Deang

Jim, Is it a stereo receiver or audio/video receiver (2 channel or multichannel)? How many watts per channel and how much does it weigh? f>s>------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 06-30-2002 at 04:53 PM

The "God" references weren't added to the currency, pledge, and motto until the 1950's. Did you actually read the whole thread before you posted? We already covered everything you brought up BTW - welcome to the forum. f>s>------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

Agreed ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

rotflol "...God can look out for Himself." Very profound Tom. So, should we expand the thread to include the other topics? As far as the Middle East goes -- When Saddam went to then Ambassador to Iraq, April Glasspie, to complain about Kurwait pulling oil out of his oil fields, and to warn her that if they did not cease -- he would invade Kuwait -- the official U.S. response was: "The United States has no opinion on Arab to Arab conflicts." Until the United States begins to address the multidimensional dynamics of the problem over there -- our Middle East policies will continue to be ineffective. f>s>------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 06-30-2002 at 11:28 AM

Agreed. So... "In God we Trust", using the Bible to swear in witness in court and public officials for office, Chaplains in the Military, Chaplain and Chapel residing at Capitol Hill, and the 10 Commandments and figure of Moses at the Supreme Court building, ...will all be challenged at some point. It is just a matter of time. The issue regarding prayer in schools, and the exercise of religious freedom in schools is also interesting. Apparently, we have been led to believe by some elements of the 'Religious Right' that God has been kicked out schools. Nothing could be further from the truth. What is true is that there has been in fact great latitude given to students and teachers. In fact, there is so much latitude that is almost easier just to state what they cannot do. School staff cannot be used to supervise or lead religous meetings on school property. However, students are free to meet and practice their faith on school property. Schools cannot initiate involuntary or voluntary prayers. However, students are free to pray and express their religion at any time -- as long as it does not intefere with normal school activity. Students are free to pass out religious literature, as long as they have made school officials aware of it so they can set up a single point of presence, like a table -- where the students can pass out the literature. Students are free the share their faith with other students who are willing to listen. However, they cannot corner someone who does not want to listen, nor can they use the message to 'harrass' individuals. Teachers can actually use the Bible in class for the purpose of teaching comparative religion. They can also use it to teach history. Sience teachers cannot teach "Creationism". However, they can use elements of Creation Science that are "scientific" in nature for the purpose of presenting a balanced "view". Some good examples of this can be found here: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/ Many of these articles are strictly from a scientific perspective. At any rate -- things aren't as bad as some make it out to be. f>s>------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 06-30-2002 at 10:09 AM

I have been doing nothing except reading and soul searching since yesterday on this. I never realized just how complex the issue is. I've actually spent the better part of the day studying the historical aspects of the amendment, and as of an hour or so ago, I have been digging into the grammatical aspects. In spite of Ed's and Gil's enlightening posts, along with some great information on the web -- I'm still wrestling with an issue. These men apparently did not believe they were in violation of the Establishment Clause of the amendment when they were incorporating and exercising their faith while at the same time carrying out their official duties for the people of the United States. They prayed on the House and Senate floors, they preached Scripture while presenting arguments, they built a Chapel inside the Capitol, they assigned a House Chaplain, etc.. If they believed in an all encompassing level of separation -- then Houston, we have a problem. Now Ole Forrest may be a little abrasive, but he has a valid point. It seems these men placed as much emphasis on the Free Exercise Clause as on the Establishment Clause. While they could not make a law concerning an establishment of religion, they also could not make a law regulating the expression of it. This fact is probably why they felt no conflict with the Establishment Clause of the amendment while exercising their faith on a daily basis on Capitol Hill. I'm leaning towards the idea that Congress has no constitutionally delegated power to make any law concerning matters of religion. However, they also can not make a law regulating the expression of my faith, whether that expression is private or public. Incidently, it should be noted that one of the reasons they provided no constitutionally delegated power in this area, was because they wanted to leave it to the individual states. This means that the states could work freely in this area but the federal government could not -- so, doesn't this beg the question as to why state laws are struck down by federal courts when they involve a religious matter? I've been reading from the following three sites. Enjoy. f>s> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/tnpidx.htm http://www.schoolprayer.com/eduguide/current_law.html http://www.wallbuilders.com/ f>s> Sinatraf>s> Tomorrow we will talk about metaphysics and Mr.& Mrs. Flatf>s> ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 06-30-2002 at 09:23 AM

