brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight johnknight at usa.com
Wed Aug 14 14:10:07 EST 2002


"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
news:2sijlu497ughvjki43umsvlvith6tv2pot at 4ax.com...
> "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote:
> >But, fortunately, it WAS enumerated in our Constitution, just in the
event
> >you "wiberals" forgot, in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights,
which
> >calls for "free exercise [of religion]".
>
> Read it again.  It says that Congress shall make no law "prohibiting
> the free exercise thereof".  The right is NOT one of free exercise,
> but of government not prohibiting you from free exercise.  Big
> difference.  You can TRY to separate yourself from those you hate, and
> government cannot stop you from trying.  But that is the limit, and
> you can't use government to establish your separation either.
>

Are you saying that you "think" it was "unconstitutional" for government to
exile the Torries, lojbab?  Or that the entire US immigration policy is
"unconstitutional" because government separates niggers of Africa from
Whites of European descent?  Or that it's "unconstitutional" for government
to create Indian reservations, or exile criminals to their countries of
origin, or admit only students with certain test scores to government
sponsored universities, or require a citizen to live in a state before he
has the rights of that state--or to pass a law which states that only
members of the opposite sex can marry?

You "wiberals" are so far out to lunch that it looks like dinner.

We CAN, and we WILL, and it will be found to be "constitutional" to, exile
the jews, all jew lovers, and most likely the niggers.



> >Now, to a "wiberal" who doesn't even think the Caucasian Race exists, who
> >thinks that "race doesn't matter", who thinks an ex-President who writes
in
> >his own hand "I am a real Christian" is in reality a deist who LIED,
>
> He didn't lie.  YOU lied.  You took his quote out of context, and
> shortened his sentence which did not merely say "I am a real
> Christian" but instead said a lot more that makes the short version a
> false statement.

Here is the entire paragraph in context:

Monticello, January 9, 1816.

My Dear and Ancient Friend,--An acquaintance of fifty-two years, for I think
ours dates from 1764, calls for an interchange of notice now and then, that
we remain in existence, the monuments of another age, and examples of a
friendship unaffected by the jarring elements by which we have been
surrounded, of revolutions of government, of party and of opinion. I am
reminded of this duty by the receipt, through our friend Dr. Patterson, of
your synopsis of the four Evangelists. I had procured it as soon as I saw it
advertised, and had become familiar with its use; but this copy is the more
valued as it comes from your hand. This work bears the stamp of that
accuracy which marks everything from you, and will be useful to those who,
not taking things on trust, recur for themselves to the fountain of pure
morals. I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I
call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by
cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a
blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or
precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that
I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus,
very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves
Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their
characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have
compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of
man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the
Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature. If I had
time I would add to my little book the Greek, Latin and French texts, in
columns side by side. And I wish I could subjoin a translation of Gosindi's
Syntagma of the doctrines of Epicurus, which, notwithstanding the calumnies
of the Stoics and caricatures of Cicero, is the most rational system
remaining of the philosophy of the ancients, as frugal of vicious
indulgence, and fruitful of virtue as the hyperbolical extravagances of his
rival sects.

and here is another one:

THE MORALS OF JESUS
To Dr. Benjamin Rush, with a Syllabus
Washington, Apr. 21, 1803
1803042
   DEAR SIR, -- In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the
evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of
the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian
religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or
other, would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of
inquiry & reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system
imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions
of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of
Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be;
sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing
to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other.
At the short intervals since these conversations, when I could justifiably
abstract my mind from public affairs, the subject has been under my
contemplation. But the more considered it, the more it expanded beyond the
measure of either my time or information. In the moment of my late departure
from Monticello, I received from Doctr Priestley, his little treatise of
"Socrates & Jesus compared." This being a section of the general view I had
taken of the field, it became a subject of reflection while on the road, and
unoccupied otherwise. The result was, to arrange in my mind a syllabus, or
outline of such an estimate of the comparative merits of Christianity, as
wished to see executed by some one of more leisure and information for the
task, than myself. This I now send you, as the only discharge of my promise
I can probably ever execute. And in confiding it to you, I know it will not
be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me
a text for new misrepresentations & calumnies. I am moreover averse to the
communication of my religious tenets to the public; because it would
countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before
that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that
inquisition over the rights of conscience, which the laws have so justly
proscribed. It behoves every man who values liberty of conscience for
himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may,
by change of circumstances, become his own. It behoves him, too, in his own
case, to give no example of concession, betraying the common right of
independent opinion, by answering questions of faith, which the laws have
left between God & himself. Accept my affectionate salutations.

