Larry Darby wrote:
Thank you to all who have expressed an interest in restoring good
government to Alabama - and the United States of America, for Americans
for a change!
I am reminded of an old Albert Brooks comedy bit from the early 70s
where he says that radio disc jockeys are endowed
I wonder if Mr. Darby's anti-Semitic self-promotion really belongs on
this list serve?
Larry Darby wrote:
Thank you to all who have expressed an interest in restoring good
government to Alabama - and the United States of America, for Americans
for a change!
Those persons who want to stay
I second Paul's concern.
Frank
On 12/13/05 7:37 AM, Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder if Mr. Darby's anti-Semitic self-promotion really belongs on
this list serve?
Larry Darby wrote:
Thank you to all who have expressed an interest in restoring good
government to Alabama
Paul's query again
raisesthe question of the List's purposes. My own view is that
phrases like "Zionist-Occupied Government" and, in Paul's words,the
speaker's "anti-Semitic self-promotion" do not belong on this List. I
recognizeand admire Eugene's typical reluctance to censoremails
posted
I confess to thinking zionist-occupied government no more out of
bounds than Protestant empire or claims that America is a Christian
nation. I confess to think the later two more accurate, but do not
think the first the sort of hate speech that ought to ba banned from the
list.
Mark A. Graber,
I wonder if Mr. Darby's effort is not redundant. Do we not already have the
ACLU, ABA and the three branches of our national government which are, de
facto, operating atheists? Just wondering...John Lofton, Editor,
TheAmericanView.com and Recovering Republican...Also, an interviewer of Mr.
When I think of a criminal being redeemed, I think of the thief on the cross
who said that We are getting the just rewards for our deeds.
I believe that St Augustine of Hippo did not want to execute heretics, but
wanted to give them an opportunity to turn from their wicked ways.
If a person is
In a message dated 12/12/2005 8:40:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does
that mean that it is illegitimate to base one's opposition tocapital
punishment on it (or, for that matter, a literal, albeitdebatable, reading
of "Thou Shalt Not Kill"), or, conversely,
Folks: My general approach to this list has been to allow all
viewpoints, though to insist that the viewpoints be framed in as polite
a way as possible given the nature of those viewpoints. This includes
anti-Semitism, anti-Protestantism, anti-evangelical-Christianity,
anti-Catholicism,
I am reluctant to allow certain viewpoints on the list and
forbid other viewpoints based on how many people were lynched or
murdered in this country owing to those viewpoints. (Incidentally,
there have fortunately been relatively few Jews -- not none, but
relatively few -- lynched or
I agree with Sandy that *this* aspect of the redemption inquiry
is indeed related to the law of government and religion. (I anticipated
this in some measure when I wrote that we ought to discuss [the
redemption question] only to the extent that it touches on the law of
government and
In a message dated 12/13/2005 1:20:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yet surely the answer is that it's perfectly legitimate forpeople
to base either their support or opposition to capital punishmenton
religious justifications, just as it's legitimate for
One can take this a step further and distinguish, as Rawls does, between
constitutional /democratic contexts (where this type of public reasoning
occurs) and the cultural background (where it does not.) It becomes very
problematic when the standards of public reason are applied to cultural
By saying, carefully, that the ACLU, ABA and the three branches of our national
government are “de facto, operating” atheists I sought to head off the type of
response below. Oh, well….So, please, let me, briefly, elaborate on what I
meant by interspersing my comments among the comments of Ed
This sounds chillingly like the Stalinist insistence that people deserved
to be purged because they were objectively counter-revolutionary. And
serves handily for labeling whoever the speaker has decided to dislike as
objectively fascist or objectively racist, or perhaps even
objectively
I confess to agreeing more with Eugene than Michael on this one. First,
one can equate, say Zionism with Nazism on various grounds without
anyone taking offense. Both are nouns, both are names for political
movements. This does not strike me as offensive, even though I am a
Zionist who regards
In a message dated 12/13/05 2:42:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
St. Paul, in Romans 1:18ff, makes it clear that ALL men know there is a God; some worship Him, others don’t and hold down this truth (that there is a God) in unrighteousness. Thus, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as an
Hi,
In one sense, John Lofton's notion of operational atheism
has much more to it than meets the eye. Consider, for example, the
views of Radical Orthodox Christian theologians (e.g., John
Milbank) and some other important post-liberal contemporary
Christian thinkers (e.g., Stanley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Comment: Well, let’s see, please, if what I said is “utter nonsense” or “absurd.” In the New Testament, in Romans 13, 1-8, God tells us the purpose of civil government. It’s powers are ordained of God and our rulers are to be ministers of His Law. Do any of our
I
concur.
The reference to "ZOG" evokes a view of Jewish conspiracy and influence
that is simply a more current version ofthe "history" recited in the
fraudulent Protocols of the Elders of Zion -- and has no more place in civil
discourse.
Richard
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
I appreciate Prof. Dane's serious response to what I wrote. And,
for-the-record, I would like to say that although I am a Bible-believing,
Calvinistic, postmillennialst, I (we) are very critical of the so-called
Religious Right because most of their leaders are Republican Party
cheerleaders
Neoconservative is
another code word for the Zionists (some Jews, some Jewish-Christians) who
dominate the US Government. Theyre Israel-firsters. The dominant
philosophy is Trotskyism. Dominionists is another term that covers those who put Israel first, as opposed to the US of A. A sure
Zionism is on target with both religion and government. That's
indisputable. Racism of Zionism is of Judaism, the Master Race or
people of the book or the chosen people. One has to have one's head
buried in sand not to understand that the ongoing FBI, SEC, Senate, and
other investigations of
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Larry Darby wrote:
[snip]
To understand the fallacy of calling someone anti-semitic, it's helpful
to understand that semitic refers to a group of African-Asian
languages, not Jews or any religion. Arabic, Ethiopic, Hebrew are just 3
of several semitic languages.
I think you (Mr. Graber) appear to be unaware
that the term used was not a neutral government
dominated by Zionists; it was the specific phrase
Zionist-Occupied Government. This phrase was coined
by and is used exclusively by white-supremacist and
Neo-Nazi groups such as Aryan Nations, to
25 matches
Mail list logo