Great posts. Fini, you're a trip. I'm with you Max -- I'm really happy where I'm at, and pretty much was as soon Mobile turned me on to the AE-25. The 9000ES and SVS upgrades were sure nice too though, but I'm done for a while. It's all about the music again. I just don't have any desire to do anything else with the system -- though I have two amps now, and I'm thinking about some Heresy's to go with it down in the basement. You guys listen to some really wierd music. ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

Great post Gil, and that's pretty much what Ed is saying too. I get it, I really do, and I really agree with the both of you. I definitely do not want government involved in my, or anybody else's religious affairs (except the Satanists of course I just think references to God used in the context of our history should remain intact. We ought to be able to say The Pledge, sing God Bless America, Oh Purple Mountains, and the like -- without someone completely freaking out and going to the Supreme Court. I'm certainly not going to feel like my religious freedoms are being assaulted if the pledge is changed back to the way it originally was. Jeepers, I almost forgot that that was what this thread was about. Well, it was sure fun exercising what little of my brain I have left. ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

Ed, It wasn't my intent to use the quotation of the Supreme Court in the 1892 decision to prove we were a "Christian Nation". I'm actually with Roadhawk on this one -- going to church makes one a Christian about as much as going into your garage makes you a car. I agree with him in equally applying this to a country. No, my point with the quotation, as well as Washington's from his Farewell address -- was simply to illustrate that for the better part of 200 years, no one had a problem with religion being excerised or expressed in government. When I followed up with the "what they said they meant" statement, I was specifically speaking of the Framers -- not the 1892's Supreme Courts statement. My point here was that we have access to documents written by the Framers, that gives insight regarding their intent related to many things in the Declaration of Independance and The U.S. Constitution. I mean, they even wrote letters back and forth to each talking about this stuff as they were hammering out the details. Regarding the 1892 decision, I have not had time to research it yet -- but you are very emphatic that an injustice was done. I absolutely see your point, and based on things you have related about it so far -- I am inclined to agree with you. The court should not have have sided with a Christian just because they were Christian. That is in fact the very thing the 1st amendment was designed to prevent. We agree here. Your post is excellent -- and we are in much more agreement than disagreement. However, I see no problem with government aiding the church in propagating what is good and proper. This is in fact what laws are anyway -- a framework for acceptable conduct in all areas of civilized life. You see, we have freedom to do "right", we do not have "freedom" to do wrong. So, how can government propagate what is right and moral -- without religion? That was George Washington's point. You said, "...I think all Americans have to protect against any one religion or combination of sects from imposing their symbolism upon us as the 84th Congress and President Eisenhower did." Why? The symbolism reflects our national heritage. It also represents much of the reasoning used by the Colonists to revolt against the British Crown. So then, the atheists choke on the word "God", but they are free not to speak it, and they have no religion but their non-belief, and they are free to practice it and lead their lives however they choose -- so how are they violated, and what rights have been breached or surrendered? They are splitting hairs! Maybe America should bar people of religious orientation from running for offices of government because their bias' impact how they vote on various legislation. How far do we separate church and state? The paragraph where you state: ...a government declaration that we are a Godly people who endeavor to do right is a definite WOE! ... for it advances a religious view of some of the people over all of the people. Sorry "righteous trampling" over the religious freedoms of my fellow Americans in the self-proclaimed name of God... no matter how devout you may be... is not what America is about in my opinion. Salvation and morality are personal issues that don't need a Constitutional Amendment for God's acceptance.... ...gives me pause. It's a great point, and I find trouble in deciding how to respond to it. Your last statement I am in complete agreement with, and can only say that I don't believe leaving intact a bare minimum of references to this nation's Godly heritage is a form of "righteous trampling", or the advancement of a "religious view" over all of the people. To me, it is simply an acknowledgement of our origins as a nation. ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

