Ten Commandments is courtroom

[SuffolkMD]

Ok all,

Bush-bashing is getting stale. Let's get to issues.
Federal judge orders Alabama judge to remove ten commandments from courtroom. Alabama judge says no!
Thousands of people in Alabama rally at his side.

Who's right? Who's wrong? Anybody? Nobody?

Comments?

SuffolkMD
________
SMOKE WEED EVERY DAY (http://smokeweedeveryday.org/)

[WantaghDem]

You answered your own question:

"Federal judge orders Alabama judge to remove ten commandments from courtroom"

End of story. Federal judge=law of the land. Alabama judge has no choice. If you're asking about the merits of the case itself, it's already a done deal; a moot point.

The monument goes. Period. End of discussion.


If you think that the Alabama judge is right, it sounds like you would have stood in that school doorway with Wallace a few years back...in Alabama, coincidentally....or not so coincidentally.
________
How To Roll A Blunt (http://howtorollablunt.net/)

[SuffolkMD]

Wrong,

Common Law = Law of the land.
US Constitution= Law of the land.

Federal Judges have been wrong on many issues, haven't they?

If you think that it's the "end of the story" when a federal judge says something, then why are the pro-abortionists so afraid of Bush's judicial nominations?

Roe v. Wade was already decided. End of story, no?

Federal Law doesn't control state law, you must agree with that. And I don't believe that the federal judge has cited any law that forbids the ten commandments from bng posted, has he?

SuffolkMD
________
Hawaii Marijuana Dispensaries (http://hawaii.dispensaries.org/)

[WantaghDem]

....that MCAT scores have nothing to do with intelligence...


THE FEDERAL JUDGE HAS ISSUED THE ORDER. THE MONUMENT MUST GO.

END OF STORY.

If you are trying to debate whether the order is "right" or "wrong" go find someone else who is as ignorant of the law as you are.

You are correct. Roe v Wade was decided by the Supreme Court, and that meant that states HAD TO STOP BARRING WOMEN FROM HAVING ABORTIONS.

(although, that didn't stop states from making abortions unavailable in 82% of counties in the US....conservatives don't really like the federal government unless it is helping them to steal or allowing them to murder)

Yes, it is possible that OTHER RULINGS MAY IN FACT ALTER Roe v Wade.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ALABAMA ORDER.

The judge is not complying with a FEDERAL ORDER, which means he is BREAKING THE LAW.

You made breaking the law, no matter how small or technical, an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE a few years back....care to have that one bite you in the a_s now?



And by the way: no one who truly cares about this country believes that "Bush-bashing" is getting stale...in fact, from the looks of things,

WE'RE ONLY JUST GETTING STARTED.


And he's giving us SO much to work with!


________
Honda N360 Specifications (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_N360)

[Freedom]

The Ten Commandments are the basis on which Law in this country is founded. These ancient codes of law can be traced back to or prior to the Code of Hammarabi. In the reading of the 1st Amendment, the 11th Court in question doesn't seem to understand what establishment of a religion is all about. Clearly those involved have never read what the founders intended. One would think that Justices of this Nation would be more familiar with the Federalist Papers - which were written by the founders.


________
Lyiza (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/Lyiza/)

[IslipDem]

Amazing how you guys fall back on State's Rights...except if the State if Florida?!
________
Brunette video (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/15/brunette/videos/1)

[Sassy]

Were there any other parties involved in this case besides the ACLU?

A quote from Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist: "The wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based upon bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. ... The greatest injury of the 'wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intention of the drafters of the Bill of Rights."


________
Chevrolet Corvette (http://www.chevy-wiki.com/wiki/Chevrolet_Corvette)

[Sassy]

Judge Moore will be a guest on Hannity and Colmes, Fox News.

Thousands are beginning to descend on Montgomery County to show solidarity.
________
Ferrari F1 640 history (http://www.ferrari-wiki.com/wiki/Ferrari_F1_640)

[IslipDem]

seems w's between Iraq, oopps sorry, a rock and a hard place.

the suprems won't hear the case and the rock has to be out by midnight.

will W send in the National Guard to remove it?

If he does the bible belt will hate him. if he doesn't so much for the rule of law.

after FL he can't fall back on states rights.

politicly it's a tough one. but the rule of law says he has to make sure it goes. it will be interesting.

and yes, in the past the court has been wrong in some of it's decisions. i don't believe so in this case. but unless and until it reverses itself. it's ruling stands as the law of the land

regardless of common law, biblical law or those who think they have a direct pipeline to God, say God's law is.
________
Ford Mustang I (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_Mustang_I)

[ACELAW]

SuffolkMD

The usual Brilliant response from What-a-demo-wit, he does not have the brain to think past his nose.

The ACLU is making attacks across the whole front of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, there nick name is Red Diaper Doper Babies.?
They are part of the liberal front that thinks we should join the new world order. This just goes to the bigger picture of what our judges are doing to our Constitution and why, if you look at the rulings they are making and the statements of why they made them ,you will see the intent to change our country into Globalization model, which violates our Constitution and Bill of rights.. I think this sums it up best

It's obvious why the Democrats filibuster any judicial nominee they suspect of bng a strict constructionist. The Democrats love an activist judiciary because court decisions can make fundamental changes that the American people and our elected representatives don't want.

Supreme Court
05/29/01, The U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will not hear an appeal by the city of Elkhart, Indiana in a case involving a granite Ten Commandments display in the town square, leting stand a lower court ruling that the monument violated the constitutional separation of church and state. The high court justices divided 6-3 of whether to hear the case. Chief Justice William Rhenquist, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas reportedly voted to consider the appeal. Rhenquist, who has stated that the "wall of separation" between church in state had no precedence in American history or jurisprudence, wrote that the monument, "simply reflects the Ten Commandments' role in the development of our legal system. Leading the majority dissent, however, was Justice John Paul Stevens who noted that the first two lines of the monument's text were in a significantly larger font than the rest of the marker and state, "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS -- I AM the LORD thy GOD." Stevens said that portion of the monument inscription "is rather hard to square with the proposition that the monument expresses no particular religious preference


We live in a global economy, right? But the elites mouthing this mantra haven't shared with the American people the news that globalism not only means open borders for the movement of goods and the migration of peoples, plus textbooks teaching children to be citizens of the world instead of patriots.
Globalism also means bending the United States Constitution into conformity with opinions of forgners who pompously enunciate new laws and new human rights. The utterings of these self-important bureaucrats in the United Nations and some European countries could be merely matters for TV humor if it were not that Supreme Court Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Stevens take them seriously.
Justice Breyer gleefully told George Stepanopoulos on ABC News how the United States is changing "through commerce and through globalization ... [and] through immigration," and that this change is having an impact on the courts. He speculated on "the challenge" of whether our U.S. Constitution "fits into the governing documents of other nations."
Where did he get the idea that the U.S. Constitution should "fit" into the laws of other nations? If a country can't make its own laws, how can it be a sovergn nation?
In a dissent in Knight v. Florida, Breyer said it was "useful" to consider court decisions on allowable delays of execution in India, Jamaica and Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe, indeed, has had a lot of experience with executions, but it's hardly a country from which we should get guidance about due process.
Justice Kennedy couldn't find any language in the U.S. Constitution to justify overturning the Texas sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas, so he invoked "other authorities" in "Western civilization," namely, the European Court of Human Rights, which invalidated EU countries' domestic laws proscribing homosexual conduct. Kennedy cited an amicus brief filed by Mary Robinson, former United Nations high commissioner for human rights.
Kennedy wrote, "The right the petitioners seek [to engage in sodomy] has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries," and he emphasized the "values we share with a wider civilization." In fact, most other countries do not share American values, and we don't want to share thrs.
Reading forgn court decisions no doubt contributed to Kennedy's reliance on "emerging awareness ... in matters pertaining to sex" instead of on the U.S. Constitution. Four justices joined in Kennedy's majority decision without distancing themselves from his globalist reasoning or his false recitation of U.S. history of sodomy laws.
Justice Scalia eloquently dissented: "Constitutional entitlements do not spring into existence ... because forgn nations decriminalize conduct." He called Kennedy's words "dangerous dicta," adding that the Supreme Court "should not impose forgn moods, fads or fashions on Americans."
Of course, the Supreme Court should not; but it did. Is the Court now going to use Canada's fad about same-sex marriages to overturn the laws of our 50 states?
Instead of condemning Kennedy's use of forgn courts to change U.S. laws, the American Bar Association president opined that "the concept of fundamental law knows no national boundaries." Sounding off from left field, Harvard professor Laurence Tribe chimed in to "applaud" the "important insights" of the "global legal community."
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, concurring in Grutter v. Bollinger, cited a treaty to justify the University of Michigan Law School's affirmative action. They wrote: "The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, ratified by the United States in 1994 ... endorses special and concrete measures to ensure the adequate development and protection of certain racial groups ... for the purpose of guaranteng them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms."
When the Senate ratified that treaty under pressure from the Clinton Administration (30 years after Lyndon Johnson signed it), I wonder if anyone predicted that it would require U.S. schools to impose reverse discrimination based on race.
In Atkins v. Virginia, Justice John Paul Stevens' majority opinion cited an amicus brief from the European Union. The EU warned us, Stevens wrote, that "within the world community, the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by mentally retarded offenders is overwhelmingly disapproved."
Scalia retorted, "The views of other nations cannot be imposed upon Americans." But five justices did impose forgn views on us.
It's obvious why the Democrats filibuster any judicial nominee they suspect of bng a strict constructionist. The Democrats love an activist judiciary because court decisions can make fundamental changes that the American people and our elected representatives don't want.
It's also obvious why the Democrats like United Nations treaties. Activist judges can use them to circumvent our Constitution and laws -- and diminish American sovergnty.



________
PORTABLE VAPORIZERS (http://vaporizer.org/portable)

[Edmond Dantes]

You said: "The Ten Commandments are the basis on which Law in this country is founded."

Not true. Many of our concepts of Law come from the Norse/Teutonic Pagan peoples. The Pagan Germans, according to Tacitus, allowed the whole community to debate major issues at the Assembly where the Pagan priests were in charge of the proceedings. Tacitus wrote in the Germanica, "The Assembly is competent in hearing criminal charges..." We also know that the Assembly elected judges and magistrates to administer justice in the villages. By the time that Tacitus wrote of the Germans, it is clear that the concept of the Assembly, and it's sanctity in the culture of the Germanic people was quite ancient. So, the ideal of self government, the sacred respect of law, and the sacredness of the Assembly itself, evolves from the primal, PAGAN past, not from the Ten Commandments.

You said: "These ancient codes of law can be traced back to or prior to the Code of Hammarabi."

The Code of Hammarabi, I see. So then our laws also come from the ancient Pagan Babylonian culture, and belong deep within thr Pagan past. Well, then, it seems there is no reason to erect a monument of the Ten Commandments. If that's the case I think we should erect a statue of the chief Babylonian God, alongside the original Code of Hammarabi, and get rid of the 10 Commandments.

________
hot box vape (http://hotboxvaporizers.com)

[WantaghDem]

Edmond: you have just tried both reason and history on these people, but it is a waste of your time.

They believe what they believe because they have been ordered to believe it. If they were capable of original thought - and so receptive to your reason and history - then they wouldn't have such horribly antiquated pre-scientific superstitions.


Remember, we are talking about white religious people who believe they have been predestined to be right, supporting a white leader against the rule of law - federal law - in ALABAMA.

This is no difference than the shameful situation in Alabama under Gov Wallace.

Nice argument, though.
________
SHIP SALE (http://ship-sale.com/)

[Back to the Truth]

But now the truth!

Exactly where in the Constitution does it specify "separation of Church and State"? All the Left is citing is opinion from judicial activists - precisely the "judicial despotism" Thomas Jefferson, yeah Thomas Jefferson, feared. The Constitution prescribes a method for modification by amendment, not by judicial decree! If you are content to relegate the reshaping of our Constitution and, thus, all law to the opinions of benchwarmers with a social agenda, then in your ignorance and complacence, are content to undermine the natural rights of man. And...open a history book. The "Inquisition and witch burning" occurred long before the establishment of our Constitutional law. That does not mean the Constitution was infallible. Slavery occurred after its passage, but the 13th amended was added according to prescribed method, effectively ending legal slavery. Now, the only slaves in America are those whose world view is held in bondage by the Left!

[Back to the Truth]

[Edmond Dantes]

You said in your heading: "Above 2 postings good for comic relief"

In what way is my post comic relief?

