Church of Scientology geting hit with a DDoS attack...

[SUBMAN1]

They seem to have some website issues going on! :D

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/25/ddos_scientology_controversy/

-S

[mrbeast]

Whats the phrase I'm looking for.........'What goes around comes around'? :hmm:

I can't say I approve of internet based assaults on anyone. But, considering the lengths that the Scientologists will go to shut up or discredit anyone who raises even the slightest criticism of it; I can't say I have much sympathy for them.

Remember the BBC reporter that lost his temper? Check out just some of the harrasment that the Church of Scientology put him through.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWbH2aUhX5k

Can't say I blame him for getting angry.

[Skybird]

Exploit the breach, do maximum damage. Especially, destroy their banking accounts, and try to reveal confidental data. The higher the damage, the better. Prisoners not wanted. This strike has my unlimited sympathy. They do not want allowing you free speech and free thinking, so you do not owe them the possibility of their speech as well. They are at war with free society like we define it, so if you like that kind of society, you are at war with them - wether you like it or not.

[SUBMAN1]

...They are at war with free society like we define it, so if you like that kind of society, you are at war with them - wether you like it or not.Words of wisdom on the subject right there. Can't say it any better. Radical Islam could fall in here too on the same subject.

-S

[Redbrow]

I used to dream of ways to improve Islam and they all involved causing Islam to morph to something else. One of my pet theories (desires) was to drop a BFB (typical American glass pavement talk) on Mecca. Here is the device I longed for: a 25 megaton (50 would be best) dropped as a bunker buster - creating a whoper of a giant crater right where Mecca used to be. But that alone would not suffice to generate an evolution of Muslim thinking. No, the device I dreamed of would be wrapped in thick layers of really dirty materials, so the bomb would resemble a large box car. This would produce a really dirty device that would set the terrain around the holy crater to glowing for 25,000 years or more. (Pilgrimage to that...) Imagine praying toward that...

This would force a major rethink in Islam. But I gave up such maniacal day dreams when I realized something worse could happen - the Muslims could all end up morphing to Mormonism, or even worse to Christian theology! Besides, without Islam Europe would just end up worshipping some sort of Star Wars or Star Trek movie based religion. Without Islam Europe would just depolulate into a waste land of ruins and old people dragging around their latest Post Modernist Marvin the Robot philosophy. Nature abhors a vacuum, and since mankind IS designed to run around in some sort of wishful thinking daydream - nature wants to see to it that Islam becomes Europe and Europe becomes Islam. And being a philosophic savage myself - devoted to primitivism, and pagan faith - I think Islam should inherit Europe, before the last old lady there turns out the lights.

:cool:

On this blow back theme, Islam's greatest threat is from all the Muslims that are moving to the USA. ANyone who knows America, knows that it takes fine cheezes from around the world and blows back veleeta! I warned my old Zen buddies back in the mid 70s that if Zen took off in America it would produce a fastfood McZen that would over time seep back across the Pacific Ocean to infect Asia. And this is indeed what happened and is happening. In time the result of Muslims moving in the USA will be to finally push their numbers here to a critical mass - and suddenly from their children and new converts an American version of Islam, McIslam, will blow back to the Middle East. In that day Islam will wish for the day when all America sent their way were ships, troops, and planes.

[SUBMAN1]

...or even worse to Christian theology!

:cool:That could be the best thing that happened to them. The US of A is founded on it, as is its morals and laws. That is if you are an American.

-S

[mrbeast]

...or even worse to Christian theology!

:cool:That could be the best thing that happened to them. The US of A is founded on it, as is its morals and laws. That is if you are an American.

-S

So why the separation of church and state?

[SUBMAN1]

...or even worse to Christian theology!

:cool:That could be the best thing that happened to them. The US of A is founded on it, as is its morals and laws. That is if you are an American.

-S
So why the separation of church and state?What does this have to do with the conversation? The seperation of church and state is not hard to figure out though if you think about it - Religious Freedom. When the two are together, they get back to a system as found in old England, the very reason people came here in the first place.

Both the Church of Scientology and Radical Islam want to take that religious freedom away from you - hence their war on Government in one form or another. It would be fine for them to suggest, but not to crush the ideas that gave them the power to exist in the first place.

-S

[mrbeast]

...or even worse to Christian theology!

:cool:That could be the best thing that happened to them. The US of A is founded on it, as is its morals and laws. That is if you are an American.

-S
So why the separation of church and state?What does this have to do with the conversation? The seperation of church and state is not hard to figure out though if you think about it - Religious Freedom. When the two are together, they get back to a system as found in old England, the very reason people came here in the first place.

Both the Church of Scientology and Radical Islam want to take that religious freedom away from you - hence their war on Government in one form or another. It would be fine for them to suggest, but not to crush the ideas that gave them the power to exist in the first place.

-S

Well you seem to be suggesting that the USA is a Christian nation in the sense that Iran is an Islamic one. I know full well why there is a separation of Church and state in the US, I just wondered why a country founded on christianity would go to such lengths to remove its influence from the state.

As far as I can see your country and its laws are not founded on Christian theolgy.

[Skybird]

...or even worse to Christian theology!

:cool:That could be the best thing that happened to them. The US of A is founded on it, as is its morals and laws. That is if you are an American.