Eric, Many of these quotations were used as precedants by the Supreme Court in the 1892 descision. They show us the minds of these men, and reinforce the idea that much of what constituted government from their point of view -- rested on the foundation religion. On the other point you brought up regarding the meaning of the clause "respecting no establishment of religion", -- it's not so much my interpretation so much as it is Thomas Jefferson's, who I quoted directly. It is clear that he was thinking in terms of denominations -- because they had all been in the process of positioning themselves to become the "official" church of the New Republic. However, I do believe the meaning can now be broadened somewhat, since we have such a melting pot of belief systems in this country now -- without doing harm to the original meaning. The spirit of the law remains completely intact. I would like to let it be known that though I am a Conservative, I do not align myself with the Christian Right on several issues. I do not believe in forced prayer in schools (because Godly people can pray anytime they choose, after all -- The Apostle Paul said to "pray without ceasing"), I'm on the fence regarding vouchers (because the loss of this money to the public school system is detrimental to their existence -- and we need them), and I certainly don't believe someone should have to utter the words "under God" if it is not what they personally believe, or if they find it offensive. I find it extremely offensive that atheists and evolutionists misrepresent historical facts, distort scientific evidence, and use the courts to beat us down because they do not want our voices to be heard. When we fight back, WE are accused of attempting to legislate morality (of course, no one ever stops to think that even something as basic as a stop sign is a form of "legislating morality"), and brainwash our kids back into the dark ages (because we would really like our kids to know they have value, and are "fearfully and wonderfully made" by a Creator who loves them). The irony is that they see no problem using their belief system to change the way people think. BTW -- can anyone explain to me why Atheism is NOT a "religion"? "Religion -- a system of thought, feeling, and action that is shared by a group and that gives the members an object of devotion; a code of behavior by which individuals may judge the personal and social consequences of their actions; and a frame of reference by which individuals may relate to their group and their universe." So, they can propagate their belief system, which can't even be reconciled with elements of basic biology -- using governmental agencies -- but we can't. ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 06-28-2002 at 08:54 PM