And a third one:

The Works of Thomas Jefferson in Twelve Volumes. Federal Edition. Collected
and Edited by Paul Leicester Ford.

Monticello, January 9, 1816.

My Dear and Ancient Friend,--An acquaintance of fifty-two years, for I think
ours dates from 1764, calls for an interchange of notice now and then, that
we remain in existence, the monuments of another age, and examples of a
friendship unaffected by the jarring elements by which we have been
surrounded, of revolutions of government, of party and of opinion. I am
reminded of this duty by the receipt, through our friend Dr. Patterson, of
your synopsis of the four Evangelists. I had procured it as soon as I saw it
advertised, and had become familiar with its use; but this copy is the more
valued as it comes from your hand. This work bears the stamp of that
accuracy which marks everything from you, and will be useful to those who,
not taking things on trust, recur for themselves to the fountain of pure
morals. I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I
call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by
cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a
blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or
precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that
I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus,
very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves
Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their
characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have
compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of
man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the
Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature. If I had
time I would add to my little book the Greek, Latin and French texts, in
columns side by side. And I wish I could subjoin a translation of Gosindi's
Syntagma of the doctrines of Epicurus, which, notwithstanding the calumnies
of the Stoics and caricatures of Cicero, is the most rational system
remaining of the philosophy of the ancients, as frugal of vicious
indulgence, and fruitful of virtue as the hyperbolical extravagances of his
rival sects.





> I can do that too:
>
> >"They speak of you with evil intent; your adversaries misuse your name.
Do I
>
> ^^^
> >not hate those who hate you, O LORD, and abhor those who rise up against
>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >you?  I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies",
Psalms
> >139:21
>
> "I ... hate you, O LORD"
>
> Just as Jefferson claimed to be a Christian, you claimed that the
> writer of Psalms hated God.  Isn't it fun to take words out of
> context?  I can probably find where you admit to being a "feminazi
> wiberal" too if I look over your recent posts.
>
> But of course if I did so, I would be a liar like you.
>
> lojbab

You just LIED, and then claimed you aren't a "liar"!  You reversed the
meaning of the sentence, whereas Mr. Jefferson wrote PLAINLY "I am a real
Christian", and supported that simple statement with much evidence of his
scholarship.  His statements were NOT taken "out of context", his sentences
were NOT rearranged, his meaning WAS clear as a bell.

Let's read Mr. Jefferson's written statement again:

"A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a
document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of
the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me
infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel".

Mr. Jefferson was RIGHT, and the fools like you who call him an "infidel"
are WRONG.  LIARS like Billy Graham are DEAD WRONG, and CHRISTIANS like Mr.
Jefferson are RIGHT.

Why would Billy Graham LIE?  Why would he confess to Richard Nixon ON TAPE
that jews were a huge problem in this country, and then LIE by DENYING that
he said it?

Why would a CHRISTIAN LIE and deny that he said this, then "confess" that he
didn't actually mean what he said, and then fumble all over himself
"apologizing to jews" for what he already claimed he didn't say?

Billy Graham--we HATE your LYING .ucking guts!

"They speak of you with evil intent; your adversaries misuse your name. Do I
not hate those who hate you, O LORD, and abhor those who rise up against
you?  I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies", Psalms
139:21

John Knight








More information about the Neur-sci mailing list