Just curious.
________
ford focus wrc history (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_Focus_WRC)

[SuzieQ]

Our Governement has worked fine up until this time with a religious icon here or there, or a mention of God on our coins. What exactly do you think will happen now? Everyone seems to be so afraid that this is going to create some sort of big upheavel in our governing process. Let's get a hold of ourselves. Don't you realize that there are certain elements at work here trying to undermine our values and our country. The majority of people maintain some belief in a religion. There is a small minority out there who do not. Why should the majority have to bend to the minority. I think the people of Alabama and the United States should stand firm against these loons who want to obliterate any mention of God on government property as it is harmless as presented.
________
VAPORGENIE VAPORIZER (http://www.vaporshop.com/vaporgenie-vaporizer.html)

[IslipDem]

SuzieQ,

You are quite presumptuous in you assuming that just because someone doesn't agree with you that they have no believe in religous values. Some do some don't. Those that do feel that those values are diminished when zealots like the judge do what he just did.

and, yes, it is problamatic when he says things like "God's law is supreme to the Nations Law". You can not say that and remain a judge. No way, no how.

Many of these people don't want "religious freedom" they want thier religon. and thier's says it's the only religon. Falwell says on any and every occasion that the only way to heaven is thru his religion.

An example:

several years ago the mayor of ashevill, nc wanted to allow those who were part of the Wicken movement to setup booths on public property at halloween to explain the significance to them of that day. well, the fundementalist christians howled, kicked and sreamed about that. how is was anti-christian, devil worship, etc. many of these were THE SAME people who the december before demanded that the city allow a nativity scene on public property--------get it?

what that judge did was clear - his religionis THE ONLY religion to be tolerated. agnostics (jeffersom was one), buddists, hinu's-----just too friggin' bad-------you don't count

sorry there SuzieQ THAT ain't america!
________
THE CIGAR BOSS (http://thecigarboss.com/)

[Sassy]

to discuss this issue. FoxNews 9 p.m.

Keyes said if the ACLU gets away with this in the Bible belt, they figure they will be able to get away with anything.

What about our right to honor God? The Alabama constitution states an acknowledgement of God.
________
Plymouth Expresso history (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Plymouth_Expresso)

[SuzieQ]

All I am saying is that we have had the word God mentioned in our Government since our Constitution was first written. Most people believe in God in some form or another. It is only when one religion is bng taught or favored in a Government funded facility that it is against the law. The Ten Conmandments are not bng taught, they are just there to read or not. Whatever happend with the school in Vegas or Utah that is government funded for the Muslims?????? I don't hear you screaming about that. That is definitely a breach in our Constitution. You are all starting to get crazy over something that is really benign at this stage. Look into the Muslim school and then get back to me about "separation of Church and State."
________
JAGUAR XK150 HISTORY (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Jaguar_XK150)

[Realist]

You bible thumpers just don't get it. Your precious 10 f'ing commandments are not mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution. If that "judge" in Alabama wants to glorify his superstitious beliefs in stone, he can do it at home. Christian symbols are not part of the US Judicial system. Regarding any right to "honor God"? Do that at home too. As far as the comment "they are just there to read or not", why not the current issue of "Screw" magazine in the courthouse? More Americans have sex than practice religion. Of course it wouldn't be a state sanctioning of pornography. That would offend good christian Americans who only have sex to procreate. It would "just be there to read or not." Edited by: Realist at: 8/21/03 9:23 pm

________
Best butane for iolite (http://vaporizerinfo.com/)

[Freedom]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," which applies to CONGRESS, not Chief Justice Moore, who was elected to state office by the people of the state of Alabama. The only parties in this case involved in "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion are the ACLU and thr Left-wing judiciary subordinates.

One more time. Who shall make no law? CONGRESS!


________
Easy Vape Vaporizer Review (http://vaporizers.net)

[Nattydread]

Religion in all its forms should be banned from bng displayed in any form publicly. There is good reason in my mind to rip down every public display of religion today ..I believe that even though I'm a christian.

There have always been too many disparte views on religion. Even within the same faction people cannot agree on religion. Look at the episcopal church and the priest..whats to debate? Its ther wrong or its right..yet its splitting the church apart. Here you have controvery within the same faith. What chance would you have when it comes to different faiths?

We have seen too many times wars bng created with religion as a central theme. In other words the same bible says its ok to kill....thats the interpretation. So when it comes to religion my attitude is..YOU KEEP IT TO YOURSELF! DO not impose it on the public in any form. No pictures..no crosses...NOTHING! If its not in your car, your house or your church ..your ass should be arrested.

look at the Albama situation..watch how the judge cleverly weave religion into the law to justify his action. Right or wrong we already see yet another example of how people are senseless, blinded by religion and thr faith.
Wanna have twelve wifes? I can find a religion for you....and you won't need a new bible.
Wanna be overtly racist?
Hey..I got a religion for you too..again no new bible required.
Wanna feel right about hating any select group in America today....I can find you a religion.

Wanna know how to run the country....many religion claims thr bible tells them how.

It is dangerous to have any religion guide/rule any group other than those who willingly join. I get very nervous when I hear any President harbouring religious sentiment that could somehow spill over into his job.

Again my position when it comes to religion...KEEP IT TO YOURSELF!

________
Rhode Island Dispensary (http://rhodsland.dispensaries.org/)

[aching again]

Having a 2.5 ton slab of granite w/ the 10 commandments in a courthouse is wrong. it shows a definate preference for certain religious beliefs over others.

and God is for a monothstic male dominated religion. That is *wrong* in a government building, especially a building were objectivity and fairness to all should rgn supreme.

And, yes, it should be taken off our money too.

[Freedom]

Ironically, in the Supreme Court, the Ten Commandments are etched in a marble relief above the Justices' bench, for indeed they are the moral foundation of American law!

And yes, the ACLU won't stop until they DO take "In God We Trust" off of our money.

Then what? What will they replace God with? It's scarry to even think about it.


________
Abigaillx (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/Abigaillx/)

[Taking a stand for God]

I hope you all see the irony, and the dangers, presented in the Landover Baptist article posted by Barb.

I love Landover Baptist Church. Thanks Barb for the insight.

[Edmond Dantes]

So if this is wrong what will we do about the practice of swearing in witnesses in this very court, since there is a bible used in this unspeakable act.Having said bible in the building is also a violation Right?
Then we swear in all our folks to political office with those words"So help me God"



________
herbalaire vaporizer review (http://herbalairevaporizer.com/)

[IslipDem]

I was unaware. And if it IS true then consider me screamimg:">

"Public" areas should be free off ALL religious influences. That's why ththey're public!

Religion belongs at home and in the heart. not on the sleeve....
________
THE CIGAR BOSS (http://thecigarboss.com/)

[IslipDem]

To all the suppossed Christians who have posted pro Judge comments:

As Warner Wolf migh say, "let's go to the Bilble"

Jesus said, "Render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar'c...."

In this country Cearsar is the "government" and the "government" is the people. Not just Christians ALL the people. AKA the "Public"

Therefore all Public spaces are in essence the "things that are Ceasar's" And "Ceasar" degrees not religious objects in the "Public" spaces.

Until "Ceasar" changes "his" mind that's the end of it...period!


________
BIG TITS MOVIES (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/10/big-tits/videos/1)

[aching]

swearing on a bible and uttering the words "so help me god" are not required of witnesses in court. they can affirm they will tell the truth without mentioning the G word at all.

[WantaghDem]

"Then we swear in all our folks to political office with those words"So help me God""

No, we don't. Not all. There is nothing in the Constitution or in Federal law that says anyone in public or military office must swear an oath - or say the words "so help me god"

They are used by pandering political types who want to further hoodwink the people by extending thr political power to the magical areba of religion.

NO ONE elected or appointed or commissed to public office must swear an oath - they may personally affirm instead.

I shouldn't have to be telling a "citizen" of this country this basic information.

You know less about this country than the "illegal aliens" about whom you rant and rave.
________
Montana medical marijuana (http://montana.dispensaries.org/)

[WantaghDem]

Here's one way you can understand why it is WRONG to have religion ANYWHERE near government.

Why not, instead of saying, "so help me god" at the end of an oath - we require - REQUIRE - people to say "thank you Satan"?

What if we did that? What would be wrong with that? What is the harm?

YOu're telling us that those who don't believe in God should just deal with it and say the words anyway...like on money, like in the Pledge...

...so if it doesn't mean anything, and it doesn't matter and shouldn't matter to those who don't believe, why should it matter to you if you are required to say "thank you Satan"?

Could it be that it goes AGAINST what you believe?

You are ignorant hypocrites. I know plenty of people of faith who agree that religion has no place in government.


BY the way - did you read those reports about the "supporters" of Judge Moore in Alabama? They're mostly from places other than Alabama....the memos have gone out, and the troops have been dispatched. What WILL we do?

Oh that's right, we have the LAW on our side. The ONLY law that matters under the Constitution of the United States of America.
________
Expert insurance (http://xpertinsurance.com/)

[Freedom]

Rep. Ron Paul sums it up:

"The practice of judicial activism -- legislating from the bench -- is now standard for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. ... With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office."


________
Washington medical marijuana (http://washington.dispensaries.org/)

[WantaghDem]

Freedom complains that the order against "Judge" Moore is not " upholding the rule of law"

We have an interesting little thing known as the Constitution.

And here's the way it works:

ANY order from a federal judge IS the RULE OF LAW.

Now, it can be REVERSED, but only by a HIGHER COURT.

IF a federal judge or court issues an order, AND it is appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court, AND the higher courts ther concur or decline to review, THEN.......(drumroll....)

THAT ORDER IS THE LAW OF THE LAND, NO MATTER WHAT YOU THINK OF IT.


T H E R E F O R E :

By refusing to follow and uphold the law of the land, NOT ONLY is Judge Moore guilty of BREAKING THE LAW, he is ALSO guilty of {gasp!} J U D I C I A L A C T I V I S M!!!

NOT ONLY THAT, but his days as a judge are numbered. He has specifically, willfully, blatantly and publicly broken the law and his oath of office, and will soon be removed as REQUIRED under the law.


Have a nice day thinking about that!
________
Hip problems advice (http://www.health-forums.org/hip-problems/)

[Freedom]

Once upon a time....
A dear, brave little lady called Rosa Parks went against the Supreme Court and refused to sit at the back of the bus. Rosa said, "I don't care what the Supreme Court says this is an unjust law and I WILL sit at the front of the bus." Rosa Parks also sat at the counter where white folks only were supposed to sit. And I hope you all know the rest of the story.

Rosa Parks, Matin Luther King and Judge Moore are brave people. We need more like them.

Veritas Vos Liberabit!


________
Iolite Portable Vapor (http://vaporizer.org)

[WantaghDem]

You have dishonored the legacy and memory of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by associating his name with this evil little Judge Moore.

Rosa Parks would tell you to be ashamed of yourself.



You have also dishonored yourself by displaying an astonishing ignorance of the facts. You HAVE to be one of the most IGNORANT conservatives out there...and that's certainly saying something...you should be....uhh....proud?


FIRST of all, Rosa Parks and Dr. King DID NOT DEFY the Supreme Court of the United States. YOU ARE WRONG.

They defied the City of Montgomery, Alabama....the VERY same city in which ignorant racists are supporting Judge Moore now, by the way.

The Supreme Court of the United States SIDED with Parks and King in thr December 1956 decision banning segregation on public transportation. THEY WERE ON THE SAME SIDE. RACISTS WERE ON THE OTHER....JUST LIKE NOW.

SECOND of all, the analogy is all wrong...but I'm glad you brought it up, so I can spank you with it!

In the comparison between 10 commandments and Rosa Parks, Judge Moore is playing the part of the Montgomery RACISTS who REFUSED to comply with a FEDERAL ORDER.

THEY showed contempt for the rule of law.

HE shows contempt for the rule of law.

You are really a great big idiot, aren't you?




And by the way, isn't the slogan for your kind of people

"sic semper tyrannis"?

I think YOU know the rest of THAT story.
________
redhead girl Webcams (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/redhead-girls/)

[Freedom]

Hope you feel better now.

You are not a good debater, are you? That's why the LIES and hysteria and LIES and insults. Did I mention LIES? Even though you are not my equal, I will address you, but if you don't do better next time, I will simply ignore you. If you deteriorate the conversation with insults and LIES again, I will ignore you. Even if you say it's because I can't debate with you as an attempt to beg me to talk with you, I will ignore you.

The Alabama, that is, A L A B A M A constitution states an acknowledgement of God. The point is, let me say it s l o w l y.....the brave Judge Moore is taking a STAND against the RULE OF LAW just like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King did. These fine religious black people would have loved, yes LOVED Judge Moore. These fine religious black people would have told YOU to be ashamed of yourself.

There are no racists involved in this. You are just bng silly and lying because you cannot debate intelligently.

If we always went along with the rule of law, we would still have slavery.

That is all the time I will waste on you. Consider yourself lucky that I spent this much time on you.

Obviously you are supported by your parents or spouse judging from the amount of time you spend postings. Now go do some housework.


________
Magic Flight Launch (http://vaporizer.org/reviews)

[WantaghDem]

Is not calling you a name. Nor is calling you an idiot.