HornEd Why are you mixing elements of the arguement? I feel that some of what you bring up doesn't really relate to the issue, or maybe I'm not getting where you are coming from. There are some who say this is a "Christian Nation" stated in the majority opinion in Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S. in the Supreme Court of 1892... I need to go back and read more about this case because it seems to have you pretty torqued. At any rate, we are NOT a "Christian Nation", but we are a nation with Christian roots and a Godly Heritage. I think there is a huge difference between those two statements. I don't believe The Framers were trying to create a "Christian Nation" -- but I do believe they felt it would have to be mostly comprised of a virtous, religious people for it to succeed! "That case reversed a lower court that held that the law applies equally to legally organized entities whether or not they are churches. The Supreme Court ruling was that a Christian church and a Christian minister were above that law in that it was the intent of the founding fathers that this be a Christian nation even if they didn't say so. Setting aside the actual case for now, let's instead focus on why the court might have thought this. "It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue." -- John Adams "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams "The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws." -- John Quincy Adams "There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy." -- John Quincy Adams "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." -- Samuel Adams "Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, and which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and which insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." -- Charles Carroll of Carrollton "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." -- Ben Franklin "I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from tis unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest. I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one of more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service." -- James Madison "The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind." -- Thomas Jefferson "I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers." -- Thomas Jefferson "Public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience." -- James McHenry "To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them." -- Jedediah Morse "It is impossible that any people of government should ever prosper, where men render not unto God, that which is God's, as well as to Caesar, that which is Caesar's." -- William Penn "The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments." -- Benjamin Rush "If we and our posterity reject religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity." -- Daniel Webster "The most perfect maxims and examples for regulating your social conduct and domestic economy, as well as the best rules of morality and religion, are to be found in the Bible. . . . The moral principles and precepts found in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. These principles and precepts have truth, immutable truth, for their foundation. . . . All the evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible. . . . For instruction then in social, religious and civil duties resort to the scriptures for the best precepts." -- Noah Webster "Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both." -- James Wilson "Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet." -- Robert Winthrop f>s>In "Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S. -- the Supreme Court Justices cited 87 precedents. Frankly, it is quite likely that such shameful bias and disregard for equality under the law that caused the framers of the constitution to leave God out of secular government. Hardly, a 'Constitution' outlines the system of fundamental principles to which a nation will govern. It simply defines the mechanisms government will utilize to do its work. BTW -- the amendments are part of the U.S. Constitution, and the 1st amendment covers religion -- so, it would appeard God was not left out of your 'secular' government. I covered that in my last post so I'm not going to go into it again here. That is the kind of edicts that came out of the officially Christian nations of Germany and Spain under the guidance of Adolph Hitler and Francisco Franco. You are confusing state-church, political Catholicsm with Evangelical Christianity. A government using and controlling a religion for the purpose of using religion as a means to bend a people to it's will, is a far cry from a government acknowleding the Creator and incorporating religious beliefs in the excercise of its duties and functions. Sadly, despite all the rhetoric of God's Love and Guidance of a Favored Nation, brute force and economic bribes still seem to be the most compelling reasons for nation's to change... even as it was in the time of Moses. You are right, however, we cannot blame the Creator because people willingly choose to ignore His instruction, or choose to use their faith as a shield to hide their wickedness. To that end, more people have been slain in the name of Christ than for any other cause. Run the numbers on that have you? I would say that many have been killed using Christ like an advertising label to champion their cause -- but the reality is that greed, hate, self-centeredness, and like -- are the real reason these things happen. The Christians on either side of the U. S. Civil War certainly gave us a more than ample sample of the polarization of religious differences even within the larger body of the Christian church. It sure sucks when that happens, but one side was definitely right, and the other side was definitely wrong, and the side that was right -- won. Being a Christian does not make one immune from deception. It gets even the best of us from time to time. In truth, it was much more than religious differences that brought on the Civil war. ...the early Christian Church has been splintered into an incredible number of often at odds sects.... Yes, but amazingly enough -- we all agree on what counts. I sure don't seeing me swinging a sword at a Baptist any time in the near future. I am strong enough in my faith that I need not have my religious tenets scrawled across my government. Give me a government with laws I can understand as a person... an petition to have changed any law that fails the "Golden Rule" test. Let the devout among us pray wisdom for our leaders, strength for our nation, and freedom, justice and equality for ourselves and our fellow Americans. Our government should continue to acknowledge the Creator of all. In the day they do not, it will mean our demise -- see Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Does anyone seriously think that an Almighty God would be so miffed at not getting top billing that he/she would prey upon the nation that his/her devout followers pray for? I hope not... for that would force me back to the Supreme Being drawing board. It's cause and effect Ed. Godly people create and support Godly principles and laws. Keeping pushing God further and further back into the canvas and something else will come forward and take His place. Also keep in mind that the sins of guilty create consequences that always bleed over onto the innocent. It's just the way it is. Does anyone seriously think that the best course for this nation as the lone remaining Super Power to declare itself a de facto Christian Nation and all the other religions or non-religions of the world could like it or lump it. Woe there, that's quite a leap. How about a declaration that we are a Godly people who endeavor to do right? To protect the down-trodden and help others? whether Jew, Christian, Muslim, or whatever -- we recogize a "Higher Power" to whom we are accountable. Atheists will just have to get over it. At least, with the honest division of Church and State, one can always vote their conscience and thereby honor their God and influence the guidance of this nation. You are way to intelligent to make such a statement. Vote for who? Godless people who sell you out every chance they get? You honor God by advancing the cause of good and by sharing His Son. You influence the guidance of this nation by changing hearts and minds -- to honor God. ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 06-28-2002 at 04:03 PM

Kev313, My comment regarding the Christian Right being a bunch of idiots and existing for the sole purpose of shoving our religion down everyone's throat, was put forth in the spirit of sarcasm. I mean, this is what people say about us. Our position would be that we are merely attempting to nail everything down before it all comes completely apart. You said, ...But consideration must be given to the fact that in 2002 America is much more religiously diverse than it was in the 1700's. Why should consideration be given to this fact. The use of the word 'God' can also be applied in the most generic sense -- and so in application would cover the religious beliefs of the greater majority, regardless of the particular belief system. HornEd brings up the polytheistic beliefs of some Native Indians, however, he fails to to point out the majority of Native Americans actually have monotheistic beliefs. At any rate, the use of the word 'God' perfectly conveys this idea that there is a Creator, whether personal or impersonal -- and that this country's foundational principles are bound to this idea. What arguement can be rightly presented that shows we should divorce this concept from Partriotism? You then said, "If we were to accept the logic of your argument, then one must also agree that slavery is ok because there is a historical basis for it. The framers were as much slaveowner as they were christian." There is no language in the Declaration of Independance, or the Constitution, or any other document the Framers were involved with, that can be used to show that slavery was an integral part of the process of governing. The point that everyone seems to keep missing is that the Framers themselves seemed to have no problem whatsoever incorporating religion into the governmental process -- yet we are to believe that their intent was to completely divorce religion from government? Does religion have a place in government? I believe that constitutionally it does not. Congress cannot make a law establishing a religion. The term God is absent from the constitution. Like most people, you left out the part in the amendment that is actually the key to its true meaning. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This COULD mean many different things depending on how one defined the word "respecting" in this context. How are we to understand it? 1) Congress can make no law relating to the establishment known as "religion". 2) Congress can make no law showing favoritism over one religion over another. I believe the weight should be given to the latter, since this would naturally have been the concern of everyone involved. At the time, the Colonies of both Virginia and Massachusetts had churches which were being supported by taxes and 'state' sponsorship. We have correspondance between Thomas Jefferson and Benjamn Rush, also a signer of the Declaration of Independance, that explains what his concerns were. It is clear from this letter that the specific verbiage utilized in the 1st amendment was to prevent the establishment of a government sponsored, or backed religion -- more specifically, the government backing of one particular Christian denomination over another. "The clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly."f>s> Using this letter to Benamin Rush, and then laying it along side the letter from Thomas Jefferson to the head of the Danbury Baptist Association, we can draw some very strong conclusions where Jefferson stood on this. We do not need to wrestle with the grammical construction of the amendment at all. "Gentlemen, -The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem."f>s> The "wall" of separation was not for the purpose of limiting religious activities in public. The "wall" was put up to prevent government from interfering with religious expressions and activities. Obviously this is true, for just about every one of these men had calluses on their knees from the amount of praying they engaged in on the House and Senate floors, schools used the Bible to teach kids how to read, and The 10 Commandments were EVERYWHERE. So, based on these things -- what are we to think THEY thought about this part of the 1st amendment? So, the present day interpretation of "The Wall" is in fact the TOTAL OPPOSITE of what Jefferson meant by it. I say that if Jeffersons statement is to be used, it should be used and understood in the context that he meant it. Also, consider that this was a PERSONAL and PRIVATE letter to a select group of individuals. "There is probably no other instance in Americas history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter, words clearly divorced from their context --have become the sole authorization for a national policy." -- David Barton ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 06-28-2002 at 03:36 PM

"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."f>s> -- 1892 Supreme Court ruling in Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S. (citing 87 precedents)f>s> "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happinessthese firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, "where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?" And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?f>s> -- From George Washington's Farewell addressf>s> Yes, we from the "Christian Right" are just a bunch of idiots who want to shove our faith down everyone's throat. That's O.K. -- we're in good company. It's NOT what anyone THINKS the Framers meant -- it's about WHAT THEY SAID THEY MEANT. It is almost completely impossible to find one historical document or letter written by any of these men without some reference to God. This country was clearly founded on Christian principles and precepts. These principles were so entrenched in the minds of the Framers, that any attempt to explain or interpret verbiage employed by them in a way deviating from that mindset -- is completely idiotic. One cannot sift out America's Christian Heritage without tearing at the very fabric of what America was based on. If you are an American and are not a Christian, that is clearly your right. If you are an American and do not embrace Christian prinicples, that is also your right. However, don't expect me to sit around and do NOTHING while you advance your agenda of convincing others that religion and Christianity have no place in government. The "Christian Right" did NOTHING for 40 years, and what we got for it was a present day generation of sociopaths. Go, ahead. Keep telling yourself there is no relationship between America thumbing its nose at God and the millions of whacked out, dysfunctional people you're surrounded with. We've been teaching people for 100 years that there is no God, that they came from a pool of Sh!t, and evolved from monkeys -- and we can't figure out why people are offing themselves left and right. Sorry, but I won't be crawling back into my hole anytime soon. Glory be to God in the Highest! f>s> ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 06-28-2002 at 12:55 AM

Well Craig, the ears don't lie -- so I accept what you are saying. ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

"...Again I realize that Sony doesn't make the greatest decks..." They do now. With the bizarre compression scheme employed by MP3 it does seem hard to believe it could sound anything but mediocre at best. I don't know how old your Sony is -- but I guess it's not beyond the realm of possiblity that well done MP3 might keep pace with the sound of somewhat older DAC's. Which ES do you have Craig? ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

Hgs10 ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

I knew I wasn't going to vertical biamp because of the differences of the two amps. I was going to horizontal biamp -- putting one on the tweeters and the other on the woofers. My question was really just asking what advantage vertical biamping had over horizontal biamping. Thanks for the link Mobile -- I'll dig in later this morning. ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

Tripod -- Maybe you could go back and read my edited post. After some reflection I just decided I couldn't let it go without saying something. Maybe some thought should be given to why the line was added in the first place. ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 06-26-2002 at 09:10 PM

Kenrat Please change your topic title and remove the reference to a bundle of sticks. I'm afraid Forrestgump2 may ask that you be banned. BTW -- I believe they should declare the Declaration of Independance unconstitutional, because it includes the word(s) "Creator", "Supreme Judge", and "Divine Providence". While they are at it, they mind as well declare the Constitution unconstitutional. Heck, "The Bill of Rights" has been turned into the "Bill of Privilages". As far as "Separation of Church and State" goes, the Supreme Court's interpretation of that is completely bogus. As most know, this verbiage cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution. Where it is found is in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the then leader of the Danbury Baptist Association who had some legitimate concerns regarding the meaning of the 1st amendment. Thomas Jefferson wrote him back saying that the intent was to put up a wall between Church and State. The thrust of the letter was to reassure the minister that it was to protect the Church from Government, to stop it from drafting legislature that might allow Government to impose its will upon the people through the Church. When looking at the first amendment, it is also clear to anyone not having been brainwashed with all this getting God out government nonsense -- that the intent was to prevent Government from making any law that favors one religion over another. Keeping Government separated from the Church is one thing, keeping the faith(s) out of things Government is something else entirely. This idea that the Framers intent was to keep things of God out of Government is completely ludicrous. Everything from the Federalist Papers, to the Declaration of Independance, to the Bill of Rights (which is the list of things given to us by the Creator) -- clearly shows the Framers intent to include God in the process of independance and governing. Should we also now include laws that say no one of any religious faith can run for office? I mean, God forbid anyone bring their religious bias' into the governmental process. So, whether Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu, whatever -- all are protected from Government, and no one religion or denomination has to worry about Government making laws that favors one over the other. More often than not, a good thing gets taken too far. Government should recognize the Divine Will -- the Framers sure did. f>s> ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 06-26-2002 at 09:05 PM

Poor Mobile...I feel one coming on myself.f>s> Trespasser The answer my friend is blowing in the wind... If you are going to do HT, then you need the decoder. If you are doing straight up 2 Channel, then find a receiver that has a 4 ohm rating as part of its specifications, stack your KG's, and be done with it. BTW -- If you stack your KG's, you won't need a sub f>s>------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

I'm sure many of you remember my AE-25 Super Amp having been outfitted with a volume control by the previous owner. When I tried running it CD direct with both my Anthem CD-1 and Marantz DV-7010 -- I found the sound somewhat compressed and thin sounding. From this experience I deduced that I would probably not be one to go for the sound of a passive device. Well, last night I pulled my SF Line 1 out of the rack so I could clean the tube sockets and swap the 6922's around because I'm trying to track down that slight crackling sound I hear at low volume levels. After I pulled it out, I was thinking about some of the posts from the past, and some more recent, about passive devices. I started thinking about gain and impedance matching and just said the hell with it and hooked the 9000ES into Super Amp inputs. I didn't have time to listen last night, but when I got home today I gave it a whirl -- not really expecting much. Hey, if you don't expect much, you don't get disappointed. I am now feeling somewhat confused and a little unsettled because what I found was a completely different experience than the one I experienced the last time I tried this. As a matter of fact...I feel hard pressed to tell any difference at all between running CD direct and having the Line 1 in the system. I'm at a complete loss to explain this. Later tonight I'm pulling all my manuals out to compare the numbers between the Sony and my other now departed decks. I will probably listen to it like this for a couple of days and then throw the preamp back in. It would be nice if I found I could live with CD direct, that way I could put the Line 1 with the DJH Super Amp I have coming next week. Gee, sure hope I win those Klipschorns f>s>------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 06-26-2002 at 07:42 PM

...options of 500hz and 1000hz absorbive sheetsf>s> I'm sorry, but that has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. This is what I did: I used my daughters full length mirror and laid it against the side wall adjacent to the right channel. I sat down at the listening position and looked into the mirror to see if I could see the drivers. I kept sliding the mirror along the wall until the drivers came into view. This area on the wall is the source of the first, or primary reflections from the drivers. I repeated this procedure for the left channel. I then found some packing foam at work, already sized in small rectangular squares. I took my RF7 grills and turned them around and set the foam inside the grills -- then set the grills against the side walls where the mirror dictated the first side wall reflections occured. I really didn't want to change the sonic character of my RF7's, but instead just wanted to do something that seemed reasonable. Any soft material will do to absorb wall reflections, and this material will effect ALL frequenies to some degree. To what degree will be determined by how much you use. When I get my digital camera back, I will post a picture. f>s>------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 06-26-2002 at 07:48 PM

It's actually a great question and we had a great thread on this some time ago.f>s>. Why do we use preamps? Enjoy. It's a kick butt thread.f>s> ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 06-26-2002 at 06:38 PM

uhh...that ringing takes place quite a bit higher than 7Khz. It's actually beyond the range of audibility in a tweeter. There was extensive discussion about this at the Asylum about a year or so ago. If you don't mind me asking, where did you get this 7Khz figure?Just for the record. Klipsch Reference Speakers use air core inductors in the crossover. As far as the discussion in general, I don't see so much the strength of horns being in the reproduction high level dynamics, but more so much in the area of microdynamics. Their strength lies in their ability to take low level detail and push it to the top. The quieter, low level elements of the music are brought up to a level where they can be clearly heard. f>s>Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s> This message has been edited by deang on 06-26-2002 at 08:01 PM

What, this one too tough for the 2 Channel Forum ------------------ Deanf>s> AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s> Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>