But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 13 Sep 2007 02:01
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
__________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 13 Sep 2007 15:52
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Interesting the laywer brings up his fear of making books illegal and ideas. Of course he was referring to ideas of evolution, but now we stand on the complete opposite side where making mention of God is illegal. How amazingly hypocritical isn't it? Those who claim to worry about being allowed the freedom to think and to reason, fear expressions of ideas and concepts because they don't necessarily fit into test tubes. Or is it man fears the knowledge of God? If you really believed all ideas and knowledge should be allowed then God wouldn't be outlawed in schools now.
Evolutionist have only done today what they claimed Christians were doing years ago, outlawing ideas, and man's right to think. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 14 Sep 2007 01:27
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
1)Evolutionists aren't making laws.
2)Seems obvious to me you haven't seen this film. You really should. It's not about convincing you to accept evolution, just an absolutely great movie. The book was good, movie is a must see. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 14 Sep 2007 01:34
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
In the interest of being fair, what exactly would the lesson plan for creationism include? What level would these lessons be aimed at? More specifically, what exactly would you have taught and through what means? Finally, justify why this counts as 'knowledge' and not solely as faith.
Pretend you are the Sup. of Schools and you have been given the ok to finally incorporate Intelligent Design back into the school curriculum. All you have to do for final approval is lay out the specific answers to those questions above.
Convince me of the reinclusion next to Darwin's theory. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 14 Sep 2007 02:33
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 183
Join Date: Aug 2007
I thought you guys settled this a couple weeks ago??? I thought you were going to talk politics or something like that???? __________________
i'm telling you the MOAB will solve all our problems
Posted: 14 Sep 2007 04:12
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Was never settled. Probably will never be settled.
Still worth discussing reasonably. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 14 Sep 2007 16:20
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: Seems obvious to me you haven't seen this film.
I'm pretty sure I have like when I was a kid and there was nothing else on during the summer vacation time.
Quote: Convince me of the reinclusion next to Darwin's theory
I think each state or even each community should make up their own mind, and put it to a vote. No aclu or other jerk offs just let the people decide what they want their kids to learn in school.
If one community wants to teach God created the world then let them.
My personal opinion would be to at least point out that evolution is a theory and creationism is a religion but both have scientific backing. Of course if everybody was honest then the evidence for evolution would look like a joke, but that's me being honest. We wouldn't want to do that in a government funded facility. There is no place for honesty in government.
I think kids can handle learning more than one opinion without instantly dying or falling apart at the seams don't you? They might be smarter for the trouble, and your lawyer from inherit the wind might have actually had his point made into reality. After all I didn't think he was going for the restriction of creationism just the addition of evolution. He said men should be allowed to think. That does include other ideas besides evolutionist doesn't it? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 15 Sep 2007 02:25
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Can you give an example of faith that actually involves 'thinking' especially when it comes to the creation of man and the world? 'God did it' takes no thought at all.
You want a vote? Answer my questions please as they would be asked in some form from someone else if this were ever to be anywhere near seriously considered.
What is the lesson plan?
Who is it targeted at?
How will these lessons be taught exactly?
(new)What religions besides Christianity will be included in your lessons as it would not be allowed to stand completely by itself?
I have seen more times than I can count that you want God back in schools. I have no doubt that you really want this. Now you have to include what exactly that means if you really want me to see your side on this.
Quote: There is no place for honesty in government.
I could say the same for church. Stick to topic please.
Quote: I think kids can handle learning more than one opinion without instantly dying or falling apart at the seams don't you
Public schools are for the elements of knowledge, learing to follow rules, and how to associate with peers and superiors, not opinions. They learn opinions in college. Algebra doesn't ask for your opinion of the answer any more than a history test answer should differ from the teachers lesson because of opinion.
No, they won't die on the spot for hearing theology but please remember that this is not the school's responsibility. Keep in mind that kid's teacher may be Jewish or Muslim. Your kid's beliefs are the sole responsibility of them, their parents and by extension their chosen place of observation. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 15 Sep 2007 20:52
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: Can you give an example of faith that actually involves 'thinking' especially when it comes to the creation of man and the world? 'God did it' takes no thought at all.
How about all the endless debates we have. It's taken a lot of thought to counter your faith in evolution.
Quote: Answer my questions please as they would be asked in some form from someone else if this were ever to be anywhere near seriously considered
I told you put it to a vote in each community. Leave the federal government out of it. Each community is going to have their own veiws on what would make the best curriculm for their children. People in Washington, don't have a right to tell people in TN what to teach their kids about God and evolution no more than I have a right to tell people in Washington what to teach their kids.
Quote: No, they won't die on the spot for hearing theology but please remember that this is not the school's responsibility.
Neither is it their responsibility to shut kids up for talking about their faith or teach ideas that counter their faith. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 16 Sep 2007 01:50
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Your thoughts come from the countering, not necessarily the faith. Let's try the question again.
How does the story of Genesis which lays out the supposed creation of everything in such a direct and unwavering manner, leave any room for thought? The absolute only thought involved is to accept it or not. That's called a decision (you may call it faith), but by no means is it a thinking process. If you can, please explain why that's wrong with an actual example.
Quote: I told you put it to a vote in each community
Until you answer those questions, you don't have anything to put to a vote. What are people supposed to be voting on? What Religions? What grades? What's the lesson plan? How will the lessons be taught?
