Yellum Notnef

Oh my goodness! I`m almost speechless.

Tektonics is a skeptics site? That guy HATES skeptics and has even said how much he and is wife enjoy "tormenting" skeptics who don`t believe in Christianity.

Tektonics is in the same intellectual league with all those websites about alien implants and Atlantis. It`s pure bullshit. The only difference is that the alien and Atlantis people aren`t known for being vindictive douch bags.

Radorth

I didn't read it through and I had trouble understanding what he was saying and what Paine was saying. I merely typed in "Thomas Paine-bigot" simply to find a site, and it wasn't hard at all as I suspected. Labeling people "bigot" is a common practice for those who disagree with us. The question is whether a "bigot" could have contributed something important in his day.

"Christians" call Paine a bigot. Skeptics call Luther a bigot. No surprise there.

I NEVER said Luther was not a bigot, so save your breath.

No proof for this slander, as usual, and I doubt any will be forthcoming. And anyway, it turns out Barton is less tendentious than Toto, who has yet to apologize for misrepresenting what Steele actually said. For the moment then, I will rate Turkel's integrity somewhere between Toto and Barton, while I consider all my fellow human hypocrites.

Rad

Toto

Rad - if you google Paine and bigot, you find lots of sites because the word "bigot" is contained in Paine's writings. You only find one site that accuses Paine of being a bigot, and that is Robert "Trash Talk" Turkel's disreputable site. And if you could read what he wrote, you would realize that he had no basis for calling Paine a bigot, and was just using the word as a general insult.

Bigot has a specific meaning. In the case of Luther, it refers to his anti-Semitism and his calls for all Jews to be killed/harassed etc. Paine said nothing that was comparable.

I think this board is about to conclude that you are not worth debating.

In what way did I misrepresent what Steele said? I recall giving you a URL to his letter, but that's all.

Radorth

Well no noticeable response so far to the apparently painful FACTS I presented in response to Bobby Kirkhart's fact-free revisionist diet plan.

Since skeptics are mistakenly hearing me call their patron saint Paine a bigot, I suppose we will never find out what is "new" about Kirkhart's assertions.

Rad

hezekiah jones

Radorth, upon gaining enlightenment from the skeptics:
"I didn't read it through and I had trouble understanding what he was saying and what Paine was saying."

No - really? Well, I guess there's a first time for everything!

This J.P. Holding character is a piece of work. In addition to coining the laughably oxomoronic slur Enlightenment bigot, he has thoughtfully composed a "Quiz for Skeptics" (how anybody could mistake this lame-ass apologetics drivel for a "skeptic's site" boggles the mind) in which the unsuccessful skeptic receives the following admonition from Holding: "Not bad, if you're trying to earn membership in the Ku Klux Klan."

Last time I tried to earn membership in the Ku Klux Klan, I came across this message from Pastor Thomas Robb, National Director of the Knights Party:

Sounds more like something right out of Planet Radorth to me. Unless of course kukluxklan.org is a "skeptic's site" as well. Evidently Holding believes it is.

How stupid do you think we are, indeed.

Radorth

Yb normal, in damage control mode

Ah OK, so we now know what "you Xians" means. It' people like Rad who think the Boy Scouts get too much govt help, has sympathies with pro-choicers, doesn't care if Roe V Wade is overturned, is pro-ERA, is much happier than Jefferson about the removal of state's rights by the Supreme court, thinks Bush would be wrong to attack Iraq, and voted for Clinton.

Criminy. By the definitions of some holy skeptics, "bigot" could apply here, though I would never say that. It's more like mindless categorizing of human beings. Nice try though.

Rad

Radorth

I found the "Paine Picking his Nose" sites rather entertaining, but nothing more. Your post is so long on ranting, irrelavent websites, etc, and short on facts worthy of slander, I think I'll abstain from arguing with you.

Although you don't know the difference between John Adams and his son, I wouldn't call you stupid. "Tendentious" and "ignorant" do come to mind in your case.

Rad

Toto

Okay, in response to Kirkhart's article, you claim that Jefferson ordered troups to attend "divine services." When I try to track this down, I find a reference to the Library of Congress, where it is said that the Congress enacted this:

From IV. Religion and the Congress of the Confederation, 1774-89

Note: this predates the First Amendment. Note also that "divine services" are not specified as to denomination, and are "recommended" rather than mandatory.

Exactly how does this support your position? And why should anyone bother discussing anything with you when you cannot give a reference to your sources or get them right?

ybnormal

Rad, darling, with apologies for disturbing another of your fantasies, it is only Radorth who is in a perpetually desperate damage control mode with each and every post on this forum. Who else has ever had their very own thread created here, specifically for their personal damage control usage?

If it were ybnormal in damage control mode, why would you respond to my "you xians" post at all, if not to counter the following exchange?

Radorth

Toto

From Toto's cite

"Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, "

My mistake. But not a peep from any Founder except Madison apparently. Certainly not from Jefferson. I would have said something, so I guess that makes me a strict separationist compared to him.

Gosh and what kind of "divine services" do we suppose Jefferson was "recommending." Not Protestant Christian ones I hope.

Well I think Toto's cite pretty well sums up the Founder's/ Congress' view of "separation." He knows there's a problem and doubtless hopes some legalistic interpretation of the First Amendment makes it all go away in the minds of the choir.

If we are talking about the value of separation here, I don't think we are far off. If we are talking about what the Framer's own beliefs on what separation entailed, then our differences are irreconcilable by now.

Rad