-S
Yes and No. Christianity and especially the church to be a basis of America's founding was explicitly rejected back then, and has not been integral part of America. I lived by the same wrong thought myself too, though, until just weeks ago when some written comments on the issue made me stick my nose into history lessons and I learned that I was assuming totally wrong all the years. The formal Christian aspects like the formula "In God we trust" for example, as well as explicit religious formulations in vows and "one nation under one God" have been added by churchian lobbyism not before somewhere around the middle of the last century.

the treaty of Tripolis also often is given as a document of evidence that America "is not a christian country". during the negotiations witt he pirates in the Med, this was explicitly pointed out in speech and writing.

On a less formal and more general level though one must see of course that the European and American way of thinking, acting, seeing the world and life, and culture in general, without doubt has been massively influental on forming the cultural identity of europe, and america as well - for it were no culture-free people that boarded the Mayflower in 1620. And in good and in bad, Christianity and churches had their massive role to play in forming this european tradition: by forming it, or by seeing it getting formed in explicit resistence to Christian churches, what maybe even has proven to be far more impprtant just consider sciences, philosphy, enlightenment). Public life in america may be dominated by Christian values, but the formal structure of the state was designed not to be basing on Christian religion, or any religion at all. thus the state neither has the right to interfere with relgion, nor has relgion any right to instrumentalize religion for it's own purposes. Both have to stay separate.

Seen that way, the past decades went terribly wrong.

The strict separation of state and religion had light and shadow sides. On the one hand it helped tolerance and coexistence of different cults living side by side. On the other hand it did not prevent religious racism, the KuKluxKlan, and fanatism of the Christian rightwingers. On the one hand you can found any cult you want - on the other hand, things like suicidal sects, man-hurting psycho-cults and Scientology are considerted to be "religion" and are considered as off-limits for prevention and control. On the one hand you have, seen on a general, total scale, a basic attitude that in it's ideals wishes to respect other cultures and general mutual tolerance amongst mankind - on the other hand you see the religious right having secured solid beachheads in governmental and military institutions, bringing Christian fundamentalism into these institutions, and having been able to secure an alarming ammount of seats and offices throughout the federal and military structures. Their influence is growing, and is growing fast.

"All is in a state of flux" (Heraklit). and often, things (or nations) over time turn into exactly the oppopsite of what they wanted to be. And rules that were meant to secure that things stay as they were designed and wished to be - become the tools that implement the opposite that they were once meant to prevent.

[Redbrow]

I used to be a preacher and for 27 years was Christian (such as it exists in modern times, as it is almost nothing as it was before Rome become head roost). As an old Christian I was under COMMAND from Yahweh the War God to preach the word or face having the blood of the lost dripping from my soul. I too had a vast plexus of [it could have been this way]'s of sophistry to uphold the great dome of all the Biblical weak spots I was aware of that contradicted reality. (note that I still tend to capitalize Bible, as all preachers do) I even raised my own offspring on every known atheist argument aganist the 'B'ible and then some, since I had once been an atheist before my conversion. I did not come to the Faith ('F'aith) by way of being born into it or by way of simple emotional response - though in truth all converts are brought in by a leap of faith rather than mere logic. And having parents with a scientific back ground meant I had to construct a huge construct of excuses to explain away the weaknesses of the Bible - such as they were. My own children could out debate the atheists at their schools and as they entered college they were able to withstand the dogmas of the science professors with some ease. There were other more personal empirical evidences that helped me along this trail to holding on to the Faith that I won't mention here. But the upshot was that I could see no way I could ever lose my faith unless as I used to say: "A huge asteroid hit the earth and smashed it into two halves and as I spent my last 10 seconds seeing all this I might say, "Hmmm, I guess God's prophets were wong...."

But one day, not looking for anything against the Bible, I ran into an OT scripture that I had likely read scores of times. I was researching a medical question from the Bible's standpoint. Suddenly I saw it - the grand daddy of all Bible goof ups. And not only that - it was one that ALL atheists had never found and had always ignored. Even today on web sites - I find nothing about it. I spent 2 months researching the Hebrew, the Greek LXX, and every other book I could find and there was no question - this section of scripture was a Checkmate I could not get around (kind of like the poor Mormon DNA researchers who had to face the fact that genetic tests prove that the American Natives are in no way related to Semites.)

My faith was shattered and the vast dome of sophistry (which by the way I was always aware of, as I told my children, "ultimately I accept the Bible as true because I want it to be real, because a leap of faith was required, not circular logic") was falling in. I had studied geology and had been able to create my own version of excuses. But now all these fell in.

The end of all this was that I tried to show this deadly verse and its implications to other Christians. Each time a person saw it (and since it was really all about simple medical issue just about anyone above 21 years old could see and understand it) that person would within one day (about 24 hours max) lose their faith. It was a Christian killer. Could be a Jew killer too, since it was OT. One lady I told, later had to go on meds. Half of the people I mentioned this verse to ended up telling me years later that they had ended up feeling like a tree of leaves without branches or a trunk.

I realized about this time that mankind is not designed to live in objective reality. Man is a creature of the STORY, the myth, the CAUSE. This universe and its objective reality is like a caustic acid to the intellect of a super intelligent sentient being such as man. Only my old atheist Zen background and experience of Satori prevented me from caving in. Without a powerful story or cause most humans have to take pain killers, like Vodka, to dull the pain. One writer I liked stated that really it was inhumane to force an animal to live in this universe.

