Freethought & Rationalism Archive

never been there · 08-18-2003, 08:57 PM

Quote:

was confirmed on November 12, 1999 by Taslima Nasreen who took the floor during Commission V of the United Nation's UNESCO's General Conference� "[T]he state has to be secular, the religious laws have to be abolished to create uniform civil code in which women get equalities.�

A big triple :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy to the very worthy Taslima Nasrin!

Either she has the "tasties" (q.v.) of a dozen men, or she has enough rocks in her head to actually enjoy :banghead:

Mediancat · 08-19-2003, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by QueenofSwords
Whoops, my bad. I looked up Article VII of the Amendments to the Constitution. I didn't realize that there were two Article VIIs. This is why I don't do too many political nutwatches : I'm not too conversant in the field.

Anyway, you'd think that if the Founding Fathers valued Jesus so highly, they would address him by name and put him in at least the second or third articles, if not the first.

Don't worry, Queen. Christian Fundamentalists love to point this part out as "proof" that the founders were all good Christians, never mind that they really didn't have another method of dating open to them (they weren't going to use Islamic dating, Jewish dating or methods of dating based on the founding of a Chinese dynasty . . .)

We have the phrase "common era" we can use. They didn't. This is no more proof that they were all Bible-thumpin' Christians than our post dates are here on II.

Rob aka Mediancat

ex-xian · 08-19-2003, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mediancat
Don't worry, Queen. Christian Fundamentalists love to point this part out as "proof" that the founders were all good Christians, never mind that they really didn't have another method of dating open to them (they weren't going to use Islamic dating, Jewish dating or methods of dating based on the founding of a Chinese dynasty . . .)

We have the phrase "common era" we can use. They didn't. This is no more proof that they were all Bible-thumpin' Christians than our post dates are here on II.

Rob aka Mediancat

In case my other post was unclear, it was supposed to be dripping with sarcasm.

Aravnah Ornan · 08-19-2003, 08:23 AM

Quote:

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven

That obviously proves that the framers of the Constitution meant this to be a Christian nation -- just as every government document that spells out the name of the month of August declares us to be one nation under Caesar Augustus.

Mediancat · 08-19-2003, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ex-xian
In case my other post was unclear, it was supposed to be dripping with sarcasm.

Yeah, I got that. I just thought I'd pull a "better-safe-than-sorry" for the benefit of anyone around who actually thought "The Year of our Lord" meant anything beyond an appeal to ordinary language usage.

Rob aka Mediancat

Kimpatsu · 08-19-2003, 10:44 PM

All that ranting about sovereigns; is that because this church is thick and brassy?

Goober · 08-20-2003, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Planet Earth is loaded with room. We could put the world's entire population into the United States.

Yes, we could fit the population of Australia into Lake Michigan alone.

Awwww, you wouldn't make us do that would you?

Once again, great nutwatch.

GunnerJ · 08-21-2003, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by QueenofSwords
Who's Bruce Campbell?

Woot.

Also, your "Starship Troopers" line made me giggle and spit and slap myself silly. Don't stop believing.

(PS- When can I see the next chapter of Mark or Vurth? Or is it written yet?)

Boredom · 08-22-2003, 04:44 PM

My favorite from here

"I abhor and denounce, as satanic, any and all numbers, ..."

Beavis: You know what I hate - numbers.

Butthead: Yeah, there's like... too many of 'em and stuff.

Queen of Swords · 08-23-2003, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by GunnerJ
PS- When can I see the next chapter of Mark or Vurth? Or is it written yet?

OK, tell you what. I work better when I have a deadline. Here it is, for all to see - my deadline for the next chapter is Tuesday. By hook or by crook, you'll have that part of the book, if I have to whip myself with a bottle of Folgers to do it. Good. This ought to make me buckle down and stop playing Civ III.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-19-2003, 10:44 PM	#16
Kimpatsu Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Tokyo Posts: 1,126	All that ranting about sovereigns; is that because this church is thick and brassy?

08-22-2003, 04:44 PM	#19
Boredom Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: 123 Fake Street Posts: 279	My favorite from here "I abhor and denounce, as satanic, any and all numbers, ..." Beavis: You know what I hate - numbers. Butthead: Yeah, there's like... too many of 'em and stuff.

08-23-2003, 12:27 AM	#20
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	Originally posted by GunnerJ PS- When can I see the next chapter of Mark or Vurth? Or is it written yet? OK, tell you what. I work better when I have a deadline. Here it is, for all to see - my deadline for the next chapter is Tuesday. By hook or by crook, you'll have that part of the book, if I have to whip myself with a bottle of Folgers to do it. Good. This ought to make me buckle down and stop playing Civ III.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.