That's what you have presented yourself as.

You say one thing, you are contradicted by the facts, and then you say that you didn't say it.

YOU WERE WRONG.


Please demonstrate a SINGLE instance in this thread where I "lied."

You cannot - you just say those things in order to seem to have more power and moral dignity because you have been SHOWN to have been WRONG.

Rosa Parks and Dr. King did NOT "defy" the Supreme Court. You said that they did, and they did not.

You claimed that Parks and King did the same thing as Moore. They did not, you were wrong.

Judge Moore is a CRIMINAL by defying the LAW OF THE LAND. That is indisputable.

You can have the opinion that what he did is somehow COURAGEOUS or whatever, but it doesn't stop the fact that he broke the LAW OF THE LAND. Not a local law, not a state law. A FEDERAL ORDER. AND - THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART, SO YOU'D BETTER STAY FOCUSED - HE BROKE WHAT HAS NOW BEEN DETERMINED TO HAVE BEEN A CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER.

This is NOTHING like what happened during the civil rights movement. It is the EXACT OPPOSITE. Those heros were protesting local and state laws that were CLEARLY unconstitutional - they weren't claiming a "GOD'S HIGHER LAW" - they were claiming, successfully, that the Constitution would prove them right and the local/state laws wrong.

Boy, are you stupid.


Moore is NOT some "civil disobedient" hero. HE IS A CRIMINAL. SOMEONE WHO HAS DISGRACED HIS OFFICE. SOMEONE ELECTED TO OFFICE, WHO BROKE A LAW, NO MATTER HOW SMALL (OR HOW MUCH HE THINKS THE LAW SHOULDN'T BE THERE) SHOULD BE IMPEACHED!

Or do you FORGET the standard that you set a few years back, you hypocritical cowards!

And another thing - Judge Moore, UNLIKE ROSA PARKS AND MARTIN LUTHER KING, is a sworn public servant. Under no circumstances may he perform civil disobedience. He is held to a higher standard, and he has failed.


________
Grape ape pictures (http://trichomes.org/marijuana-strains/grape-ape)

[jeafl]

Does the A L A B A M A Constitution specify which god? Is it the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Is it Allah? What about Emperor Hirohito or Amon-Ra? What many Christians do not recognize is that by paying homage to the government’s generic "God" they are in fact insulting the Lord whom they profess to serve.

I am a conservative Christian (and thus no longer a Republican). However, I do not see how the 1st Amendment, as it is currently interpreted by the courts, gives anyone the right to post the Ten Commandments on public property- without also giving other religions a similar right. And how many of the Alabama Christians would tolerate having passages from the Koran or the Hindu Vedas or any scripture from any other religion posted alongside the Ten Commandments?

It would do the country a service if the Courts would read the Constitution once in a while. Article VII of the U.S. Constitution (the last one written by the Philadelphia convention) concludes, “Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ghty-seven…”. At no time in world history has the expression “in the year of our Lord” been applied to anyone other than Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The Constitution established the United States as a Judeo-Christian Nation (and don’t bring up the Treaty of Tripoli- I seen the left’s arguments before and found them wanting).

But, sadly, America is no longer a Judeo-Christian nation; if it were the situation in Alabama would not be an issue. Therefore, I wonder why the Christians of Alabama are so up-in-arms over a public display of the Ten Commandments. Surely, thr efforts would be better directed towards electing office holders who will uphold the Ten Commandments as a matter of law rather than settling for mere symbolism.

www.unionparty.rantweb.com

[WantaghDem]

...you don't really get what we're upset about.

"how many of the Alabama Christians would tolerate having passages from the Koran or the Hindu Vedas or any scripture from any other religion posted alongside the Ten Commandments? "

It's not that - it's not about the squabble between religions over whose Magical Cloud Bng is the "real" one (although this is a good point - one that most activist Christians don't take into account....perhaps because they have been slowly taking over every school board and town board and county board and state legislature and white house and supreme court and congress for the past few years, so they figure they'll be able to set the Christian agenda just fine).


The problem we have is not WHICH religion but RELIGION ITSELF.

Would you want information about UFOs bng taught as fact to your children?

Would you want information about how the Illuminati conspired with the Pentavarit and the FreeMasons to kill Kennedy---

Wait a minute...the same people who want religion in government ARE the same people who believe in the Illuminati Conspiracies. Scratch that last one.


How about this? It'll be OK to keep the Pledge as it is now (after it was changed from the original to insert "under God"), and it'll be OK for the teacher to lead students in prayer at the beginning of every class.

JUST AS LONG AS THE TEACHER CAN TELL THE STUDENTS EVERY TIME:

"Of course, there IS NO SUCH THING AS GOD. Anyone who believes in a god is a foolish nincompoop."

Would that be OK? See, that would allow a place for religion, and it would allow a place for rational thought.



What's that?



I didn't think so.

________
Crack rehab forums (http://www.rehab-forum.com/crack-rehab/)

[Freedom]

God is not "generic". God is God. I am also a Christian and believe that mine is the true religion. However, God grants miracles in both Christian and non-Christian faiths. I believe it's because He knows all are trying to praise Him the best way they know how.

Don't you think God would want the Ten commandments there?

If I'm not mistaken doesn't the Constitution end with "in the year of the Lord"?

It's not non-Christians or non-Jews who are protesting the display of the 10 Commandments. It is the ACLU. They are always doing something that is anti-God.

Can the State of Alabama put a shrine to Mohammed in the judicial rotunda? The answer is...YES! In accordance with the First and Tenth Amendments, if the people of Alabama choose to do so, that is thr prerogative.

Here's a quote from 11th U.S. Circuit Court Appellate Judge Ed Carnes: "If Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument were allowed to stand, it would mean a massive revision of how the courts have interpreted the First Amendment for years."

Maybe they were WRONG for years.

It is Carnes and the ACLU, repeat ACLU, who are "above the law" by rendering verdicts based on thr feelings/opinion rather than the Constitution.
________
Live sex (http://camslivesexy.com/)

[Freedom]

By Susan Jones
August 22, 2003

(CNSNews.com) - Pro-life activists appear to be taking a cue from "Ten Commandments" judge Roy Moore: "No longer do we hold [the federal courts'] decisions binding upon us, upon our children, or upon our nation," said the Rev. Flip Benham, director of Operation Rescue/Operation Save America.

"The second American Revolution begins!" Benham said in a press release issued after Moore, the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, said he would continue to defy a federal court order telling him to remove a Ten Commandments monument from Alabama's judicial building.

In a speech on Thursday, Moore argued that blind obedience to "this so-called rule of law" would have allowed slavery to continue.

Speaking on NBC's Today show Friday morning, Justice Moore said he does believe in the justice system and he does believe people should obey the higher court -- "except when that higher court is not going by law. That makes them lawless. And they're not following the rule of the law. The law is, clearly, is the Constitution of the United States, the First Amendment, and the Preamble; and the Constitution of Alabama, both of which acknowledge God.

"We're in a situation in this country where judges are telling us what to think and who to believe in and they simply can't do that," he said.

"The judicial system in America has trampled true justice and nullified genuine liberty," Benham agreed.
________
Hitmenow (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/hitmenow/)

[ACELAW]

Ten Commandments Rally in Alabama
www.homestead.com/prosite...mand2.html

By Alan Keyes
www.alankeyes.com/

August 16, 2003

I have to start out today making a bit of a confession. That's, by the way, appropriate for a catholic, I guess--making confession. But I have to say that very often I stand before crowds, and I believe that I speak from some knowledge that I've gained over the years, or some meditative thought. But today, I come to you befuddled a little bit because, here we stand, in the midst of a crisis--a federal judge has threatened the Chief Justice of the state of Alabama. We're all gathering together in defense of his action. And the judge has told him he's got to take the Ten Commandments out of the courthouse.

And all of these people are out running about, telling us that if we stand here against those pronouncements of this judge that we're somehow breaking the law, that we are somehow showing contempt for the Constitution.

Now, I gotta tell y'all. All of my life, I have done my best to stand for a few things. Chief of all is respect for Almighty God, [audience: amen!] and all that He enjoins upon us with His will. But among them has been respect for the Constitution of the United States. And I want to tell you: I would not stand anywhere where my standing there could be construed in a way that undercut or damaged the Constitution of this country, on which I believe our liberties depend.

But there's something I don't understand. This is my ignorance. Because I've thought about it, I've read a fair amount about the Constitution and laws, and so forth and so on. Would somebody point out to me the law that this judge is basing his decision on? Because if I'm breaking the law, or if Judge Moore's breaking the law, I'd like to know which law it is. I'd like to know who passed it, I'd like to know where it's written! [cheering, applause]

They tell me that if, somehow or another, I don't respect this doctrine of the "separation of church and state," I am disrespecting the Constitution. I sat down again the other day. I scoured the document--it's not very long, by the way. You could get through it in a fairly short time. That was the brilliance of our Founders. It didn't take them a hundred thousand pages. It's not like the treaty that established the World Trade Organization, which ten thousand people couldn't get through in ten thousand years. No. You could sit down and read the Constitution in a short session. I scoured it. I looked through it once, I looked through it twice. I looked through it a dozen times. I didn't find a single mention of this "separation!" [cheering, applause]

Where?! Where, I ask them, is the law that is bng broken? Where is the Constitutional provision that is bng defied?

I'll tell you where it is. It's right there in front of our eyes. We were reminded of it again today. We ought to look at it and think it through, word by careful word, as our Founders did: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Now hold on, hold on. Before we jump to conclusions here, I want to point out that those words don't, by the way, simply forbid Congress to establish a religion. That's not what they say. And the liberals, all these people always act like "establishment is forbidden." No. That's not what's forbidden. It is forbidden for Congress to touch this question! It is forbidden for Congress to address it! It is forbidden for Congress to deal with it! [cheering, applause]

And I'll stand here right now. I'll ask with Howie Philips. I'll ask with every constitutionist of conscience. If Congress is forbidden to make a law, how can this judge be enforcing a law they cannot make?

But we need to continue, though: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise . . . " Now, I want to stop there because, you know, I'm middle-aged now, and I gotta tell you. When you're young, it's bad enough. As you get a little older, this business of exercise becomes a real challenge. It has been for me. I still have a son young enough that I've got to be encouraging him to get his body ready for high school, and get out there and run and work. And you've got to lead by example, so exercise has been much on my mind.

One thing I've noticed about it: as much as I wish it were not so, simply sitting back in my Lazy Boy thinking about it doesn't help. Having a firm opinion about it, believing deeply in exercise with all my bng, that doesn't make my body stronger. No. Last time I looked, exercise means that you've got to get up out of the chair and act on what's in your heart. You've got to live it out in what you do, in what you say, in how you act, in how you govern your life!

All those liberals in this country have tried to put us in a box, where freedom of religion means the freedom to believe as you chose. No! The free exercise of religion means that we have the right in our families, and in our schools, and in our communities, and in our governments, and in our states to live according to the word of God! [cheering, applause]

Now, again, see. There are going to be those folks--they would like to accuse of me: "Well, that's Alan. You don't get to impose your views on it. That's your view," and such. No, it's not. This is what I don't understand also, because for most of our country's history, it not only never occurred to judges and courts that folks didn't have the right to read the Bible at the workplace, teach it in the schools, respect the law of God in thr lives. It was so far from occurring to them that they acknowledged it as one of the foundations of our life and freedom. And in many decisions, including decisions by the Supreme Court on polygamy and so forth, it was explicitly cited as one of the bases for our understanding of law.

It's also true that this free exercise of religion was very deeply important to the people who founded the country. Why do you think a lot of the first colonies were founded--Massachusetts and other places like this? People who were fleng from war and tyranny and persecution came here.

Now, what kind of persecution was it? It wasn't just the persecution, "I'm going to throw you to the lions if you don't believe what I believe." No. What they were doing in Europe in those days, on one side and the other, was looking at folks and saying, "I'm the sovergn. I'm the national power. And in your cities and in your provinces, you must act according to my religious beliefs." And there were cities, and there were towns, and there were provinces, and there were states that stood up and said no--and they fought, and the blood ran red for thr right to live in communities that were governed by laws that reflected thr faith! [cheering, applause]

If nothing else today, I think all of us who are here, and all of those of Christian faith and belief and conscience, and all of those who stand on a ground of biblical tradition, all of those who believe that we cannot live without the law and rule of that God we invoked when we claimed our rights--all of us must stand and make clear, to the courts, and to the Congress, and to the president, and to every power that be, that we remember now what our freedom of religion is supposed to be! [cheering, applause] And that we shall demand against every coercion that we be granted again what the tyranny of the courts have sought to wrest from us: the freedom to live in communities that are governed by laws that reflect our beliefs. [applause]

Now, see, our Founders were wise, though. They looked at the terrible wars that had taken place in Europe, and they didn't want it to happen here. And they realized, at the root of those conflicts had been the effort of national sovergns and overall sovergns to impose thr religious belief and practices on people and states and provinces and localities beneath thr civil administration. So what did they do? They put an amendment in the Constitution with the wording we've talked about. Wording intended to tell the Congress and thereby the national government that the whole business of religious belief, that whole business of any regime, any attitude to be imparted through law, that it was none of the federal government's business.

Now, that still gives rise to the possibility. Some folks don't want to see it. There might be states in which they require a religious test or oath of office. There might be states in which they have established churches, where subventions are given to schools and so forth to teach the Bible. There might be places where you and I might disagree with the religion some folks wanted to put in place over thr communities. But guess what the Founders believed? They believed that people in thr states and localities had the right to live under institutions they would put together to govern themselves according to thr faith.

There is, I believe, going on right now a violation of the Constitution. There is, I believe, a lawless act against which we must stand. But it is the lawless act of the federal judges who seek now to wrest from us that liberty which is ours--not by right of the Constitution, but by grant and right of the Creator, God. [cheering, applause]

We have the right to live in communities--and that means the people in Alabama can live in this state. And you know how come I know that this is so, that the First Amendment didn't intend to destroy this right, that in fact such communities could exist, such states could exist? Because at the time the First Amendment was passed, at the time they put it on the books in the first place, there were a majority of states in the United States--at the time, the former colonies--where there were religious tests and oaths of office, where there were, in fact, established churches.

How do they mean to tell us that the people who wrote the amendment then went back on to live in contradiction of its terms? This is a lie! And it's time we threw this lie back into thr teeth! [applause]

And I want to answer right now. No, I want to answer one objection from them: "Well, Alan, that means you believe in religious persecution," and all this. No, I don't. Quite the contrary. But I think that what we are faced with now is an effort to set the stage for religious persecution. See? These folks claim that they are acting in order to oppose, somehow, the imposition of religious views--but no. What they are doing in the courts, what these judges are doing when they toss out the Ten Commandments, toss out and against the will of people in the states and in communities thr desire to show thr reverence for Almighty God, what they are doing is imposing a uniform national regime of disbelief and athsm on the people of this country! They are doing exactly what the Constitution of the United States forbids. [applause]

It could be, now--and here, again, this is where I am overcome by my apparent lack of knowledge. [laughter] Because, folks want to tell me, as well, that if the judge violates the Constitution, and then in the decision wrests my rights away, then I have no recourse--Moore has no recourse, the people of Alabama have no recourse. We've just gotta sit back and take it. [audience: no!]

And I'm hard-pressed. See, I look at the history of the country, and I'm scouring the pages to see where it says that that's so--and what do I stumble across but a Declaration of Independence that says, when, by along train abuses, they evince the pattern that is going to destroy our rights, the Founders said that it is not only our right, it is our duty to oppose them! That's what I see. [applause]

And I couldn't stand here today. I couldn't stand here today in this spot which is so important to the history of our country, where, indeed, as I was reminded earlier today, the very dissolution of America over the issue of slavery took place. This city, where so many hearts dedicated to the liberty of people, joined together in order to begin that civil rights movement that would result in the end of a regime of oppression for people of my racial background.

I couldn't stand here today, except I remembered that there was a time when the majority and the law enslaved my people, and there were people of conscience who stood against that slavery, though it meant that they defy those laws!

There was a time when law segregated Americans into black and white and forced some into a situation of oppression--and it would be the same today, if some had not had the courage to stand against those unjust laws! [applause]

We stand here today in a great tradition. Not as our lying critics would have it--in the tradition of those who defied the courts in order to oppress and destroy the rights of thr fellow human bngs--but in the tradition of those who stood against unjust laws in order to stand for the rights of all our people! This is where we stand! [applause]

But even as it was the case, that those who stood against slavery and for civil rights had stood in fact on the solid ground of American truth and constitutional freedom, so it is today. And I think we have to be clear. The fact that some people were wrong when they invoked the rights of the people in thr states in the name of institutions that trampled on the rights of individuals does not mean that it is right today to stand silent while the rights of the people of this state of Alabama are trampled by a tyrannical and arbitrary judge.

If we can act aright, if we can act with knowledge and precision, if we can act with care and courage as we defend our liberty in this place, then it could be here today that finally we draw the line against those who seek to abuse the color of law in order to destroy the substance of liberty! [applause]

I'm glad that I see all of you here today. I know that you represent many, many millions more around this country. And I do want to address the work. Because some people say, "Well, what if this happens? What if that happens? What if they come and try to take down the Ten Commandments? What if it goes to the Supreme Court, and they decide differently--what then?" And everybody seems to think we've just got to sit back.

First of all, there is a person in this country who could solve this problem. Fairly easily. I remembered that when I was running for president a long time ago. [laughter] People used to ask me questions about this. Some people think that the pardoning power in the Constitution is a--well, just imagine we wake up tomorrow, and George Bush, having read about this as President of the United States, says, "OK. The judge says, Judge Moore, that you have been breaking the law. I'm sending you this, and let it be known to everybody in the country that I pardon you now for this offense, and I pardon all people in thr states of all such offenses, because I believe that they are acting according to thr Constitutional right." [cheering, applause]

The president could solve this problem with a word, in the proper exercise of his Constitutional authority, in defense of our Constitutional rights. So might the Congress, by cutting off the funds to enforce it, as some have introduced into the Congress. By, as Howard said, disestablishing the courts that dare to assault the rights of the people in thr most fundamental guise.

All these are possible courses of action, but what they should remind us of is that we live in a constitution in which no branch was supposed to be the absolute tyrant over the others. Not the courts over the Congress and the presidency. Not the president over the others. If the president decides that the courts are wrong, it is up to the Congress to stand against it, and if they stand with him, then the Constitution has been served. [applause]

We have three branches of government. And I stand here today in hope that all Americans will stand to call on the president and call on the Congress to take courageous action finally to put the bridle on these unruly courts! [cheering, applause]

We can! We can make the difference, for we know that what is at stake is not just the symbolic display of the Ten Commandments. It is the reverence that we must hold for them in our hearts if we are to fulfill this nation's promise of true self-government. For, self-government in the end cannot come from the external impositions of law and police forces and military forces. True self-government begins where our Founders knew it began, where our Lord knew it began. True self-government begins in the heart. And it is the heart of a people governed by respect for the Ten Commandments and the word of God writ upon thr hearts--it is the heart of such a people that fits them for a freedom that will endure.

God bless you.

[aching]

Judge Moore refuses to obey a federal court to remove his monument. He has stated the Alabama constitution allows his.... thing.

Yet he appeals to a higher authority, the U.S. Supreme Court, to rule his way.


The way I interpert this is that he is saying that a federal court ruling does not apply in this situation but he is asking a higher federal court for help. Am I missing something?

[WantaghDem]

You are missing the fact that conservatives, especially conservative Christians and fundamentalist Muslims (who really are the same thing, let's face that fact right now) really don't have any concern for truth, logic, consistency, or the meaning of words that they use in a given context.

Judge Moore says "No! This cannot be so - not from a federal judge! And to prove it, I'll go to a higher set of federal judges to back me that I don't have to listen to federal judges!"


What if the SC had granted review, and then sided with him? Wouldn't that mean that we could STILL take the monument away - Judge Moore sets the precedent: that if you don't like a particular order from a federal judge, you don't have to listen to it! As long as you claim your reasons for not listening have come from the Magic Cloud Bng.

It's funny that they think our laws are based on the Bible, and that the Founders were Christian.

Our laws are NOT based on the Bible, and SOME of the Founders were Dsts.

It's also funny that they think the Bible is an historical document, and that any of the things in it actually happened in real life - I mean, not even the miracles, but the ordinary stuff. They even think that a man named Moses took his people out of "slavery" from Egypt....current archeological findings have proven that this is nonsense, and that the Hebrews were never in fact in captivity or slavery! So not only was there no Exodus, there was no 10 Commandments!

IT IS MADE UP TO ILLUSTRATE WHAT THEY WANTED YOU TO BELIEVE IN ORDER TO CONTROL YOU.


These people are pathetic. They really do seem as if they are farther back on the evolutionary scale. It's not a question of bng separated by a few hundred years of thought. It's far worse than that.

Here's an analogy:

CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS::RATIONAL LIBERALS

AS

NEANDERTHAL MAN::HOMO SAPIEN SAPIEN
________
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD (http://gmfoods.info/)

[Freedom]

The judges ruling is unconstitional. They are wrong. Judge Moore is right. Judge Moore is going against the "rule of law" to fight for justice.

He is fighting the good fight. Those who fought against slavery were fighting the good fight. Those who fight against abortion are fighting the good fight.

He is doing everything he can to fight the good fight, including appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It's just that simple.

Freedom FOR religion not FROM religion!
________
Web shows (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[Freedom]

This is NOT a "Ten Commandments" issue. It is a First and Tenth Amendment issue.

"The Ten Commandments" is not a religious statement; it is a historical one upon which our founding fathers based the laws of the USA. It is on this basis that it should be on display in all courthouses.

Reference to GOD is NOT a reference to a specific religion, as GOD refers to all religions, all denominations, even to athsts. This is why our Congress starts off each session with an invocation to GOD, why GOD is printed on our money, is our motto, "In GOD we trust," and is a part of our pledge to our flag.
________
PinkPussyCat (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/PinkPussyCat/)

[WantaghDem]

Is a complete and total idiot.

You are now cut off.


Go make a wish or a prayer or something....and make it "I wish I could grow up and be an adult, instead of bng stuck and repressed in fairy-tale childhood."
________
Extreme Vaporizer Sale (http://www.vaporshop.com)

[JoJO]

Yes, cut off, cut off from reality, indeed.

Praise the Lord and pass the collection plate or else the bogey man will getcha
________
Lovely Wendie99 (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

[jeafl]

Compiled reply to multiple posts

It's not that - it's not about the squabble between religions over whose Magical Cloud Bng is the "real" one (although this is a good point - one that most activist Christians don't take into account....perhaps because they have been slowly taking over every school board and town board and county board and state legislature and white house and supreme court and congress for the past few years, so they figure they'll be able to set the Christian agenda just fine).

Except for a very few isolated cases involving school boards I have not heard about any Christian takeover of government. The last president with any real claim to bng a Christian was probably Herbert Hoover: FDR, JFK, LBJ, Clinton and probably senhower were adulterers. Carter admitted he lusted after women not his wife. No president has tried to seriously defend Israel against that nation’s hostile nghbors and several have tried to sell Israel out to the Moslems. I doubt if anyone can serve as president without finding a presumed need to lie about covert operations with forgn nations or White House interns. And surely a Supreme Court that just recently sanctioned bigotry and sodomy cannot be called Christian.

The problem we have is not WHICH religion but RELIGION ITSELF.

How about this? It'll be OK to keep the Pledge as it is now (after it was changed from the original to insert "under God"), and it'll be OK for the teacher to lead students in prayer at the beginning of every class.

Note that before a quorum of states were represented Dr. Benjamin Franklin proposed that the Convention hire a chaplain, presumably a Christian one, who would open each session with prayer. The request was denied because the Convention had no money to pay for a chaplain’s services. Later, when the dispute over representation in Congress threatened to dissolve the convention, Dr. Franklin again called for a chaplain and again was denied due to lack of funds. As Dr. Franklin reminded the Convention, the Continental Congress that adopted the Declaration of Independence opened each session with prayer (the Reverend Dr. Witherspoon was member of Congress). The Good Doctor reminded the Convention that if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground unseen by God, surely an empire could not rise without Him. And don’t say Dr. Franklin was a Dst- his reference to a sparrow is from Christian Scripture: Matthew 10:29 “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.”

Since the expression “in the year of our Lord” (Article VII) is a Christian expression- used only by Christians we could assume that a majority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were Christian in one form or another. So we find that the Constitution was written by Christians living in and framing a government for a Judeo-Christian Society. Thus Conservatives can generally assert that the 1st Amendment was designed to insure the free exercise of Christianity i.e. the United States would not have an official Christian denomination. This Amendment does not prohibit Christianity in public places- although I would object to having the Alabama monument placed on the orders of a government official since Chief Justice Moore’s interpretation of Christianity may not be my own; and I would certainly object if the text of the monument came from any English translation other than the Authorized King James (or maybe one of its English predecessors). I would have no trouble whatsoever if a private church organization had sponsored the monument as long as I had equal opportunity to do the same.

God is not "generic". God is God. I am also a Christian and believe that mine is the true religion. However, God grants miracles in both Christian and non-Christian faiths. I believe it's because He knows all are trying to praise Him the best way they know how.

If you believe that the Judeo-Christian God would perform miracles for people other than Jews or Christians, then you do not worship the Judeo-Christian God. If you are a Christian you would realize that Satan is the prince of this world and God allows him a great deal of latitude in his (Satan’s) control over the physical world. What you see as a miracle on behalf of non-Judeo-Christians may be in fact Satan acting for the benefit of his followers.

If you are a Christian, can you tell me what sin is and how pervasive it is among humans? Also, can you define salvation and explain how we get it?

Don't you think God would want the Ten commandments there?

Do you think he doesn’t want them there?

If I'm not mistaken doesn't the Constitution end with "in the year of the Lord"?

You are not mistaken. See above.

Can the State of Alabama put a shrine to Mohammed in the judicial rotunda? The answer is...YES! In accordance with the First and Tenth Amendments, if the people of Alabama choose to do so, that is thr prerogative.

But, how can the majority of Alabama’s people make a government display of Judeo-Christianity and not violate the rights of people who are nther Jew, nor Christian? If Alabama was mostly Moslem could the government force a Christian to pay for an inscription of the Koran or force Christian women to wear vls? Can a Christian submit to a government that pays homage to Allah and still remain faithful to the Judeo-Christian God? Jesus said we have to render unto Caesar, but do we have to worship the Emperor?

[Power]

" solider in Iraq said, "There are no athsts in foxholes.""

Oh, a soldier in Iraq said that, huh? Really?

Well, that's a statement that's been around FOR DECADES. Doesn't make it any more true, but it's not "from a soldier in Iraq." It's also completely and utterly stupid, as it is untrue.

Quite aside from the FACT of so many athsts who have not started believing in God during times of intense emotional experiences and extreme fear, there is a serious question as to whether or not those experiences can generate authentic faith. If god existed, would god even want people to believe merely because they were under great pressure and very afraid? Can such a faith lead to a life of faith and love which is supposed to be the foundation of religions like Christianity?

In addition, there is also the fact that extreme battlefield experiences and the dangers of foxholes can undermine a person's faith in a good, loving god. Quite a few soldiers have entered battle devout believers but ended up coming away without any faith at all.

If it isn't true that there are no athsts in foxholes and that many thsts leave thr foxholes as athsts, why does the above myth persist? It certainly can't be employed as an argument against athsm - even if it were true, that would not mean that athsm is unreasonable or thsm valid. To suggest otherwise would be little more than an ad hominem fallacy.

Is the claim that there are no athsts in foxholes meant to imply that athsts aren't "really" disbelievers and actually harbor a secret belief in god? Perhaps, but it is a false implication and can't be taken seriously. Is it meant to imply that athsm is inherently "weak" while thsm represents "strength?" Once again, that may be the case - but it would also be a false implication.

Regardless of the actual reasons for any particular thst to claim that there are no athsts in foxholes, it simply isn't true and should be rejected before the discussion goes any further.


Now go away you idiot.

[WantaghDem]

"After 9 11 everybody was religious."

This is not only false it is ridiculous.

We are not all weak like you. Not even those of us who lost family members and friends in the WTC.


Go away.
________
JUSTIN BIEBER (http://justinbieberfan.info/)

[aching]

Freedom wrote -

Reference to GOD is NOT a reference to a specific religion, as GOD refers to all religions, all denominations, even to athsts.


Freedom, you need to look up definitions.
athst - . One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Bng.

Please note that a supreme intellingent Bng need not be a "God."

God - 1. A bng concved as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monothstic. religions.
2. A bng of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male dty thought to control some part of nature or reality.


Please note the words "monothstic" and "especially a male dty."

That is why I object to using "God." God denies the beliefs of millions of people in this country.


WantaghDem -

NEANDERTHAL MAN::HOMO SAPIEN SAPIEN

recent research has found that the Neandertals weren't the slavering, grunting low functioning people that has been the stereotype of them.


and this.......

After 9/ 11 everybody was religious. How quickly we forget.


This is insulting. My faith in my religion did not change because of 9/11. And, WantaghDem, I do not think that because my faith is very important to me that I am "weak."

[Freedom]

You are correct about the "even to athsts" and I should not have included that. But what comes to mind is a comedian who said, "I was so frightened I prayed harder than an athst in an earthquake". I think that most athsts believe in God at some level. Of course, I can't be sure.

If the majority want to call God God, why should he minority object.

Even though I follow my faith I will admit to praying more after 911 than I do now.

BTW, anyone who might be interested, a good read (and good movie) is "Saved By The Light" by Dannion Brinkley. We should realize that for centuries "scientists" have been debunking things for which they had no test at the time, saying that therefore things did not exist, simply because they could not devise a test. Interesting that many such scientists reject the possibility that they're just not clever enough to devise one.
________
VAPORITE (http://vaporizer.org)

[WantaghDem]

"And, WantaghDem, I do not think that because my faith is very important to me that I am "weak.""

Good for you.

Especially since that's not what I said.

IonlysmokewhenIdrink had suggested that because of 9/11 EVERYONE was religious. This implies that those of us who are NOT were actually faking, and 9/11 "brought us back."

9/11 did not change anything about whether or not I am religious. If it did, ther way - if it made an athst religious or if it made a religious person less so - that would make them, and thr "faith" weak.
________
Old Man Videos (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/29/old-man/videos/1)

[WantaghDem]

"I think that most athsts believe in God at some level. Of course, I can't be sure."

I guess I should be able, using the same logic, to make the following statement:

"I think that most Christians know there is no god, at some level. Of course, I can't be sure."


"If the majority want to call God God, why should he minority object."

If you ask that question, then you have absolutely no understanding of this country and its founding principles.

We are not a MAJORITY THINKS/MAJORITY RULES country. Majorities only matter when it comes to politics - not the LAW. And, as Florida 2000 pointed out, majorities don't always matter.

THE LAW is based upon principles, not what the majority thinks.

If LAW and public policy were based upon what the majority thinks, we would live in a scary society that wouldn't even know how to start a car, much less progress as we have.
________
Gamestop gift card (http://bestfreegiftcard.com/gamestop-gift-card/)

[The Truth Hurts]

Sorry if mention of the "G Word" offends you Miles/WantaghDem.

"If LAW and public policy were based upon what the majority thinks, we would live in a scary society that wouldn't even know how to start a car, much less progress as we have."

There are these things called legislatures. They are at various levels of government, on up to the federal level, where it is known as "Congress."

These legislative bodies make the laws of our country. ("Legislative" having its roots in the Latin word for "law.")

These laws are enacted by majority, and sometimes supermajority, vote of those legislative bodies. (In some jurisdictions, including at the federal level, they must signed into law by an executive in order to be effective.)

I think we have made a great discovery. We can now speculate on why Miles/WantaghDem says such wacky and often verifiably false things here. A dimensional gate has opened between our dimension and the one that is home to Miles/WantaghDem and he has stepped across.

In his universe, majorities *don't* matter in the creation of laws. In his universe, minoroties *can* arbitrarily impose thr wills on the majority. In his universe, the Whitewater special prosecutor *didn't* get any convictions. In his universe, Reuters reporters can copy text from CNN stories posted after the one by the Reuters reporter. In his universe, any mention of religion by the government actually *is* unconstitutional.

The rantings of Miles/WantaghDem make so much more sense now.
________
Live Sex (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[JoJO]

There may be few athsts in foxholes, but there are damned few thsts who put thr trust in God above jumping in.
________
Masturbation Spanish (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/761/spanish/videos/1)

[Beyond Reality]

1) Tell them that the universe is too complex to "just exist," and must have been created by a God who "just exists."

2) End a discussion with "Well, I know you're smarter than I am, but I know I'm right."

3) Accuse them of persecuting you.

4) Use multiple versions of Pascal's Wager as though you thought them up yourself.

5) Post inane arguments, and never follow up on them.

6) Say that separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution; insist that the Constitution is based on the Ten Commandments.

7) Point out that we all take things on faith.

Witness for Jesus, and completely ignore anything your competition says.

9) Tell him you don't care what you say or prove, you will still have your faith.

10) When given a Bible verse that looks bad, tell him that's what the verse says, but that's not what it means.

11) Argue that the Bible stories are not myths . . . they're parables. And they're all true!

12) Maintain that the King James Version is THE Bible; ignore questions as to who was saved prior to 1611.

13) Explain that the lack of proof doesn't mean it didn't happen.

14) ...and be sure to change the subject when he says that all people tried for a crime would go to jail.

15) Repeat something over and over, as if that made it true.

16) Repeat something over and over, as if that made it true.

17) Repeat something over and over, as if that made it true.

1 Insist that the Bible is meant to be taken literally -- all except that verse he just showed you.

19) If a plane crashes killing 300 passengers and crew, but one little girl survives with only third-degree burns, tell him that this miracle proves the existence of God.

20) Insist that Noah's Ark and the Shroud of Turin are real. ...and tell him about the special on FOX where you saw it.

21) When he shows you a verse about genocide, ask him how he dares to question the morality of God.

22) No matter what he quotes from the Bible, say that it's out of context.

23) ...and when he points out that the quotes are in correct context, tell him you need to be a Christian to understand the true meaning of the Bible.

24) Talk about how you used to be a miserable, sinning, drug-abusing, alcoholic, sex-addicted, spouse-beating criminal until you found God.

25) Name a bunch of smart Christian people.

26) ...and when he names a bunch of smart athst people, call him stupid.

27) Attribute every apparent error in the Bible to mistranslation.

2 ...and then pull up a mistranslation from Isaiah to prove that Jesus fulfilled prophecy.

29) Insist that a person who makes Christianity look bad was not a True Christian.

30) Use only circular reasoning.

31) Use the phrase "Hate the sin, love the sinner" as a blanket response to the notion that Christianity is at fault for something.

32) State that Christianity has done a lot of good along with all the mass murder.

33) When asked to explain a theological concept, compare it to something simple, like "water," and then misunderstand that you have incorrectly labeled the constructs of your analogy, then dismiss the whole thing with, "You've just got to have faith."

34) Patiently explain that the 42 children that were torn to bits by two bears sent by God were not really children, but spawn of Satan.

35) When asked if they would sacrifice thr own child for God, respond with "God would never ask me to do that."

36) Most carefully of all, explain that while all of the Bible is inerrant, Revelation does not literally mean what it says.

37) Tell him that God answers all prayers -- sometimes the answer is no.

3 Remember to say that evolution is not proven -- therefore the Bible is correct.

39) Tell him it's his responsibility to prove that God doesn't exist.

40) Say that God can't reveal himself with any real proof, because that would remove the need for faith.

41) When something awful happens, tell him not to blame God -- he doesn't interfere.

42) When something wonderful happens, tell him to credit God -- he made it happen.

43) Explain that it doesn't matter whether or not he thinks he's sinned -- all humans were imbued with original sin at the moment of thr birth. ...then tell him that babies automatically go to heaven. ...and mentally retarded people. ...and those with Down's Syndrome.

43) Treat nothing he says as credible, because he is possessed by Satan.

44) Show that the Bible must be true because when you take the original Hebrew letters, spread them out and twist them around, you can spell words.

45) Tell him that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is.

46) Tell him that he's playing right into Satan's hands, because Satan's greatest ploy is convincing people that God doesn't exist.

47) Claim that Jesus is the God based on the Old Testament, then turn around and say that the Old Testament has nothing to do with the New Covenant.

4 Argue the most insignificant point you can think of; when he doesn't address your pettiness, claim victory.

49) Argue that the translation "errors" in the KJV were actually God-inspired improvements, and therefore the KJV is the most accurate of all translations.

50) Call all denominations you don't like a "cult," but insist that your particular faction is a "religion." ...and argue that a practical distinction actually exists.

51) When he points out an apparent inconsistency of God's attributes, just say that God is infinite. The athst, with his finite, human brain cannot begin to understand God.

52) Tell him he won't understand unless he believes, and he can't believe unless he understands.

53) Ask how he can have any morals if he doesn't believe in God.

54) Talk about all the great things Dubya is going to do for our nation.

55) Insist that Thomas Jefferson was a Christian.

56) Tell him that it's not a religion -- it's a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

57) Create a term for a blatant paradox in your religion, then call other religions false because they don't have it.

5 After losing an argument horribly, say that you will pray for his eternal soul.

59) Fail to have a basic grasp of history. (Spanish Inquisition? What's that?)

60) Tell him he won't agree with you because the Holy Spirit has closed his eyes to the truth.

61) Tell him that the fossils in the earth are the Devil's work.

62) Grossly misunderstand the word "theory."

63) Insist that the Bible is completely true.

64) Reply to every statement he makes with "That's only your opinion."

65) Point to something in nature that's really cool, and call it proof of God's existence.

66) Insist you believe in the literal truth of the entire Bible, except for Matthew 5:42.

67) When ask why you bother praying to ask for things if God has a Divine Plan, tell him that you're not really asking for things, but you're trying to get closer to him. (It's a lie, of course, but don't let that stop you.)

6 Insist that a denomination of Protestantism founded in the nineteenth century is the only true way.

69) Take advantage of a horrible national tragedy, caused in large part by religious fanaticism, by pushing your own religious fanaticism as the only thing that will save us all.

70) ...and announce that the tragedy only happened because of those who ignore your religious fanatacism.

[Realist]

Beyond Reality MUST be a satanist.
________
LISSAHOT4U cam (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/LISSAHOT4U)

[Beyond Reality]

No, I'm just not a Bible literalist.

Fundamentalist Christianity is an extremist fringe aspect of Christianity, just as Fundamentalist Islam is a radical fringe aspect of Islam. I care for nther.

[TJ]

If the entire legal system is based on the Ten Commandments and the Bible, should we then not stone our disobedient children to death? Must women not kill a pigeon after thr menstrual cycle, or henceforth be unclean within society?? Why are we disobeying these laws!!!

[Realist]

I think you missed my humor. Your original post was one of the most "on target" things I've ever read. Keep up the good work!
________
Nasty_Flowerxxx (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/nasty_flowerxxx/)

[WantaghDem]

Keep up the good work.

Although I suspect we are all preaching to the choir, if you pardon the pun. Forget that your post was too long for these people to be able to read; it held up an inconvenient mirror to thr faces.
________
Extreme vaporizer temperature setting (http://vaporizerinfo.com/)

[Neuro Axis]

I would love to see these peoples reactions if the judge had hung pages from the Koran or the Buddhist Noble Truths in the courtroom.
________
Creampie Cumshot (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/452/cumshot/videos/1)

[WantaghDem]

They already have a pre-designed answer to that. They claim that the US is a "Christian nation" and that as such, only displays of the religion of the majority would be appropriate.


________
WENDIE 99 (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

[Neuro Axis]

Quote: They already have a pre-designed answer to that. They claim that the US is a "Christian nation" and that as such, only displays of the religion of the majority would be appropriate.

Which is completley foolishness. America, a country that was founded on the principal of religious freedom, cannot allow the state to endorse one official religion. When a judge hangs the Ten Commandments in a courtroom, it means that the state has endorsed a religion. This stands in complete contrast with the definition of democracy. Unless the Ten Commandments are accompanied by the Koran, the Buddhist Noble Truths, and every other religion's principles, this is completley wrong and unconstitutional.

How would you feel if you were forced to go to a school in one of the communist areas and were made to stand up and sing the praises of Marx and Stalin every day? Or imagine you went to school in a Muslim country and had to recite Muslim prayers every morning?

________
Portable Vaporizers (http://vaporizer.org/)

[Beyond Reality]

Thought it might be tongue and cheek; but at the same time I wanted to clarify where I stand to prevent Fundamentalist Christian readers/posters from writing off my post as anti-Christian, when it is in reality anti-literalist, anti-superstition, and anti-extremism.

[Edmond Dantes]

Quote:TJ's Post: "If the entire legal system is based on the Ten Commandments and the Bible, should we then not stone our disobedient children to death? Must women not kill a pigeon after thr menstrual cycle, or henceforth be unclean within society?? Why are we disobeying these laws!!!"

TJ, I agree, and the list goes on. Deut 22:11 tells us "Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together." Did you check the labels before you dressed this morning? We need penalties for those who do not follow that Law. Gen. 17:14 tells us a child is to be punished when his parents neglect to have him circumcised. Court-enforced punishment must be applied. Let's get law enforcement to create a special department to randomly check children throughout this country. Ex. 20:8-11, 31:15-17, 34:21, and 35:1-3 tell us that no work may be done on the Sabbath, not even the lighting of a fire. The penalty is death. We must enforce this as soon as possible. Capital punishment for people who light a fire in thr fireplace on Saturday is a must. Lev. 27:3-7 tells us that males are more valuable than females. We must reverse some of our discrimination laws regarding women, because the Bible says males are more valuable than females, and the Bible is our source of Law here. Num. 5:12-31 tells us that if we suspect our wife has committed adultery she is to be tested by making her drink water mixed with dirt. If she gets sick, she is guilty. We must implement this test procedure at once in all divorce proceedings within our courtrooms. Men are off the hook though, as there is no such test given for men within the Bible (doesn't come as a surprise, does it?). To claim the Bible as an authority for Law within the free country of the United States of America would put us on par with Iran.

So many sites cover what is *really* in the Bible (the immense portions of undesirable text left out by Fundamentalist Christians).

Bible verses and material in this post are drawn from here: www.geocities.com/questio...ible3.html
Please visit this site for the complete article, and to click on the Scripture verses to read them for yourself.





________
roll a joint (http://howtorollajoint.net/)

[Sassy]

The Founders knew our rights are given to them by God, NOT by man. If our rights are given by man, man can take them away.

You cannot deny the influence of the 10 commandments by our founders.

Our forefathers acknolwedged the very God that gave us the 10 Commandents.

"Bng a lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution
came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always
boasted of thr devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were
immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers,
whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed thr love of freedom;
but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...Only the
Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing
truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a
great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the
courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am
forced
to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly." --Albert
nstn from Kampi und Zeugnis der bekennenden
Kirche



________
vaporizers (http://vaporizers.net/)

[WantaghDem]

NYURepublican/Sassy is hitting the sauce pretty hard tonight....

"You cannot deny the influence of the 10 commandments by our founders."

OK, besides "shalt not kill" and "shalt not steal" - nther of which appears in the Constitution, but I'll give you that the idea of not killing and not stealing are ideals within our legal system (although these legal notions CLEARLY pre-date the "commandments" by THOUSANDS OF YEARS, which means you can't prove the commandments influenced them) -


PLEASE NAME EXACTLY WHICH COMMANDMENTS INFLUENCED EXACTLY WHICH PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION. EXACTLY. NAME THEM. CONNECT THE DOTS.

And before you run away crying like a baby that it's my job to disprove, UH-UH. YOU make the claim, YOU make the case.


LIST THE COMMANDMENT, SHOW WHICH PART OF THE CONSTITUTION IT INFLUENCED, AND THEN DEMONSTRATE WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (and not your opinion) WHO AND HOW EXACTLY WAS INFLUENCED.


Otherwise


SHUT YOUR MOUTH.
________
College Girls live (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/college-girls/)

[yeah but]

I think it is incredible that of all the constitutions (national and state) written in this country over the past 200-300 years, not one of the people involved in drafting them knew what they were writing. (tongue in cheek)

Had anyone believed that the state and national constitutions enshrined fundamental rights to abortion, sodomy, birth control, homosexual "marriage", a free lawyer, suicide-assited or otherwise, pornography, flag burning, ballots in every languange immaginable, judge-imposed taxes, or any of the novel interpretations offered by the courts over the last 50 years or so, not one of the consititutions in this country would have been ratified.

BY THE WAY - ALL of the 10 Commandments influenced our founding fathers. Check your history.

________
Chrysler Br Platform Specifications (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Chrysler_BR_platform)

[WantaghDem]

Again, they claim moronically:

"ALL of the 10 Commandments influenced our founding fathers. Check your history."

And AGAIN I challenge:

PLEASE NAME EXACTLY WHICH COMMANDMENTS INFLUENCED EXACTLY WHICH PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION. EXACTLY. NAME THEM. CONNECT THE DOTS.

And before you run away crying like a baby that it's my job to disprove, UH-UH. YOU make the claim, YOU make the case.

LIST THE COMMANDMENT, SHOW WHICH PART OF THE CONSTITUTION IT INFLUENCED, AND THEN DEMONSTRATE WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (and not your opinion) WHO AND HOW EXACTLY WAS INFLUENCED.

WHICH ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION - OR AMENDMENT - OR EVEN ANY ORIGINAL FEDERAL LAW WRITTEN BY THE FOUNDERS - WAS INFLUENCED BY "KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH DAY"?

WHICH ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION - OR AMENDMENT - OR EVEN ANY ORIGINAL FEDERAL LAW WRITTEN BY THE FOUNDERS - WAS INFLUENCED BY "HONOR THY FATHER AND THY MOTHER"?

WHICH ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION - OR AMENDMENT - OR EVEN ANY ORIGINAL FEDERAL LAW WRITTEN BY THE FOUNDERS - WAS INFLUENCED BY "THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE LORD'S NAME IN VAIN"?

WHICH ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION - OR AMENDMENT - OR EVEN ANY ORIGINAL FEDERAL LAW WRITTEN BY THE FOUNDERS - WAS INFLUENCED BY "THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME"?

WHICH ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION - OR AMENDMENT - OR EVEN ANY ORIGINAL FEDERAL LAW WRITTEN BY THE FOUNDERS - WAS INFLUENCED BY "THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY"?

WHICH ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION - OR AMENDMENT - OR EVEN ANY ORIGINAL FEDERAL LAW WRITTEN BY THE FOUNDERS - WAS INFLUENCED BY "KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH DAY"?

WHICH ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION - OR AMENDMENT - OR EVEN ANY ORIGINAL FEDERAL LAW WRITTEN BY THE FOUNDERS - WAS INFLUENCED BY "THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NGHBOR'S WIFE"?

WHICH ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION - OR AMENDMENT - OR EVEN ANY ORIGINAL FEDERAL LAW WRITTEN BY THE FOUNDERS - WAS INFLUENCED BY "THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NGHBOR'S GOODS"?


Don't steal and don't kill pre-date the so-called commandments.


WHEN YOU ARE FINISHED WITH NOT BNG ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, ANSWER THIS:

THE FOUNDERS HAD SLAVES AND NO ELECTRICITY. WHAT DOES IT MATTER THAT THR ORIGINAL INTENT HAS BEEN SHAPED OVER TIME TO CONFORM WITH DEMOCRATIC IDEALS OF SELF-GOVERNMENT?

Do you really want to go back to candles and slaves? Check that, you're a conservative, so we already know your stance on slavery.

YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

YOU ARE IGNORANT.

YOU NEED TO STEP AWAY, ATONE FOR YOUR IGNORANCE BY BECOMING EDUCATED, AND THEN APOLOGIZE TO ALL OF US - INDIVIDUALLY.


________
Santeria Dicussion (http://www.religionboard.org/santeria/)

[IslipDem]

it has become abundantly clear that this whole riamarole in alabama is about 2 things:

1. judge moore wanting to be gov/senator, etc.

2. having the "State" proclaim that Jesus is supreme. all you have to do is listen to moore and his supporters. time after time ththey mechanicly say that this is about acknowledging "Jesus as Lord and Savior".

and THAT is the establishment of religion.

most of them have even dropped the "judeo" in "judeo-christian". com on it IS alabama. and they were never too thrilled with the "judeo" part anyway.
________
GM 122 ENGINE HISTORY (http://www.chevy-wiki.com/wiki/GM_122_engine)

[Freedom]

While the controversy over the mythical separation of church and state continues, those debating the issue are surely missing the "big picture".

The 1st amendment is one sentence, indicating that "Congress shall make no law respecting".. 1. An establishment of Religion 2. Prohibiting the Free exercise of Religion 3. Freedom of Speech 4. Freedom of the Press 5. Right to Peaceable Assembly 6. Right to Petition for redress of grvances.

By forfting the Powers and Rights reserved to the States and to the People, we forft much more than the State's right to acknowledge God. We forft the right to acknowledge that our rights and constitutional protections are given to us by God, not Congress, the Courts, Kings or Dictators. Congress is prohibited from making law concerning the expressed freedoms. The courts are prohibited from making or enforcing laws that cannot exist in a constitutional republic.

________
Dc marijuana dispensary (http://dc.dispensaries.org/)

[WantaghDem]

"our rights and constitutional protections are given to us by God"


Really? And here I was thinking that it was, you know, the people who fought and died for our freedom from Great Britain, the people who wrote our founding documents, the people who assembled at the Constitutional conventions, the people who affirmed the documents that other people wrote by using thr intellect and reason, all by themselves.

Gee. I really really thought that.

I really thought that democracy was a rejection of the "Divine Right of Kings" notion that power devolved from a divine bng. That the Enlightenment's greatest product (you remember the Enlightenment, right? When we finally understood the power and reason of the individual to reject fairy tales like the Magic Cloud Bng ruling us?) - the greatest product was the Constitution. A document written by people, argued by people, developed by people, and affirmed by people as a specific rejection of the idea that power of governance comes from god - that it instead comes from the consent of those who are governed.

And, you know, I thought these things - because we have documentary evidence to prove them. I don't mean hearsay documents written and translated a few hundred years ago. I mean actual historical documents that show the development of the United States. Constitution, convention proceedings, etc. And these factual historical documents are what I have been basing my understand of our government having been of the people by the people and for the people.

And here you go saying that this is all nonsense, and that our government comes from god.

Since I have been immersed in the overwheming evidence to the contrary, perhaps you could help me to see the errors of my ways and point me in the right direction.

To the documents.

That prove our government came from god.


The documents.

Or letters.

Or whatever they are.

So I can see for myself.

So I can reason.

So I can do what the founding fathers did - evaluate the facts based on individual reason, not on ideological superstition based on not one single fact of any kind anywhere in the world.


I'll be waiting up for this, so, you know, hurry it along, OK?
________
BIG COCK (http://www.fucktube.com/video/36137/lovely-milf-blowing-and-fucking-a-big-cock)

[WantaghDem]

Who, when faced with thr lies, run away and hide.


How 'bout facing the truth once in a while?


Or are you a Coultergst who throws lie bombs then runs away when someone proves you're lying?
________
Box Vaporizer (http://boxvaporizers.com)

[WantaghDem]

CONVERSATION ONE

Conservative: "The founding fathers used the 10 commandments as the basis for the laws of this nation."

Liberal: Can you give me an example of a specific law that the founders wrote, and the specific commandment that it was related to?"

Conservative: {crickets}


CONVERSATION TWO

Conservative: "The 10 commandments are the basis of this nation's Constitution."

Liberal: Can you show me the specific commandments on which the specific Articles of the Constitution are based?"

Conservative: {crickets}


CONVERSATION THREE

Conservative: "Our rights and constitutional protections are given to us by god."

Liberal: Can you give me any documentary proof of any kind that this is true? That god, and not humans, wrote the Constitution?"

Conservative: {crickets}


CONVERSATION FOUR

Conservative: "The Alabama monument decision is a sad day for religious liberty."

Liberal: Can you show me one person whose freedom of religion was limited, harmed or in any way interfered with as a result of this decision?"

Conservative: {crickets}



Yeah, that's what I thought. N O T H I N G.
________
Kitchen Measures (http://kitchenmeasures.com/)

[mmd10]

Let me do some "bowling for shallow mind".

"Liberal: Can you give me an example of a specific law that the founders wrote, and the specific commandment that it was related to?""

mmd10
The Founders based all the documents based on the inalienable right to think freely GOD allows you. Remeber GOD could easily force you to worship him but he don't.
So with that inalienable right to think freely follow these guidelines and you will always have "live, liberty etc...

I do think alot of people are confused about that whole inalienable rights thing. Jesus did not free the Jews from the Romans.

You see there are two mindset that exist in everything in this world today and have since the beginning of time. Let me explain.

Two MINDSETs period are result of everything.
These two MINDSETS exist in every walk of life, government, workplace,
religion, etc..

1a.Those who serve others b.those who serve GOD
2a.Those who serve themselves b. those who think they are GOD.

These two definitions sums up the whole world in a nutshell and prove
things really can be seen in black and white.
I can adlib a little too.

1.Those who are humble.
2.Those who are narcisistic.

1.Those who are open minded.
2.Those who are close minded.

1.Those who are good.
2.Those who are evil.

1.Those who are kind
2.Those who are viscious

1.etc......
2.etc......

It all started when Lucifer, Gods most beautiful angel wanted to be GOD. Please tell me where I am going wrong here with my theory. Lucifer wanting to be GOD is what the two MINDSETS are based on. I can apply them to anything, and I mean anything. I also believe this proves good/evil exist, which in itself means GOD and Lucifer exist. I do believe almost all religions preach basically this same exact theories.

Let me give you a true story as an example.
There is a judge(forget name) that some white people on the democratic side of judicial committee say is racist. They then tell NAACP judge is racist. So NAACP says ok judge is racist. One of the NAACP's lawyers say no way in hell is judge racist, he has appeared in front of judge with Civil Rights cases working for the NAACP and he says no way is judge racist. NAACP calls Mr. Leo Terrel and tells him your not towing the party line, he says no kidding, I know this judge is not racist. NAACP says our masters said judge is racist so therefore its true. Leo Terrel says you people make me sick and I quit, and you are just a puppet for democratic party, and I'm gonna expose you on my radio show.

Same can be said of Charles pickering, white people say judge is racist, NAACP says judge is racist, people who are black and vote judge time after time say judge is not racist, Medgar Evers the man who started NAACP is dead now, but his brother say no way is this judge racist, its actually the exact opposite of that.

The man who startd GreenPeace says it has turned into a political whacko arm of democratic party and thr policy is actually hurting the envirement.

Now I have explained to you why this is, the dems are too busy taking care of thier own agendas and when one of thr groups needs to eat, they throw together some policy to throw them a bone they can chew on and shut up. So the dems can get back to serving thr own agendas. Its the mindset.

The republican policies are thoughtfull and consistant and in the long run work. Democratic policy is unthoughtfull and hasty and in the end seem to do more damage to thr cause than good. I described how Clinton damaged the good of the party and Nixon preserved the party, even though on the last one he was covering a democratic lie. Thats the thanks he gets, the snakes turned on him so they could get the power back and get back to thr agenda.

Ask yourself which party has the proper mindset.

Which party ordered the military to let the blacks into the white schools.

Which party destroyed mens reputations calling them gay and cross dresser. Men who were routing out communist don't forget. Now this party is for thier(gay) cause throwing them unthoughfull and hatefull policy that is in the end hurting thr cause.

Which party freed the slaves and which wanted to keep them slaves.

Which party wanted to hold up civil rights even though thr president wanted them. Which party voted for civil rights even tough it wasn't thier president, but whithout whose votes civil rights never passes.

Which party has created a whole society of people dependant on them just so they could get thr votes.

Which partys policy is actually taking us backwards back to segragation because they preach so much hate to keep thr votes.

Which partys policy called containment was the exact opposite of what they called it. Every single policy was to benefit of communism and not this country.

Which party collapsed communism. Which part said that the way Reagan was going about it would cause WW3 and the exact opposite happened.

Which party left the Cubans who wanted to overthrow Castro and communism in Cuba and then left them to be slaughtered by Castro. Which then did almost lead to WW3. Now they call the guy a hero for the way he stopped the Russians from putting missles in Cuba actually braught about the crisis. I think the republicans would have ssupported BOP and therefore missles would have never got that close.

Which party calls Oli North a criminal because all he wanted to do was stop the spread of communism on our back door. When the democrats wouldn't support it, he funded it himself by means of another benefit to this country in having Iraq and Iran stalemate each other.

You tell me which party is serving the people which is the definition of its mindset.

I hope this makes all my points clear now. I just swam up to the shallow waters, but I would rather go back to the deep because thr are too many sharks looking for victims in the shallow waters.

Remember sharks love eating people who are paniced and sreaming and kicking in the shallow waters. This is just nature and nature comes from GOD. Remember the snake by the tree of knowledge, also remeber why GOD turned him into a snake when he was his most beautiful Angel.

take the blinders off, your missing the big picture. Your watching a DVD in a non letter-box fashion and zooming in on the middle of the picture you are only seng. You are missing out on alot.

Saudi Arabia could cripple world economy with thr oil. Once we spend the money to update the Iraqi's wells, it WILL pay us back for our rebuilding efforts. Then we and the rest of the world can tell Saudi Arabia where to stick thr oil. We can then leave them to thr makings to thr own demise. It would be truely justice. Saudi Arabia knows this too, don't forget.

Remeber too, that these are only bonuses to not letting IRAN get thr hands on a NEWCLEAR(hehe) weapon. All of the getting rid of Saddam benefits are just bonuses to not letting the NUMBER ONE terror supporting state in the world, a nuclear bomb. You should be proud of the people in your government who see things in the big picture format.

You should be more like Toby Kth and say you don't understand, but you are a patriot and trust your president and the people surrounding him, who do understand. Like I said, the fact that dems are playing politics with issues like this, make me sick. Self serving always leads to the detrement of the people in the LONG HAUL. I believe I have pointed that out time and time again.

I have also said before too, that as much as I disliked Bill Clinton, I did not laugh when he was egged or pied or whatever over in Europe. I was as pissed as he looked about it. He represnts my country like him or not. I don't like when Europeans who are only free because we helped give them thr freedom trash us like that. I am a patriot. Anyone who sells out thr country for politics and self servingness, is not a patriot. Periood end of conversation!

And YES I supported the war in Kosovo at first, I believed the mass graves stories and such. Knowing a little about the wars in the region years before. But now reflecting back with fact etc.., it was just Clinton bng self serving at the expense of Serbian civilians. These are the kind of mistakes you are prone to make if you are self serving and surround yourself with sycophants.

Hitler was the same, Stalin too, and look at all the mistakes they made. I like "W" and the clear vision he has on these issues he is addressing in forgn policy, and the fact he surrounds himself with different points of view, and only then makes an informed decision. Big difference between Clinton/Gore types and W Bush. It's the mindsets theory.

I am not so sure why you dems follow this man around and balloon his ego, when you look at facts, he has clearly taken your party backwards 50 years or more in power at the congressional level. It don't look good for the executive level ther. Hillary will not be your savior, she will be the final nail in the coffin of the democratic party. It just blows my mind why you people think the way you do.

The Clintons could NOT have done a better job destroying your party if they WERE REPUBLICAN OPERATIVES, and on top of it. You people love them for it. Very strange breed you Clintonian dems are.

N. Korea is Russia and China's problem. Not OURS. Do you think China wants Japan to get into an arms race with N. Korea. I think we should build our missle defense and let China and Russia swim in the fishbowl of peranhas they made for themselves. Just like france and germany. Leave them to thr fishbowl too.

China still remembers WWII, Japanese students are not taught about the horrors they created. Believe me we should turn the table on China, they think it's funny that we are the ones sweating it out. I think since Clinton gave China our latest newclear(hehe) technology, we should do the same for Japan.

C'mon WD rebut something here, what if your debating me for that politcal job you aspire for someday. Show the people you can debate.

I hope you wake up someday kid.

[Someone Sane]

Quote:... things really can be seen in black and white. ... It all started when Lucifer, Gods most beautiful angel wanted to be GOD. ... Lucifer wanting to be GOD ... GOD and Lucifer exist! ... sharks love eating people ... This.. comes from GOD ... Remember the snake by the tree.. remeber why GOD turned him into a snake ... take the blinders off ... I hope you wake up someday ...

You need to go back on your medication !

[mmd10]

Go worship yourself. tell yourself you are smart. I know your mindset, I said it, therefore it is. (lol) Good luck. Let me suggest to you freezing a gallon of water, as it melts you will have cold water to drink. But thats only gonna take care of your first couple of hours of eternity.

Every sand granual on every beach and every desert of this planet, still does not equal our univesre and how many stars, planets etc.. You think it just all happened and thr is no GOD or something huh? Good luck.

Stop starring in the water Narcissus.
________
BODY SCIENCE (http://bodyscience.ws/)

[Edmond Dantes]

Sassy said:"Our forefathers acknolwedged the very God that gave us the 10 Commandents."

Not true. The fact is the key leaders of the American Revolution were Dsts, Freemasons, and Unitarians (Christians who do not believe Jesus was a god or "God"). John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Paine, and George Washington were ALL Dsts, Freemasons, and Unitarians.

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA (Mortimer Adler, 196
"One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was that NOT one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian." ( Mortimer Adler, ed., American philosopher and educator, "Chapter 22: Religion and Religious Groups in America," The Annals of America: Great Issues in American Life, Vol. II, Chicago: Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1968, p. 420. )


________
green crack (http://trichomes.org/marijuana-strains/green-crack)

[WantaghDem]

Good point, but it won't matter to these folks. In order to be right, the founders have to have been orthodox christians who planned a christian religious state. When faced with the truth, they crumble, and they can't stand that, so they don't face the truth.

You see, if someone stood up today and said:

"We all know that this was not the intention of the founders - in fact, thr intention was the exact opposite - but we want to include the christian god in as many places as possible within the government"

Thet would be run out of town on a rail. It is only through the threat of "this is what the founders wanted" that they feel the can compel thr religious bigotry on the rest of us.
________
Fix Ps3 (http://fixps3.info/)

[Fundamentalist radicals -]

We'll have a pretty good display of the love and tenderness christians have for human bngs pretty soon.

Tomorrow christians in florida are murdering a christian terrorist and assassin who murdered a physician.

Other christian terrorists (people - do we HAVE to keep modifying the word "christian" with the word "terrorist"? Isn't it TOO redundant?) say they are planning retribution against florida officials who participated in the trial and sentence, as well as other health care providers.


Ahhh the sweet tender love of a Kompassition Konservative Khristian.

[Sassy]

Another - Most of America believes in the Judeo/Christian ethic. Even some athsts see no problem with the Ten Commandments in the Courthouse. The ones who fight against any reference to God are the ones who are on the radical FRINGE.

Edmund - Better burn that inaccurate encyclopedia. (Must have been written by a hardcore leftist.)

Our Founding Fathers were not secular fanatics.

Whatever Jefferson's private beliefs really were, his documented words and actions were not those of a "secular fanatic."
Thomas Jefferson was a nominal Anglican who did not like organized religion. Some people called him anti-Christian. Jefferson strongly denied this. On April 21, 1803, he wrote to Dr. Benjamin Rush, (also a signer of the Declaration of Independence): "My views ... are very different from the anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing about my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity, I am opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus. I am a Christian ..., sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others." ("America's God and Country" by William J. Federer.)

Thomas Jefferson, while U.S. president (1801-1809), authored the first plan of education adopted by the city of Washington, D.C. This plan included the Bible and "Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs" by Issac Watts as the principal books for teaching reading to students.
In 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote at the occasion of the Kentucky Resolution: "No power over the freedom of religion ... (is) given to the United States by the Constitution."
Whatever Jefferson's private beliefs really were, his documented words and actions were not those of a "secular fanatic."
AND ALSO....................................
'Founding Fathers Relied on God'
"Government and religion [have] always been intertwined since the founding of this nation, especially when you look at the many, many quotes from our Founding Fathers in which they relied on God for the establishment of our nation," said Ray Sharp, director of special projects at American Family Association.
Sharp quoted James Madison's statement: "Religion is the basis and foundation of government," and said numerous early state constitutions required those who assumed public office to make a profession of faith in God.
________
vapir one vaporizer (http://vaporizer.org/reviews/vapir-air-one/)

[MisterEd]

Quote:Even some athsts see no problem with the Ten Commandments in the Courthouse

I consider myself an athst and actually I do not have a problem with the ten commandments bng present in a courtroom.

I DO have a problem with people who INSIST on the ten commandments bngs present in a courtroom. If you're not one of those, I don't have a problem with you (on this issue)
________
Battle of the Overpass (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Battle_of_the_Overpass)

[Sassy]

Mr. Ed,

Your two statements contradict each other.

Sincerely,

Ms. Sassy
________
Daihatsu Rugger specifications (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Daihatsu_Rugger)

[Edmond Dantes]

Sassy said I better burn the Encyclopedia Britannica, and then said a "hardcore leftist" must have written the Encyclopedia Britannica.

So the Encyclopedia Britannica is "hardcore leftist"? I guess all information that isn't put out by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and thr ilk is now "hardcore leftist". Sad.

As for Thomas Jefferson, I think you need to read material from OUTSIDE the Fundamentalist Christian circle of writings; otherwise you risk bng hoodwinked...

-Thomas Jefferson: "I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do NOT find in our particular superstition of Christianity ONE REDEEMING FEATURE. They are all alike founded on FABLES and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world FOOLS and the other half HYPOCRITES; to support roguery and error all over the earth."--Letter to William Short

-Thomas Jefferson: "It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams." -- Letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

-Thomas Jefferson: "Read the Bible as you would Livy or Tacitus. For example, in the book of Joshua we are told the sun stood still for several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus we should class it with thr showers of blood, speaking of thr statues, bs, etc. But it is said that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore, candidly, what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature" --Letter to Peter Carr, 1787

-Thomas Jefferson: "It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. Sweep away thr gossamer fabrics of fictitious religion, and they would catch no more flies" -- To John Adams, Aug. 22, 1813

-Thomas Jefferson: "The Christian god can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed b-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites." -- Letter to Peter Carr

I could go on and on, but I think these quotes say enough in regards to Jefferson's thinking.

In spite of Christian right attempts to rewrite history to make Jefferson into a Christian, little about his philosophy resembles that of Christianity. Although Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence wrote of the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, there exists nothing in the Declaration about Christianity. Although Jefferson believed in a Creator, his concept of it resembled that of the God of Dsm (the term "Nature's God" used by Dsts of the time).

He also did not believe Jesus to be a god, or "God" (Unitarian creed). Jefferson wrote "I confidently expect that the present generation will see Unitarianism become the general religion of the United States." and "I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian".

So I don't know how any educated person can honestly claim Thomas Jefferson as a Trinitarian or Fundamentalist Christian. Of course the key words here are: educated and honestly.
________
kawasaki kh100 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Kawasaki_KH100)

[WantaghDem]

And I understand from reading transcripts that for the past few weeks, O'Rlly has basically (although, I think, inadvertantly) admitting that the founders were not in fact practicing christians.

What he has been saying is that it's HIS opinion that the founders wanted christianity in public life as a means of manipulation - to FORCE citizens to "behave" - since, in his opinion, without fear of divine retribution, no one could ever "behave."

Whatever, Bill. You must have learned that crap after you left Chaminade, which you disgrace every time you open your mouth (just like Al D'Amato disgraced every time he opened the "bag"....as in, him bng the "bag man" for the Nassau County Republican Party).
________
Chrysler D Platform (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Chrysler_D_platform)

[Sassy]

In the
Federalist Papers, the definitive
exposition of the Constitution's original intent, James Madison wrote, "Each
State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovergn body,
independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In
this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a
FEDERAL, and not a
NATIONAL constitution. ... The powers
delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and
defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and
indefinite."

Madison, our Constitution's author, meant that the
Constitution is to be read and ruled upon constructively, not as a matter of
interpretive opinion, which circumvents its prescribed method of amendment.
Those are the terms under which the states, including Alabama, ratified the
Constitution.

Tip of the day: While you are burning that encyclopedia you might want to include those politically correct textbooks. Remember, just because it's in print, it doesn't make it correct.
________
Ducati 750 Imola (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Ducati_750_Imola)

[Neuro Axis]

Quote: Remember, just because it's in print, it doesn't make it correct.

Ironic...

Let's rememer that James Madison also believed that a US occupation of Cuba was "of transcendent importance". And that the primary goal of the government was "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority," or as his compatriot John Jay said, "The people who own the country ought to govern it."

Aristotle recognized a few problems with democracy from the very beginning. He said that it almost goes without saying that a democracy had to be fully participatory to function (excepting things like women and slaves). In order to guarantee this for its people, it had to provide things like "lasting prosperity" for everyone and "moderate and sufficient property". In other words, democracy can never flourish in a society that has large amounts of poverty and small concentrations of wealth. Aristotle's vision would only be realized through something that we would today call a 'welfare state,' a pretty extreme one actually.

Aristotle found that there are two solutions to this probem: one would be to reduce poverty, which he favored, and the other would be to reduce democracy (which James Madison favored). Aristotle certainly isn't alone in this conclusion, the idea that wealth and democracy can never co-exist was a common conclusion to make all the way through the enlightenment, with people like de Tocqueville, Adam Smith, Jefferson, and others all making Aristotle's conclusions.

But Aristotle went on to conclude that in a democracy with extremes of rich and poor, the poor will use thr democratic rights to take property from the wealthy. Madison saw this problem and gave us the aforementioned quote about protecting the rich. He argued extensively at the Constitutional Conventions that the poor would "secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of [life's] blessings". So he made sure that democracy could not exist in America. He placed the power in what he called the "more capable set of men," those who hold "the wealth of the nation". Madison's protective measures today take a variety of forms, like barriers against workers groups and cooperation, fractured political constiuencies, and exploitation of ethnic differences, ect. In short, what George Carlin called "anything they can do to keep us fighting with each other down here so that they, the rich, can keep going to the bank".

In all fairness, Madison probably intended the "more capable set of men" to be Enlightenment figures and educated intellectuals who had made important contributions. "Enlightened statesmen," and "benevolent philosophers," in his own words.

So be careful before you quote Thomas Jefferson, people may get the wrong idea since he and others like Adam Smith and de Tocqueville would all be considered anti-capitalists, and Aristotle and Jefferson would be considered radicals.
________
Futura (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_Futura)

[JoJO]

I'll take the encyclopedia, which has no ulterior motive or bias to skew history, over your Fundamentalist revisionists ANY day.

Just saw another Fundamentalist Christian tonight on television rationalizing Paul Hill's murderous ways. For those of you who don't know, Paul Hill is a terrorist for the fundamentalist extremists, no not Islam, the other fundamentalist extremists, Christianity.

Like I will believe the revisionist history of nutcases like that over scholars who put together encyclopedias, yeah right!

________
Posh milf (http://www.fucktube.com/video/8813/milf-fucked-by-the-bellboy-inside-a-posh-hotel)

[To Jojo re: Sassy and his]

I should actually say most, most are content with burning books, many though still can't control thr born again blood lust, like Paul Hill. But still it is an improvement. Thank goodness we live in a country that keeps fundamentalist fanatics at bay.

[yeah but]

Maybe parts of the encycl. are accurate, maybe some are written by left-wing nuts.

(There are no right-wing nuts. Not even in the dictionary.)

And remember, you don't HAVE to burn any book YET. It would just be a good idea.
________
PLYMOUTH GTX HISTORY (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Plymouth_GTX)

[Yeah butthead]

Do not think you are going to conceal thoughts by concealing evidence that they ever existed. The facts remain even if you destroy the words.

[MisterEd]

Sassy,

I don't think I am contradicting myself. Perhaps I should clarify.

Every judge, county, state or whatever should be free to decide whether the 10 commandments are in thr courts or not. It should not be compulsory. People should be free to decide.

I don't care WHAT they decide, I only care about thr possibility TO decide.
________
AMC Hornet (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/AMC_Hornet)

[Sassy]

Thanks for a response without any kind of put down/insult, et al that I often get from SOME liberals. Now I'm speechless.

.................................................. .....

OK, I've recovered now.

You said "Every judge, county, state or whatever should be free to decide whether the 10 commandments are in thr courts or not. It should not be compulsory. People should be free to decide."

Well the PEOPLE of the STATE of Alabama have decided that they wanted them there. This is the Bible Belt, after all. It is a very tiny amount of people, the ACLU and radical leftist judge, that do not want them there.

The ACLU figures if they can get away with removing a Ten Commandments monument in the Bible Belt, they can get away with ANYTHING.

Looks like the minority rules.



________
Mark V (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Jaguar_Mark_V)

[Billybob]

So, let me get this straight:

It's of paramount importance that the ten commandments from the bible are posted in a courtroom.

Why?

You know, I happen not to disagree with the ten commandments. I think those are good values to live by, even if they've been skewed and distorted these days.

But, what is the point of posting them in the courtroom? Do you think it will make a difference in our justice system? Will it affect the outcome of the case? It seems to me that it would only serve to create controversy.

Christianity seems to be one of the most pushy religions in the world. Is it not possible to be Christian without the entire world following suit? What about the tens (or even a hundred, for all we know) of millions of people who are NOT Christian (me included)? Are you saying, "sorry, we're the majority. Screw your values!"?

The ten commandments are pretty good values, just as often broken by Christians as anyone else. Why can't actually respect our constitution and NOT establish a politically endorsed national religion? I don't care if a majority of "our founding fathers" were Christians. It doesn't make a difference. They were wise enough to see the dangers of religion tied to politics. After all, THEY were the minority in Europe, and decided to come to the new world partly to escape religiously motivated intolerance at home.
________
Amateur Tube (http://www.fucktube.com/)

[HALLELUJAH]

Yeah, the Ten Commandments are the values we need to display, and they must be showcased in a courtroom for all to see. Upon entering any court of law all citizens should be hit with the first commandment, which says it all, "You shall have no other gods before me."(!). Basically it says to every follower of an American Indian religion, every follower of a Hindu religion, etc. that if they come to this courthouse the first thing they need to know is that they must give up thr religion and have only the Judeo-Christian God as thr God! Thus Saith the Law of the United States, Thus Saith the Lord!!

[WantaghDem]

" Is it not possible to be Christian without the entire world following suit? "

Depends. If you are asking so-called Christians, members of the organized religions of the world that claim that name, then, no. It is not possible to be Christian without the entire world following suit. By force, if necessary. They don't believe they are "a way." They believe they are the "only way."

If you are just reading the Bible, you'll see that the practice of an organized religion is explicitly forbidden by the person identified as Jesus. You'll also see that no religion was founded by that person. Rahner points out that the person identified as Jesus clearly had an "imminent expectation" of the so-called "second coming" - and how illogical it would have been to found anything so close to the end.

So, depends on if you mean a "real" christian - one who follows the suggestions of the man called jesus - or the fake ones, who by thr very membership in an organized religion are breaking one of the only explicit charges directly attributed to the man identified as jesus in the bible.


But, hey, once hypocrisy becomes your whole way of life, and permeates your entire reason for living, i mean, what to do? Don't go too hard on 'em, is all I'm sayin'.
________
Uhwh (http://uhwh.com/)

[Bilbo Baggins]

Ra, Ra, Ra!

[The Pretzel Lives]

Wasn't the bible written by the same people who said the Earth was flat ?

[Basic sense]

Quote:Wasn't the bible written by the same people who said the Earth was flat ?

Yes, it was. In fact there are still christians who interpret the Bible so literally that they think the Earth is flat, they belong to an organization called The Flat Earth Society.