GarthP2000

If Islamic Relief is sponsering this charter school, how then is it publically funded? If it is indeed publically funded (government grant for specific religious usage, et al) then it should be challenged ans stopped by groups like the ACLU and others. But I think there is something about charter schools that allow for public funding (Georgia's state regulated lottery funding charter schools and other schools here). The legal and Constitutional details escape me tho'.

Because, after *months and months* of campaigns, 15 and 30 second TV sound bites and rabid attacks of one candidate upon another, sky-high promises made (and later broken), etc., etc., ad *nauseum*, when you get to the polls, the polling place should be _free_ of all that song-and-dance verbiage and pressure when you finally make the quiet and personal decision/action of voting. Besides, if you're at the polling place, your mind is already made up on who you are going to vote for anyway, right?

Dmiller & Belle, Despite all these stories, you DO know why there is the forbidding of political stickers/pins/clothing/et al to the polling station, don't you? Oh, by the way, if you were wearing 'Kerry/Edwards' stickers/pins/clothing/et al, the same rule would apply, .... and you know it.

Dmiller, My non-objection to voting in a church building has to do with the fact that none of the church's officials and believers were there to propagate their beliefs into the voting process/who to vote for (unlike people wearing 'Vote for my candidate' buttons to the polling place, who ARE propagating what/who to vote for) The 10 Commandments in a government building, on the other hand, isn't quite so neutral, nor is it *just* an historical/legal illustration. It is plainly, as folks like Moore and his 'bible-sleeve' sidekick show forth in a straight forward manner, a propoganda tool/establishment of religion or religious views into government. Ie., "God and His 10 Commandments are at the very basis for our law and govenment!" Now if that isn't establishing a religious viewpoint into government, you show me what is. THAT is what I find 'amusing' (disgusting and alarming to tell the truth). -->

Dmiller, The question you raise about voting inside a church is indeed a good one. Is the church providing a politically/religiously neutral polling place, as a civil service? If so, I for one have no problem with it, so long as there is also no propagandizing going on religiously/politically speaking. The church that I voted at in my precinct seemed to be well within bounds in that respect. The concept of separation of church and state is still Constitutionally valid, regardless of whatever loopholes that are still in place.

Let's not forget that genteel state of Bob Jones University, South Carolina, which has still yet to vote itself back into the Union. :D--> But seriously, just kidding about the jokes, but with folks like Roy boy and Mr. Wear-a-Bible-in-Court, its hard to shake images like that off. I mean, there are similar critters like that crawling around here in Gawgia! Altho' it does help to explain the abundance of roadkill here. -->

Yeah, Johniam, that 'wear the bible verses on his robe' judge is quite a joke, isn't he?

In these cases, its as if they wear the 10 Commendments (and their entire religion) squarely on their a**es. -->

Thanks Wordwolf, for illustrating more clearly to some folks the main point that I was trying to communicate. Interesting also how selective some people are as to what questions they don't address, particularly if it challenges their 'prophet'. :-

Stayed WAY Too Long, Uhh well, first off, you DID ask me about what my belief on prophecy or Mel George being a prophet is, so please spare me the "well, who asked YOU Mr. MOG" thong-up-your-arse song-and-dance, ok? Also, look at, and consider, the words "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." (Which biblically, only referred to Jesus Christ now, doesn't it?) Since you did ask "How does anyone know if a prophet's message is 'right on' or 'god breathed'?", well then, wouldn't it stand to reason that his prophetic words would be in accordance with truth? With reality? And when you consider how VPW abused (seriously abused) his office/ministry in so many ways, if those words were in accordance with reality, that would communicate the idea that God was pleased with that kind of behavior now, wouldn't it? ... Hhmmmm? And don't you think that there needs to be something more to a godly walk than this idea of 'well, if he (Mal George) is a prophet then is words must carry some weight', without even making the attempt to think about the message that he gave, and the truthfulness and morality behind them? And this last point I address to those who believe that Mal George was a prophet (few as they may be). So chill.

Stayed, You're correct on the first guess; I don't believe in prophecy, nor did I know, nor do I believe in Mal George's supposed office as a prophet, surely not one who's ((cough)) 'authority' transcends ethics and decency. And I definitely don't believe that his "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased" 'prophecy' (read 'clap trap') about Wierwille has any weight or authority to it whatsoever. Particularly concerning how Wierwille's life turned out. Oh and by the way, if George did turn out to be a prophet, how do you know that the utterance that he gave was 'right on'? Or do you just presume that what he said was, uhh, 'god breathed'? Any other questions? :D-->

Well, thats just silly, Steve! :D-->

ROFLMAO!! I love it! :D--> Chuck, So-o-o whatever happened to Satan's free will? And why would a perfect god create evil? And please spare me the 'God has a reason for everything' explanation, please. That's almost as twisted as the Calvinist version of sadism. "Hey! This evil of your child dying horribly is happening to you because I've got a reason for everything. Now *shut up* and learn!!" ..... "Yessam massah." -->

Now why would a just god reward someone like VPW with more rewards and all, even given the deliberate abuses that VPW heaped upon people with such callousness? Or is that one of those questions that should not even be considered?

