin, and a Church more democratic than the German, the Church of Geneva. The Anglo-Saxon democracy has for its lineage a book of a primitive society — the Bible. It is the product of a severe theology learned by the few Christian fugitives in the gloomy cities of Holland and Switzerland, where the morose shade of Calvin still wanders . . . And it remains serenely in its grandeur, forming the most dignified, most moral and most enlightened portion of the human race."

All this has been thoroughly understood and candidly acknowledged by such penetrating and philosophic historians as Bancroft, who far though he was from being Calvinistic in his own personal convictions, simply calls Calvin "the father of America," and adds: "He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty." ~~ Boettner, "Calvinism in History"

125 posted on 11/17/2003 3:47:08 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
JimRob has nothing to do with this thread. Please quit pinging him.
126 posted on 11/17/2003 3:52:35 PM PST by jmc813 (Michael Schiavo is a bigger scumbag than Bill Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9
They were largely of a mind with Voltaire, a man none would seriously claim was a christian, yet he kept a priest on the payroll at his estates, had him at table, attended mass regularly and was buried in hallowed ground.

BTW He was a Catholic..a salvation by works guy..he probably thought he could live like hell and get into heaven on the basis of a few prayers and a mass

Thank God the framers believed in a sovereign God

127 posted on 11/17/2003 3:53:04 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Law; ckca
Reminds me of last week's thread about some school district in NYC that endorsed displaying Red Crescents and Stars of David because they were "historical," but outlawed a Nativity scene, because it was "fictional."

It's always open-season on conservative Christians.

128 posted on 11/17/2003 4:06:48 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg (There are very few shades of gray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine; Dr. Eckleburg
Refutations? I'm waiting

Simple. Out of 27 footnotes in the essay you quoted, six are citations of a single article by Frederick Clarkson. The publication it's found in, "The Public Eye", is published by a group called "Political Research Associates". Here's a statement about them, taken from their own website:

Founded in 1981, Political Research Associates serves as the premier national organization addressing the full spectrum of the US political Right - from the right-wing in the electoral arena to paramilitary organizations. PRA works to facilitate public understanding of the threat posed to democratic values and principles by the Right in the United States. Through our research and publications and as a national resource and support center for activists, journalists and others, PRA helps to build the movement for progressive social change.

So, how long have you been secretly pushing the Democratic Party's agenda on Free Republic, Herr Chancellor?

Let's get back to our analysis of this hit piece:

Of the remaining 21 footnotes, only three directly reference a "core" Reconstructionist author or publication (Gary North twice, Rev. Sandelin once). Only two of those reference direct quotes (both North), and neither are made in the context of home schooling or private education. Of the remaining 18 footnotes all appear to reference articles/quotes made by parties hostile to either conservative politics, Christian Reconstructionism, or Christian activism in general. Add in the six citations mentioned above, and it totals to 24 footnotes of secondary/tertiary sources, one primary book source, and only two actual source quotations from the accused (none about education).

In other words, Chancellor Palpatine (may I call you Darth Sidious?) you've provided us with a wonderfully biased, openly-Democratic-party-supporting slam-job of an article, one that more properly belongs on that whinefest better known as Democratic Underground than on Free Republic.

Refute that.

129 posted on 11/17/2003 4:07:05 PM PST by Alex Murphy (Athanasius contra mundum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Off topic, but are you still in touch with FReeper Strela? I had a wager with him/her that McClintock would be in double digits when the vote was certified. He was certified at 13.5% yesterday. Strela owes FR a $20 donation.
130 posted on 11/17/2003 4:09:41 PM PST by jmc813 (Michael Schiavo is a bigger scumbag than Bill Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; OrthodoxPresbyterian
History is eloquent in declaring that American democracy was born of Christianity and that that Christianity was Calvinism.

Great posts, RnMom.

"The tree of liberty was watered with the blood of Calvinists."

131 posted on 11/17/2003 4:17:05 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg (There are very few shades of gray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
So Free Republic's rules about abuse and insult are arbitrary, then, a joke.

Indefensible, Mr. Robinson. Pathetic.

132 posted on 11/17/2003 4:25:16 PM PST by ckca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; OrthodoxPresbyterian
Kuddos to OP being generous with plagiarism of his work
133 posted on 11/17/2003 4:28:41 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; Precisian; Law; RnMomof7; ckca
"PRA helps to build the movement for progressive social change."

Bravo, Alex. You've scratched and sniffed, and found a DU troll. And a "Progressive," no less.

Thanks for your diligent research.

134 posted on 11/17/2003 4:29:39 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg (There are very few shades of gray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: ckca
Oh, well.
135 posted on 11/17/2003 4:29:53 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: ckca
So Free Republic's rules about abuse and insult are arbitrary, then, a joke.

Indefensible, Mr. Robinson. Pathetic.

You however are attempting to paint all of Christianity with this marginal, irrelevant nonsense, and I'm not going to tolerate it or allow it to go unanswered.

Please point out where CP has done this. Please be very precise.

Tick...tock....tick.....tock......tick......

And in the meantime I'll go get you a Kleenex.

