brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Wed Aug 14 17:09:43 EST 2002


"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:2sijlu497ughvjki43umsvlvith6tv2pot at 4ax.com...
>> 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?

Have you stopped beating your 10 wives?  Your question makes as little
sense.

Since "government" did not exile any "Torries" (whoever they were - my
best guess is that you intended the British Tories, some of whom chose
to stay and some to leave after the Revolution - there were no loyalty
oaths required, and no government exiles - oh, and there was no
constitution at the end of the Revolution, so there was NOTHING
"unconstitutional")

So far as I know, Lady Margaret Thatcher, who is a Tory, is perfectly
welcome in this country.  So was Sir Winston Churchill, who was
granted honorary US citizenship as a Tory.

>Or that the entire US immigration policy is
>"unconstitutional" because government separates niggers of Africa from
>Whites of European descent?

It does?

>Or that it's "unconstitutional" for government to create Indian reservations,

It was unconstitutional to seize Indian land without due process, but
that was technically done by the British before the Revolution, when
the Crown, France, Spain, and Portugal divided up ownership of the
Western Hemisphere without consulting the real owners.

It was constitutional to make treaties with the Indians to set up
reservations.  It was then illegal to then break those treaties, but
that did not stop us.

>or exile criminals to their countries of origin,

If they are non citizens, then after due process, this is allowed.  If
they are citizens, nope.

>or admit only students with certain test scores to government
>sponsored universities,

Why would that be unconstitutional?

>or require a citizen to live in a state before he has the rights of that state

He has the rights of an American citizen under the Constitution, no
matter what state he lives in, and the courts have generally ruled
against delays in granting state citizenship.

>--or to pass a law which states that only members of the opposite sex can marry?

Constitutional, whether "right" or "wrong"

>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.

Don't hold your breath.

Or maybe I should say, PLEASE hold your breath!  A purple nincompoop
would be an interesting new species.

>> 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.

Note the underlined words where he redefined the meaning of
"Christian" from the standard one.

In this letter, he basically says that others who call themselves
Christians aren't Christians at all, but Platonists, and that Christ
would not recognize modern Christianity as having anything to do with
his teachings.  So according to Jefferson, there aren't 264 million
Christians in this country, but 264 million Platonists.

>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.

Again redefining the word as underlined, and in this case noting that
he believed that Christ never claimed to be other than an excellent
human (i.e. Christ is not God).

>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.

This is the same one as the first.  Repeating yourself does not add
weight to your argument.


>> 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"!

I did not lie.  I stated that IF I claimed such a thing (which I did
not in fact do) then I would be 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.

No.  He said "I am a Christian", and then reversed the meaning of the
word so as to exclude most of the others who called themselves
Christians.

> His statements were NOT taken "out of context",

Yes they were.  You left out the rest of each sentence, in which he
reversed the meaning, thereby apparently UNreversing it.  That is no
different from what I showed good be done with other texts.

>his sentences were NOT rearranged, his meaning WAS clear as a bell.

No it wasn't, because without the context, you make it seem like he
was one of those "
>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."

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

So Billy Graham and those who believe like him are no Christians, even
though they also have said many times "I am a Christian"?

>Why would Billy Graham LIE? 

Why do you lie?  That is more to the point.

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list