Raf! :D--> That was a *riot*! :D-->

So the major networks are being run and tightly controlled by the 'politically correct' liberals in what way? ... How? ... Oh wait! Apparently 'political correctness' has taken on a new meaning. Conservative political correctness. Ohh Ok -->

Hhhmmmm, I wonder if it ran DOS 0.1. :D-->

Diz, I didn't say I 'knew the first thing about you'. So put your straw man away. You haven't answered my question about what the Word says about the damage left by silence. And it is a legit question, regardless of whether or not it portrays VPW and Co. in a favorable light. And is it really hypocrisy to give Mark honor for his life and still slam VPW, hmmm? Must we, in honor to Mark, silence the just complaints against VPW, many of which were silent for so many years due to blind and misplaced loyalty and/or fear of committing 'sin' in speaking out against the 'Man of God'? Tell me that please. If you can.

Dizzydog, How about the damage left by silence due to fear/loyalty by those who knew better and yet looked the other way while the crap was going on and after, huh? ... Tell me what 'the Word' says about THAT? Stayed, And would that be any worse than those who would not bring up the challenge, usually for the reasons noted above? Perhaps it could be said of them that they 'stayed too long', ... ya think? :-

Dizzydog, Ahh not quite. Its one thing to acknowledge that Mark has learned a lot of good things from PFAL, VPW, TWI and all. But Smikeol takes it farther than that. He treats any criticism and making known of VPW's abuses as "'sin' in describing the slightest disrespect to his and my man of God." and tries to portray Mark as thinking the same thing. Look at what the man wrote, dude. If there is any inappropriateness here, it is done by SMikeol in relating/associating Mark's respect for VPW with Mike's idol worship, and chastising those of us here at GS for daring to cross it! Smikeol, There are many of those here who have even known Mark better than you did, that would show no qualms at illustrating VPW for the abuser that he was, and would (I would dare to bet) not be one iota apologetic for it. And they would get my respect!

I tell you what guy. You tell this, using the EXACT same words, to all those who have been abused directly by VPW, .... and live to tell of it, then maybe I'll listen to you. ... And then again, maybe not, as his malvalent abuses and sadistic manipulation of the Bible to exercise control over people occured anyway. "... 'sin' in describing the slightest disrespect to his and my man of God." So how far am I on the 'sin' category, hmmm? (Probably the ONLY time you ever entertained that word. -->) Have I reached 'born of the seed of the serpent' yet?

Smikeol, People aren't praising Mark Gluckin for his buttering his bread Wierwille-style or any other way. They are speaking well of him because of more important reasons: acts of kindness, encouragement, being a friend, acting halfway decent even if he did have more of a respect for Wierwille than most people here do. And, from what I've heard about the man, correct me if I'm wrong, but Mark didn't treat PFAL like it was a Reissuement of God's Word and play dishonest 'dodge ball' with questions that challenged PFAL ... like you do so blindly and mindlessly. And if he did, then thats his waste of his life! So grow up! -->

Dabodabba, OUCH!! I know how ya feel dude. There are times when I think that Bill Gate$ needs to have his sorry a$$ dragged out into the street and whopped a good one for all the 'innovations' (read insecure fixes) that his company plagued Windows with. I'll keep your health in my thoughts, and hope you get better, ... so we can duke it out in Part Duex of our 'discussion'. :D--> And as to my Michelangelo statement, have all the fun ya want with it.

Johniam, See, the situation you describe is just what happens when you have the factor of power corrupting the church, and you mix what the orgtanization (the church) with the power that is plentious in government. THIS is the *classic* example of why we have (or should have) separation of church and state! And the help that the 'heretical group' should get from the government is of a legal nature to protect them from the bigger, more 'orthodox' one. That is different than the government stepping in to propagate/support religion/religious views themselves. And what Franklin meant by what he said was here we supposedly have a religion that portrays God's gospel to all. God is supposed to back it up and strengthen and provide for it, right? Right? I mean, we're talking about the church/religion/organization that is working for no less than The Almighty Soveriegn GOD here. So-o-o, ... why do they need the backing/support/'bully pulpit' of the state? Ie., what amounts to religious socialism (think about that for a minute. See if it doesn't come to you). That is basically what Franklin was trying to point out. Ie., if it is a religion that can't get its help from God, so that it has to turn to the state for support, it must not be a very good one. For one thing, what does that say about the church's otherwise claim that God provides for all our needs, hmmmm? Like they really believed it, ehh? Yah! :- And, if I'm not mistaken, the ACLU have gone after/challenged the Catholic Church in various cases where the Catholic Church has tried to cross the church/state line. And if not in all of them, it needs to do more then.

Tom, Nahh, Harvey din't really say he was an atheist, or maybe he did, I dunno. I do know this: Of all the neat stuff he talked about, not ONCE did he mention *ANYTHING* about sno-cones. Not once! :(-->