I stopped telling anyone else about this killer verse. Why should I? After all churches were like ice-chests, they weren't perfect but they tended to keep people from going totally rotten. Besides, I was no longer living under a LAW or the Mount or even the Law of Christ. Why should I go on a crusade to right the minds of people around me? Another question is, why do so many atheists feel the need to be on their crusade? has some deity told them he would hold them to account if they did not?

So if you are a Christian - I say stay one. "Its great for ME and OK for you." (A line adapted from the movie Judge Dread - let other readers understand).

:lol:

PS
Chritianity is not an American religion. America does not own it nor did it create it. The NT was a creation of the Middle East and the Greek and Roman world, which shared few values with the USA. The American McReligion is really no different from my own beliefs now, since few if any church goers ever actually read the Bible and even fewer actually follow it. What they have is more like pagan religion and it tends to be: there is a Great Spirit, and he likes them personally and watches over them and answers prayer and most everyone, at least those the American individual might like or approve of, will go to a nice place called heaven. This is not NT. But it is fairly standard of a belief from ancient times from Asia to the American Indians.

[SUBMAN1]

Do we really need to rehash this again? I've already proved more than once that that US of A is founded of Christian principles. Search on it in the GT forums and you will once again find the same conclusion. Tired of Rehashing - it is getting old.

-S

[nikimcbee]

Do we really need to rehash this again? I've already proved more than once that that US of A is founded of Christian principles. Search on it in the GT forums and you will once again find the same conclusion. Tired of Rehashing - it is getting old.

-S

See Beer Thread:hmm: :up:

[Skybird]

Do we really need to rehash this again? I've already proved more than once that that US of A is founded of Christian principles. Search on it in the GT forums and you will once again find the same conclusion.

Your conclusion.

[mrbeast]

Do we really need to rehash this again? I've already proved more than once that that US of A is founded of Christian principles. Search on it in the GT forums and you will once again find the same conclusion. Tired of Rehashing - it is getting old.

-S

Your proof being?

[SUBMAN1]

Do we really need to rehash this again? I've already proved more than once that that US of A is founded of Christian principles. Search on it in the GT forums and you will once again find the same conclusion. Tired of Rehashing - it is getting old.

-S
Your proof being?Go Google up on American History, or search for similar posts in the GT forum. You will educate yourself. I'm not going to do your work for you since this has been hashed 20 times over here already. Now on to the beer thread.

-S

[elite_hunter_sh3]

The U.S.A , Canada and ALL OF EUROPE are CHRISTIAN, and should always be christian.. just like its been for the last 1000+ years...:shifty:

[Skybird]

Being part of the christian cultural sphere and it's identity-forming inlfuence over history is one thing. A nation especially founded and "constructed" on christian prinicples to reflect Christian religion, is something different. And the latter the US is NOT. not by the constitution, not by the amendements. Not by the bill of rights. Not by oh so many quotes from the founding fathers and leading persons from the early founding time. Subman is raising wrong impressions there, or is mixing up these two things.

the following I just copy and paste from a doc file where I use to save all material that I stumble over and eventually will later use it, when I found it interesting at first read. If it is from one or several sources, I cannot say anymore. but I think it was just one site, some months ago. If you know it, post a link, I don't have it anymore.


The Christian majority

It is true that that Christianity was the majority religion of the first european colonists, it was the majority religion at the time of the country's founding and has remained by far the dominant religion through the history of our country. There is no doubt that the country was settled by Christians and has been populated by a Christian majority.
The statement that is commonly made is that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation. To examine this statement we will look at the Declaration of independence, The Constitution, Treaty of Tripoly and


The Founding Fathers.

Declaration of Independence
There is no specific reference to Christianity or Jesus in the Declaration of independence. There are a few references to a 'Nature's God' who is the creator of life, giver of rights and 'supreme Judge of the world' but that is rather vague.
"the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"
Notice that it specifically describes 'Natures God', this is a more generic idea of God, this is god as nature.
"that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
This does describes God as a creator of life and giver of rights but goes no further.
"appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions"
Here God is the 'Supreme Judge'.
It is expected that people of the time would speak of a god, there was little to no doubt at that time of God's existence, but there was plenty of doubt about Christianity among the framers. In order to justify their defiance of the King they had to invoke a higher authority and make the case that they were endowed with the higher power's blessing.


The Constitution

The constitution is a godless document. It mentions neither God, Jesus nor Christianity. It does however have a provision against requiring specific religious ideas as a qualification for office.
Article VI, Section 3
"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."


Treaty of Tripoli, article 11
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen..."


The Founders

Even though the majority of Americans at the time were Christians, several of the key figures in politics were Deists. They rejected the specific beliefs of religion and Christianity.

John Adams- 2nd president, Proposed and signed the Treaty of Tripoli
"Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1500 years."

letter to John Taylor, 1814, quoted by Norman Cousins in In God We Trust: The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958), p. 106-7, from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief
"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles."

letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815
Thomas Jefferson- 3rd president, Drafted Declaration of Independence, Signer of Constitution, influential on 1st Amendment
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies."
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites." [Notes on Virginia]
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes" [Letter to von Humboldt, 1813].
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." [Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823]
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own" [Letter to H. Spafford, 1814].
"...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, 'Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,' which was rejected 'By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.'" [Jefferson's Biography]

James Madison- 4th president, influential in the Constitutional Convention, Proposed the 1st Amendment
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."
"In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." [April 1, 1774]
Benjamin Franklin- signer of Declaration of Independence, signer of Constitution
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
[Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758]
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
"He (the Rev. Mr. Whitefield) used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard." [Franklin's Autobiography]
George Washington - 1st president
After Washington's death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington's religion replied, "Sir, Washington was a Deist."