136 posted on 11/17/2003 4:32:51 PM PST by Pahuanui (When a foolish man hears of the Tao, he laughs out loud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
You don't care?

"In other words, Chancellor Palpatine (may I call you Darth Sidious?) you've provided us with a wonderfully biased, openly-Democratic-party-supporting slam-job of an article, one that more properly belongs on that whinefest better known as Democratic Underground than on Free Republic. Refute that.

Oh well??

What the heck has come over you? Why are you permitting this??

137 posted on 11/17/2003 4:32:52 PM PST by ckca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: ckca
Why do I permit anyone to post? Read the disclaimer at the bottom of the page.
138 posted on 11/17/2003 4:36:27 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine; ckca; Dr. Eckleburg
Eventually, it appears that North would ensure that only the select would have the franchise. Or did he not mean what he said?

Today is no different: "Only the select" have the franchise. If you're 17 years, 364 days old or less, you can't vote, but if you're one day older, you can. Unless you're a felon or a foreigner or dead (take that back: felons, foreigners and dead people do vote in many places in the US). At any rate, the main point is that every government limits the vote to "the select"; it is hardly the terrible calamity you suggest.

No doubt what you meant to say is that you don't like North's version of the select. Well, I'm sure many reconstructionists don't agree with his selection either. And many nonreconstructionists Christians don't agree either. The religious right is hardly monolithic...all this scaremongering is much ado about nothing to worry about. At least not in our lifetimes.

If you're concerned that much about the distant future, maybe you should spend less time posting on Free Republic and more time having children. Teach them your viewpoint and tell to them to do the same with their children. In a few generations there could be thousands of Chancellor Palpatines to outvote those scary Reconstructionist homeschoolers.

139 posted on 11/17/2003 4:39:25 PM PST by Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Law
If you're concerned that much about the distant future, maybe you should spend less time posting on Free Republic and more time having children. Teach them your viewpoint and tell to them to do the same with their children. In a few generations there could be thousands of Chancellor Palpatines to outvote those scary Reconstructionist homeschoolers.

Nicely put. After all, that's how I'm planning converting this country to my own values, and away from the Democrats, liberals, and atheists. Of course, it may take multiple generations, but I'm patient. The way I figure it, as long as they're practicing abortion-on-demand (and I'm not) I think my plan wins by default.

140 posted on 11/17/2003 4:44:56 PM PST by Alex Murphy (Athanasius contra mundum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
If you had followed my link rather than just spewing..."

I did follow your link and read your other post before responding, so I'm not the one just spewing. I just consider your discovery to be unimportant. Lawyers borrow good arguments from diverse sources all the time. And whenever there is a high profile case, lots of people try to help. You don't have to be a scary reconstructionist to want a judge to be able to officially acknowledge the historical root of much of American law.

Besides, the argument put forth in the article and in the legal brief is hardly reconstructionist. It may be more or less effective in and of itself, but thinking the source of the argument taints the argument is to commit the genetic fallacy in logic.

141 posted on 11/17/2003 4:50:32 PM PST by Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
In other words, Chancellor Palpatine...you've provided us with a wonderfully biased, openly-Democratic-party-supporting slam-job of an article, one that more properly belongs on that whinefest better known as Democratic Underground than on Free Republic.

Hear, Hear!

142 posted on 11/17/2003 4:52:41 PM PST by Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Pahuanui
Read the thread. Thanks. Stuff the Kleenex.
143 posted on 11/17/2003 4:54:23 PM PST by ckca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; Law
Good plan.
144 posted on 11/17/2003 4:55:42 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg (There are very few shades of gray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
BTW He was a Catholic..a salvation by works guy..he probably thought he could live like hell and get into heaven on the basis of a few prayers and a mass

No he wasn't. He was a Diest who pretended to Catholocism and published his Deist works anonymously.

So9

145 posted on 11/17/2003 4:56:31 PM PST by Servant of the 9 (A Goldwater Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Law; Jim Robinson
more properly belongs on that whinefest better known as Democratic Underground than on Free Republic.

Hear, Hear!

Can anyone tell me why the deference to the troll CP/OPH? What gives here? Any other DU Troll posting this drivel would not be tolerated.

146 posted on 11/17/2003 4:57:08 PM PST by ckca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: ckca
What gives here?

You continue to act like a baby with a full diaper.

How many times does Jim have to tell you to shut the hell up?

147 posted on 11/17/2003 5:05:37 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Law
Lawyers borrow good arguments from diverse sources all the time.

I wonder if they gave credit where credit is due or did they claim this was their orginal thought. Looks like they lifted their arguments, such as they were, whole cloth from the article.

148 posted on 11/17/2003 5:05:53 PM PST by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: ckca
Read the thread. Thanks. Stuff the Kleenex.

Oh, please. I've read this thread, and your histrionic feet-stamping and pouting, and I've seen zero from you that backs up the claims you've made.

Cry me a river.

149 posted on 11/17/2003 5:06:13 PM PST by Pahuanui (When a foolish man hears of the Tao, he laughs out loud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

Comment #150 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-241 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson