On 01-21-98, KEITH KNAPP declared to ROBERT PLETT:
KK>RP>Look in the mirror, Keith.  It is you, not I, who seek the power of law
KK>RP>respecting the establishment of religion.  You and your ACLU friends
KK>Robert, I don't think I've ever met anyone who is a member of the ACLU.
Didn't say or assume you had - the comment was based on your statements
in support of them and what they do.
KK>You and I both need to be wary of the tendency to lump everyone we
KK>disagree with into one big monolithic bad-guy lump.
KK>RP>seek to use law, be it legislation by congress, or inappropriate 
ctions
KK>RP>by renegade courts, to completely silence the traditional and 
istorical
KK>RP>Christian voices in the public life of this country, and replace it 
ith
KK>RP>one form or another of humanism, itself pronounced a religion by the
KK>RP>Supreme Court.
KK>1) What you are saying here is that when a court disagrees with your
KK>value system, it is 'renegade,' but if it supports your values, you
KK>use it as an authority to support your argument.
I use the Court because folks like yourself take their renegade
pronouncements as statements of Constitutional fact.  It actually
doesn't matter one whit to me what the Court comes up with, the
Declaration and the Constitution mean exactly what they plainly say in
the context of the time in which they were written, the words to be
understood as the authors understood them.
KK>2) Could you please present even one instance in which the ACLU
KK>has come into your church or your living room and tried to 'completely
KK>silence' your practice?
A red herring, and a stupid one at that.  No such claim has been made by
me, nor have I even intimated such a complaint.
KK>Their intent is to make sure that no one religion or sect thereof can
KK>take control of the immense power of government and use it to coerce
KK>everyone.
Exactly.  Unfortunately, you are incapable of understanding the
difference between a government that simply adheres to Biblical
principles and one that forces its citizens to swear allegience
to and to practice a particular religion and worship in particular
ways.

KK>Robert, sooner or later you are going to have to accept the fact
KK>that American liberty is based upon freedom for _all_ religions
KK>and favor toward none.
Not true.  The extreme care with which they arrived at the wording of
the 1st Amendment was out of concern that "the words might be taken in
such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion."
They wanted to "secure the rights of conscience, and a free exercise of
the rights of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no
religion at all." (1 Annals of Congress, 730-731)
You haven't yet gotten it thru your head that when they spoke of
different religions, what they meant was what we today call Christian
denominations.  They absolutely DID intend to favor Christianity, just
no one denomination or sect of it. "An attempt to level all religions,
and make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference,
would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal
indignation." (Joseph Story)
KK>You are going to have to confront the fact
KK>that this goes against your own _quite sincere_ beliefs about the
KK>rightful supremacy of your own particular sect.  This means that
KK>if you believe that your own narrow sect should take and hold
KK>federal power and impose your theological INTERPRETATIONS on the
KK>general population, then sincere Christians are obliged to oppose
KK>you.
I've already told you I follow no sect, group, or man.  I realize you
love throwing out red herrings, but your continuing willfull stupidity
about that has gone well past tiresome.
Bob     /\-/\   - proud Ilk   homebody@galstar.com
C.A.T. ( o o ) Chapter Ilks
       == ^ ==
Green Country - Oklahoma      http://www.galstar.com/~homebody/
 * SLMR 2.1a * Some folks need years of education to get that stupid.
---------------