In a sermon of October 1831, Episcopalian minister Bird Wilson said,
"Among all of our Presidents, from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."


Was the United States founded on Christian Principals?

Well let's look at some of the founding principals of the country:

Democracy?
The ideas of Democracy first began in pagan Greece in 5th century BC and later began to take hold in western europe in the late 1700's after religion's power in government had lessoned.

Secular government?
People can argue endlessly over the entanglements of religion and government but for the most part our government was set up as a secular government and has remained mostly separate from religious affairs.

Freedom of religion?
It is in no religion's interest to make it easy for people to join or explore other faiths.

Unequal rights?
Even thought the Declaration of Independence speaks of all men as being created equal, it was not taken literally. Blacks and Native Americans were not equal with whites, women were not equal with men and men who were not land owners were not equal with those who were.
Many of these ideas of inequality (slavery, subservient women) can be supported by the bible, most Christians today would not consider these as 'Christian Principals'. [Romans 7:2, Timothy 2:11, 1 Corinthians 14:34]

Slavery?
Like stated above, slavery is supported by the bible but most would not consider that a good Christian Principal. [Leviticus 25:44, Titus 2:9, Ephesians 6:5]


The Pledge of Allegiance

Original adopted October 12, 1892, 'Columbus Day'.
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands: one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Amended June 14, 1924, 'Flag Day' to include "the flag of the United States of America".
Amended in 1954, during the Cold War McCarthyism, at the request of Christian and anti-Communist groups to include "under God".
Challenged in 2003, Michael Newdow, a California Atheist, Doctor and Lawyer successfully sued over the words 'Under God' in the pledge of allegiance being recited in his daughters classroom. He won in the 9th circuit appeals court in a 2-1 decision. The US Supreme Court threw out the case on a technicality.


The 'G' word
The use of a capitalized 'G' in 'God" is commonly considered the specific Judeo-Christian god.
The use of 'God' may disclude all non Judeo-Christian believers, as well as polytheists (belief in more than one god) and agnostics (unsure of god).
The use of 'God' does disclude Atheists.


In God we trust?

The original motto

"E Pluribus Unum" Latin for "One from many"
In 1776, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson submit their design to congress for 'the Great Seal of the United States' with the motto "E Pluribus Unum".
In 1782, The Secretary of Congress submits a design of an eagle with a heart-shaped shield and a scroll bearing the motto "E Pluribus Unum".
The seal is approved and used on some coinage in 1795.


The new motto

In 1860, during the Civil War, Protestant denominations organize the 'National Reform Association', which aimed to amend the Constitution to "declare the nation's allegiance to Jesus Christ."
In 1861, Rev. M. R. Watkinson writes Salmon P. Chase, the Secretary of the Treasury, a letter suggesting "the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins". He suggests "God, Liberty, Law" as a motto on a "beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object".
In 1864, Congress approves "In God We Trust" for use on one-cent and two-cent coins.
In 1865, Congress acts to place the motto on all coins.
In 1957, the motto is first used on paper money.
On July 30, 1956, a bill is passed by congress and signed by the president declaring "In God We Trust" the national motto of the United States.


Separation of Church and State

The idea of 'Separation of Church and State' is not expressly written in the Constitution or the Bill of rights. Rather it is based on Jefferson's interpretation of the 'Establishment ' clause that James Madison introduced in the 1st amendment.


Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution
"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

First Amendment to the Constitution
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of the first amendment in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802)
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

James Madison's summary of the First Amendment:
"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform" (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug. 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731)

More thoughts from Madison:
"...the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" [Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819]
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" [Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822].

Others

Hugo Black U.S. Supreme Court Justice (1886-1971)
"The establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion."
[Majority opinion Emerson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947)]
Warren Burger, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court:
'The Lemon Test', in the majority opinion in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). It Determines if a law is permissible under the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
A law must have a secular purpose.
It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.
Ulysses S. Grant
"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and the state forever separated."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
"The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool."


U.S. State Laws That discriminate against people who don't believe in a god

Arkansas
Maryland
Massachusetts
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas

Arkansas
"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."
Article 19, sect. 1 of the 1874 constitution

Maryland
"That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.. nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come." Bill of Rights: Article 36

Massachusetts
"As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: herefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily." Declaration of Rights: Article III

North Carolina
"The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God...." Constitution Article 6 Section 8

Pennsylvania
"No person who acknowledges the being of God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth".
Declaration of Rights Article 1 Section 4

South Carolina
"No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being..."
Article 4 Section 2

Tennessee
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state." Bill of Rights: Article 9 Section 4

Texas
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." Article 1 - Bill of Rights: Section 4

and again, this nice film which holds valid points relevant to this issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg

and finally, this link I had stored alongside the quoted text above, regarding Thomas Jefferson:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

[SUBMAN1]

You lost this one last time Skybird. Why? You know nothing of how America was formed, so why don't you bother searching on the subject and educate yourself.

-S

PS. My apologies. I forgot from the other thread that you forget everything past 8 hours from posting. :p

[Skybird]

If you have nothing truthful to say, better don't speak at all, Subman. A pathetic gait with feet wide apart does not make you strong, a wide opened mouth and a loud voice does not make you right, a rethoric trick does not mean you have an agument, and telling nonsens about what you want to have won and I should have lost does not give you credibility.

[mrbeast]

The U.S.A , Canada and ALL OF EUROPE are CHRISTIAN, and should always be christian.. just like its been for the last 1000+ years...:shifty:

Sounds like you don't know much about European history.

[SUBMAN1]

If you have nothing truthful to say, better don't speak at all, Subman. A pathetic gait with feet wide apart does not make you strong, a wide opened mouth and a loud voice does not make you right, a rethoric trick does not mean you have an agument, and telling nonsens about what you want to have won and I should have lost gives you no more credibility.No - again you aren't seeing the big picture (imagine that! I'm not sure you are capable either). There are three things you post about on this forum, and you are completely predictable in everything you ultimately post. They follow these lines exactly:

1. Anti USA
2. Anti Religion in any form
3. Pro Germany

Outside of these three things, you completely forget what other people have posted before you. This makes you incredibly predictable, but also a broken record. This is the problem. This makes me waste more effort on your hot air, only to have to fight the same fight in the future on the exact same grounds. It's not only annoying because I am convinced your memory is about nill, but I am starting to sound like a broken record myself in wasting my time.

So ultimately, this is a problem about you, and not about religion in general. That is the problem.

I mean, you'd be a head case for S. Frued even! :D This one should get you - One thing I bet you didn't know about Frued is that he struggled with religion to the end of his life, because he beleived in god, yet he wrote against god. This is especially true near the end of his life. Look that one up - should consume you for many hours on end since you like to bring his anti religion teachings to this forum! :D

Anyway, see my point? I've probably wasted much effort in typing this too however. 8 Hours from now, it will be lost in space in your mind.

-S

PS. Don't get me wrong though. I like a lot of your posts, such as those on tanks and tank sims in the Tank forum, just that the three topics above are getting old.

[mrbeast]

Subman, I have to say your post above smacks of arrogance and condesention.

[SUBMAN1]

Subman, I have to say your post above smacks of arrogance and condesention.And his don't? Oh please!

-S

[mrbeast]

I haven't read any posts by him were he tells someone to effectively stop wasting his time because hes right end of discussion.

[geetrue]

I used to be a preacher and for 27 years was Christian ..........

As an old Christian I was under COMMAND from Yahweh the War God to preach the word or face having the blood of the lost dripping from my soul. .

Yahweh stands for Creator of the Universe not the "War God" I'll let the Lord rebuke you ... I just wanted to correct you. :smug:

[Skybird]

Subman, care less about the splinter in my eye, and start trying to remove the big beam in your own. Because by every turning of yourself, you hit other people's head and face with your beam, and yourself you cannot see anything with that damn thing, too. That's why there often is so much noise where you appear. I don't need noise, i have very good ears. but if I should find you worth to listen to, you need to have something more valuable to show than this kind of behavior you just have illustrated - once again. This is where your handicap lies. Instead: tricks, rethorics, and accusing others to suffer from your own deficits.

You may get some immediate satisfaction from scoring the cheap shot, having a quick "joke", distort or ignore unwelcomed feedback or counterargument, and blame others of what you do wrong yourself - you can admire yourself by doing all so cleverly in these regards, okay, if that is what saves your day, have fun.

Just don't expect me to take that serious.

Oh and thanks for the couple of additonal barely hidden offendings. ;) My collection of your efforts regarding these is already quite impressive. :up: Always flattering to know that somebody puts all his potentials into letting me know.

[Skybird]

I used to be a preacher and for 27 years was Christian ..........

As an old Christian I was under COMMAND from Yahweh the War God to preach the word or face having the blood of the lost dripping from my soul. .

Yahweh stands for Creator of the Universe not the "War God" I'll let the Lord rebuke you ... I just wanted to correct you. :smug:
the tradition of the old desert god of Jews and Christian knows god to be the origin of a lot of commands, promises and orders that sent people to war, and on mission to conquer and submit others. Historically, the god of the Judaic-Chroistian traditon derives from the old family (category) of so-called (at least in German) "Vulcan gods".

This class of gods were so obsessed with their patriarchalic egocentrism and with making people obeying to their demands and constantly threatening penalties on them if they don't, that their hobby of creating universes ranks just as one amongst others. :-j

[Sailor Steve]

Do we really need to rehash this again? I've already proved more than once that that US of A is founded of Christian principles. Search on it in the GT forums and you will once again find the same conclusion. Tired of Rehashing - it is getting old.

-S
And I've already addressed the fact that the Christian governments of the early colonies were every bit as restrictive and beligerent as the ones they came here to escape from; as well as pointing out that religious freedom was founded in the face of those Christian leaders, not by them or through them. You've never answered my posts in those thread, and you've said many things, but "proved" nothing.

[CCIP]

Hay guys, what's going on in this thread? :doh:

Meanwhile, someone forgot to bring up this:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y122/Otohiko/stuff/Van_explode.gif

That's who's behind this little ongoing anti-scientology campaign :p

[kiwi_2005]

Subman, care less about the splinter in my eye, and start trying to remove the big beam in your own. Because by every turning of yourself, you hit other people's head and face with your beam, and yourself you cannot see anything with that damn thing, too. That's why there often is so much noise where you appear. I don't need noise, i have very good ears. but if I should find you worth to listen to, you need to have something more valuable to show than this kind of behavior you just have illustrated - once again. This is where your handicap lies. Instead: tricks, rethorics, and accusing others to suffer from your own deficits.

You may get some immediate satisfaction from scoring the cheap shot, having a quick "joke", distort or ignore unwelcomed feedback or counterargument, and blame others of what you do wrong yourself - you can admire yourself by doing all so cleverly in these regards, okay, if that is what saves your day, have fun.

Just don't expect me to take that serious.

Oh and thanks for the couple of additonal barely hidden offendings. ;) My collection of your efforts regarding these is already quite impressive. :up: Always flattering to know that somebody puts all his potentials into letting me know.


You can't hide from a psychologist!

[SUBMAN1]

Do we really need to rehash this again? I've already proved more than once that that US of A is founded of Christian principles. Search on it in the GT forums and you will once again find the same conclusion. Tired of Rehashing - it is getting old.

-S And I've already addressed the fact that the Christian governments of the early colonies were every bit as restrictive and beligerent as the ones they came here to escape from; as well as pointing out that religious freedom was founded in the face of those Christian leaders, not by them or through them. You've never answered my posts in those thread, and you've said many things, but "proved" nothing.Of really. Maybe I just missed your posts? Please enlighten me.

I think you talk though of the original colonies. Not of those after the declaration of independence was signed.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Subman, care less about the splinter in my eye, and start trying to remove the big beam in your own. Because by every turning of yourself, you hit other people's head and face with your beam, and yourself you cannot see anything with that damn thing, too. That's why there often is so much noise where you appear. I don't need noise, i have very good ears. but if I should find you worth to listen to, you need to have something more valuable to show than this kind of behavior you just have illustrated - once again. This is where your handicap lies. Instead: tricks, rethorics, and accusing others to suffer from your own deficits.

You may get some immediate satisfaction from scoring the cheap shot, having a quick "joke", distort or ignore unwelcomed feedback or counterargument, and blame others of what you do wrong yourself - you can admire yourself by doing all so cleverly in these regards, okay, if that is what saves your day, have fun.

Just don't expect me to take that serious.

Oh and thanks for the couple of additonal barely hidden offendings. ;) My collection of your efforts regarding these is already quite impressive. :up: Always flattering to know that somebody puts all his potentials into letting me know.Hahaha! Far from the truth - all of it. I will get to this, probably tomorro though since my time here is short.

I am no match for you though in the tricks, accusing, and rhetoric dept. You far outstrip me. :up: Sorry to be the inferior in those few things. :p

-S

PS. I forgot to mention that I seem to notice that anyone that disagrees with you has a board in their eye as you describe! So this comment doesn't surprise me.

[Sailor Steve]

In response to a post by Waste Gate, who Is no longer with us.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=705899&postcount=122

Originally from the last page of this thread:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=125504&highlight=christianity

[Skybird]

Hahaha! Far from the truth - all of it. I will get to this, probably tomorro though since my time here is short.

I am no match for you though in the tricks, accusing, and rhetoric dept. You far outstrip me. :up: Sorry to be the inferior in those few things. :p

-S

PS. I forgot to mention that I seem to notice that anyone that disagrees with you has a board in their eye as you describe! So this comment doesn't surprise me.
Save your breath. I just decided that I do not wish to bother with you any longer, due to your miserable record of big-mouthed behavior, false statements and total ignorrance towards any replies that you first demand from others - and then ignore or play down. You do not argue - you bully and bash. Maybe that is considered acceptable in the anonymity of the internet, but for my standards, such underhanded behavior is just not good enough. In my real life, you would end with my boot at your butt and the rest of yourself flying through the door. Bye.

To the ignore list. It's the second time = so it's now meant forever.

[Konovalov]

In response to a post by Waste Gate, who Is no longer with us.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=705899&postcount=122

Originally from the last page of this thread:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=125504&highlight=christianity

I remember reading this excellent analysis by you at the time on that 'enemy within' thread. It makes for as just a good a read now as it was back then. :yep:

By the way, I recall you once recommended a book on the subject of the Founding Fathers and the seperation between church and state. However I cannot remember it's title. Can you refresh my memory as I'd like to read some good books on this topic? :-?

[Sailor Steve]

By the way, I recall you once recommended a book on the subject of the Founding Fathers and the seperation between church and state. However I cannot remember it's title. Can you refresh my memory as I'd like to read some good books on this topic? :-?
That was probably on the 'What Are You Reading Right Now?' thread in the 'Books and Movies' forum. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers, by Brooke Allen
http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minority-Skeptical-Founding-Fathers/dp/1566636752
She does have her own agenda, but doesn't everybody?

The most informative website I've found on the subject is this one:
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/tnpidx.htm

[Skybird]

By the way, I recall you once recommended a book on the subject of the Founding Fathers and the seperation between church and state. However I cannot remember it's title. Can you refresh my memory as I'd like to read some good books on this topic? :-?
That was probably on the 'What Are You Reading Right Now?' thread in the 'Books and Movies' forum. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers, by Brooke Allen
http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minority-Skeptical-Founding-Fathers/dp/1566636752
She does have her own agenda, but doesn't everybody?

The most informative website I've found on the subject is this one:
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/tnpidx.htm
I could throw in this one as well, it is the site I quoted from some postings above, I found it out again via Google:
http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/index.html

And:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
http://ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050221&s=allen

This and more material is very easy to be obtained from the internet, using Google and search words like "US founding christian values", "US constitution christian" and other combinations.

And finally, there is this:

Most think founders wanted Christian USA
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY

Most Americans believe the nation's founders wrote Christianity into the Constitution, and people are less likely to say freedom to worship covers religious groups they consider extreme, a poll out today finds.
The survey measuring attitudes toward freedom of religion, speech and the press found that 55% believe erroneously that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation. In the survey, which is conducted annually by the First Amendment Center, a non-partisan educational group, three out of four people who identify themselves as evangelical or Republican believe that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation. About half of Democrats and independents do.


ON THE WEB: Read the full poll results (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19031)

Most respondents, 58%, say teachers in public schools should be allowed to lead prayers. That is an increase from 2005, when 52% supported teacher-led prayer in public schools.
More people, 43%, say public schools should be allowed to put on Nativity re-enactments with Christian music than in 2005, when 36% did.

Half say teachers should be allowed to use the Bible as a factual text in history class. That's down from 56% in 2000. Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, says the findings are particularly troubling during a week when the top diplomat in Iraq gave a report to Congress on progress toward achieving democracy there. "Americans are dying to create a secular democracy in Iraq, and simultaneously a growing number of people want to see a Christian state" here, he says.
Haynes says the Constitution "clearly established a secular nation where people of all faiths or no faith are protected to practice their religion or no religion without governmental interference."
Rick Green of WallBuilders, an advocacy group that believes the nation was built on Christian principles, says the poll doesn't mean a majority favors a "theocracy" but that the Constitution reflects Christian values, including religious freedom. "I would call it a Christian document, just like the Declaration of Independence," he says.
The "scariest" number, in Haynes' opinion, is that only 56% agree that freedom of religion applies to all groups "regardless of how extreme their beliefs are." That's down from 72% in 2000. More than one in four say constitutional protection of religion does not apply to "extreme" groups.
Haynes says many Americans consider Islam extreme, especially since the Sept. 11 attacks. But he says Roman Catholics were viewed that way in the 19th century, and some people still consider Mormons "on the fringe."
"We are seeing the product of years of not teaching the First Amendment at a young age," says Gene Policinski, the center's executive director. "People are applying their own values … rather than educated knowledge" of the Constitution.
Still, he says, support for constitutional freedoms has rebounded from a low the year after 9/11, when 49% said the First Amendment "goes too far in the rights it guarantees." Now, 25% agree.
Other findings:
•Seventy-four percent say public school students should not be allowed to wear a T-shirt with a message or picture that others might find offensive, more than at any time since the survey began in 1997.
•About a third, 34%, believe the press "has too much freedom" — the lowest percentage in 10 years — but most distrust the news media. Sixty percent disagree with the statement that the news media try "to report the news without bias."
Not all questions in the poll were asked every year. The survey of 1,003 adults Aug. 16-26 has a margin of error of +/—3.2 percentage points.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-11-amendment_N.htm

So, this mistake is pretty much widespread, the polls say.

I reiterate my statement from earlier that a nation that falls under a general historical influence of a cultura set of ideas must be seen as something different than a nation that explicitly and artificially, in word and paragraph and laws, has been founded on the principles of such a culture's rulings and ideology.

[SUBMAN1]

Save your breath. I just decided that I do not wish to bother with you any longer, due to your miserable record of big-mouthed behavior, false statements and total ignorrance towards any replies that you first demand from others - and then ignore or play down. You do not argue - you bully and bash. Maybe that is considered acceptable in the anonymity of the internet, but for my standards, such underhanded behavior is just not good enough. In my real life, you would end with my boot at your butt and the rest of yourself flying through the door. Bye.

To the ignore list. It's the second time = so it's now meant forever.Woo hoo! You just described yourself though I must point out, but of course you can't see it.

Anyone that disagrees with you on some level gets this exact treatment. Hence my reasons for liking the fact that I am on your block list. On your part, it shows your continued desire for ignorance is bliss mentality to anything against your opinion.

-S

[Jimbuna]

MAM!!......THEIR FIGHTING AGAIN!! http://www.spreadtheiris.com/images/smilies/smacka.gif http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/badwerewolf.gif

http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/grouphug5.gif

[SUBMAN1]

MAM!!......THEIR FIGHTING AGAIN!! http://www.spreadtheiris.com/images/smilies/smacka.gif http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/badwerewolf.gif

http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/grouphug5.gifNo longer. Peace will insue! :D THe only thing important anyway is BEER! :up:

[Jimbuna]

MAM!!......THEIR FIGHTING AGAIN!! http://www.spreadtheiris.com/images/smilies/smacka.gif http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/badwerewolf.gif

http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/grouphug5.gifNo longer. Peace will insue! :D THe only thing important anyway is BEER! :up:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/c_jane24/Smileys/no.gif http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/c_jane24/Smileys/lager.gif http://www.smilieland.com/graphics/0005.gif







http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

[Heibges]

That wacky Tom Cruise.

I heard a great Scientology rumor the other day.

They have these "sessions" which in a lot of ways remind me of Confession in the Catholic Church. But I guess these sessions are video taped. Also, apparently they deal to a large extent with the topic of sex.

The rumor was that John Travolta is gay, and the Church of Scientology has him discussing it on tape.

[Tchocky]

well, yeah. record your secrets, so they have something to use should you decid to leave them.

Nice to see the ignore button is still working :dead:

[Konovalov]

That was probably on the 'What Are You Reading Right Now?' thread in the 'Books and Movies' forum. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers, by Brooke Allen
http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minority-Skeptical-Founding-Fathers/dp/1566636752
She does have her own agenda, but doesn't everybody?

The most informative website I've found on the subject is this one:
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/tnpidx.htm

Yes, that sounds like the one. Thanks Steve. And thanks for the other suggestions too Skybird. :up:

[SUBMAN1]

I find all these arguments interesting, but I have to disagree with the notion that the US of A is not based on CHristian foundations. It is to be found everywhere and in every portion of the US as a whole, from your courtrooms (swear on a bible), to the swearing in of your presidents, to even on your dollar bill (In god we trust)! How far do you want to take this?

I don't agree with any of the athiest posts that have been presented here since they hold little value once you open your eyes and see it all around you. Next we will analyze the argument to the Constitution as it was being written.

Also, though I agree with the seperation of Church and State, contrary to popular belief - it is no where to be found in the first amendment.

(rehash city)

What you have here is a case of the athiest left trying to re-write US history. Good luck people.

-S

[Tchocky]

Treaty of Tripoli may disagree with you there.

[SUBMAN1]

Treaty of Tripoli may disagree with you there.Are you refering to the Barlow Translation of the treaty?

-S

[Tchocky]

Treaty of Tripoli may disagree with you there.Are you refering to the Barlow Translation of the treaty?

-S
Nah, just a memory. Hence the "may"

[SUBMAN1]

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness to light and light to darkness, and who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

Sounds about accurate for most of what I am seeing.

As for the treaty - Article 11 does not exist by the way, except by mystery.

-S

[darius359au]

*sigh* how does a thread about Scientology getting pwned get turned into the usual blah blah blah?
Edit- Maybe there should be a seperate politics and Religion forum so the usual suspects can go and yell and scream at each other out of the way and not clutter up the forums with their same s*** different day thing.

[SUBMAN1]

You are right. I am partly to blame. I will cease and create a new thread properly labled in time so that it can be properly avoided by those that don't want to engage in the discussion.

However, my day is drawing near so its almost sub-simming time for me, so this new thread will be a low priority until later! :D

-S

[mrbeast]

I find all these arguments interesting, but I have to disagree with the notion that the US of A is not based on CHristian foundations. It is to be found everywhere and in every portion of the US as a whole, from your courtrooms (swear on a bible), to the swearing in of your presidents, to even on your dollar bill (In god we trust)! How far do you want to take this?

I don't agree with any of the athiest posts that have been presented here since they hold little value once you open your eyes and see it all around you. Next we will analyze the argument to the Constitution as it was being written.

Also, though I agree with the seperation of Church and State, contrary to popular belief - it is no where to be found in the first amendment.

(rehash city)

What you have here is a case of the athiest left trying to re-write US history. Good luck people.

-S

Its there in the material posted by Skybird and Sailor Steve. How can you say that it holds little value? Because you assume that their authors are...gasp....atheists? Maybe its time you opened your eyes and read.

Its already been stated previously that the separation of church and state are not codified in the 1st amandment.

Simply adding up all the christian references you can find in US society is not evidence that the US is founded on christian values. Superficially it might seem sound logic but its not, its wonky thinking. For example 'in god we trust' was a later christian revisionist replacement for "E Pluribus Unum". Also in the US there is a layer of State law that may well be biased towards christianity.

You are forgetting that the United States of America did not evolve organically in the same way a country like Britain or France or Spain did, it was a concept thought up by a group of men; A group of men who were at best luke warn about christianity.

This is not an atheist-leftist attempt to re-write history but, as usual, an attempt to point out the facts after conservative-theists have finnished scribbling their prefered version of history over the top of them.

[SUBMAN1]

Its there in the material posted by Skybird and Sailor Steve. How can you say that it holds little value? Because you assume that their authors are...gasp....atheists? Maybe its time you opened your eyes and read.

Its already been stated previously that the separation of church and state are not codified in the 1st amandment.

Simply adding up all the christian references you can find in US society is not evidence that the US is founded on christian values. Superficially it might seem sound logic but its not, its wonky thinking. For example 'in god we trust' was a later christian revisionist replacement for "E Pluribus Unum". Also in the US there is a layer of State law that may well be biased towards christianity.

You are forgetting that the United States of America did not evolve organically in the same way a country like Britain or France or Spain did, it was a concept thought up by a group of men; A group of men who were at best luke warn about christianity.

This is not an atheist-leftist attempt to re-write history but, as usual, an attempt to point out the facts after conservative-theists have finnished scribbling their prefered version of history over the top of them.Not an appropriate thread for this, but you and they are wrong. Study July 4th, 1776. Continental Congress addresses god specifically.

There will be a new thread on the subject. Please don't hijack this one any longer.

-S

[Oberon]

Just came across this:

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Project_Chanology

CAUTION: Contains elements of 4chan. Viewer discretion advised.

[bookworm_020]

Tom Cruise may talk the talk, but his wallet seems to have been left behind!

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23136785-5001026,00.html

Where is Homer Simpson when you need him most!

[CCIP]

CAUTION: Contains elements of 4chan. Viewer discretion advised.

lolwut?


























just kidding :dead:

[Jimbuna]

LMAO :lol:




Me too ;)