Quote: to shut kids up for talking about their faith or teach ideas that counter their faith.
Supreme Court. Nothing more needs to be said.
If you can't answer those questions and you insist that 'God' must be in your child's school with teachings that support faith and teaching of that faith, pay for the private school. Nobody is stopping you from doing this. The problem is you want someone else to pay for it apparently. It's not my job or any other taxpayer to make sure your kid strengthens their faith, so please stop pushing your responsibility on others.
Here's the solution to your problem Tim. Take em to church, teach em at home, pay for the school you want and keep your hands out of the rest of our pockets. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 17 Sep 2007 16:13
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: The absolute only thought involved is to accept it or not. That's called a decision (you may call it faith), but by no means is it a thinking process. If you can, please explain why that's wrong with an actual example.
First it's my opinion that many evolutionists especially the average non-scientist takes the theory of evolution on faith. They have faith that scientists must know more than they do. As we all know just because really smart doesn't necessarily make you right all the time and evolution has never been proved and the so-called facts and evidence of it keep changing on a regular basis.
Now as far as your question again. Sure there is a level of faith where you simply accept God at His word, but there is also that part of us all that questions. Now I admit some folks just believe without ever questioning or doubting. I think that's great, but I don't necessarily think God is against thinking through the claims of the Bible. Verifying and asking questions are a part of human nature. It's all part of the beginning process a lot of times before someone comes to the level of faith.
For my own part, I've researched the scientific end of the creation story from scientist that also have faith in Christ. Maybe that's not good enough to prove anything to you, but obviously I'm not going to find good data that fits the Bible picture from those that want to prove the Bible wrong. Now if those Christian scientists were unable to find any sort of evidence to support Biblical accounts I might be prone to doubt more, but that's just icing on the cake. The real test of God's existence is in one's own personal life.
So you make a wrong assumption in thinking that faith comes without any sort of thought. I'd say a lot of Christians do nothing but think about how science and the world around them backs up their faith.
Quote: What's the lesson plan? How will the lessons be taught?
I can tell you what I want my kid taught, but obviously there would have to be some compromise to make everyone happy which is better than the it's evolution or the highway approach.
Quote: Supreme Court. Nothing more needs to be said.
In 10 years we could have another supreme court that might rule evolution is unfit to teach in school. Nothing ever stays the same in politics. Are you still going to be shouting Supreme court when they rule against you?
Quote: The problem is you want someone else to pay for it apparently.
You apparently want your child to be taught secular humanism on the tax payer's dime of which I am one as well mind you. You act like Christians should pay taxes, but not have a say so as well.
Quote: keep your hands out of the rest of our pockets.
Funny, how much money do Christians pay in taxes as compared to atheists? I bet we pay a heck of alot more money than you guys. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 17 Sep 2007 17:12
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: So you make a wrong assumption in thinking that faith comes without any sort of thought
You've shared many opinions. Not one makes a point of how faith involves thinking. My 'assumption' stands.
Quote: I can tell you what I want my kid taught
Is there some reason you're not sharing it then?
Quote: Are you still going to be shouting Supreme court when they rule against you
The supreme court didn't judge for or against a person with their decisions on freedom of speech and not teaching creation in school. They judged what adhered to the constitution or not and what something in the constitution meant. If those judgements ever get overturned(good luck, but I'll play along) then we would have to go along with it.
Quote: You apparently want your child to be taught secular humanism on the tax payer's dime of which I am one as well mind you. You act like Christians should pay taxes, but not have a say so as well.
Funny, how much money do Christians pay in taxes as compared to atheists? I bet we pay a heck of alot more money than you guys.
Our schools are bad enough that they are specifically designed to create good workers and good soldiers. The best we can hope for is basic skills by the time they graduate. Readin, Writin, 'Rithmetic. Exactly what 'humanism' do you think I want taught? Americans pay taxes regardless of religion, at least they're supposed to. What would make you believe something so foolish as Christians paying more taxes than any other group? We don't have tax-exempt clubs for beginners. Prove that wrong if you can. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 17 Sep 2007 17:20
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: Not one makes a point of how faith involves thinking.
I shared how faith comes with thought. Thought and reasoning and seeing creation increases faith. All of creation proclaims there is a God.
Quote: Is there some reason you're not sharing it then?
No, I thought that was obvious. I want my kid taught that God created the world, and Darwin had this crazy theory that so far has not had any scientific proof to back it up at all. I want the science that backs up the bible taught, but like I said I'm just one vote, and that vote should stay in my local community just like yours. The feds shouldn't control what is taught in local schools. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 17 Sep 2007 17:22
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: If those judgements ever get overturned(good luck, but I'll play along) then we would have to go along with it.
Ok so what about the judgments that were pro-God in the old days? Are you going to ignore those? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 17 Sep 2007 17:24
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: What would make you believe something so foolish as Christians paying more taxes than any other group?
Do the math dude, you know there aren't as many atheists as Christians. More Christians equal more money.
Quote: Exactly what 'humanism' do you think I want taught?
Humanism is anything that promotes anti-christian, modernistic liberal thinking like sex education, evolution etc. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 17 Sep 2007 17:37
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Faith comes with making the choice of accepting something that isn't tangible. After making that decision, there is no thought-just obedience or making another choice later. You saying thought increases faith does not mean 1)that this statement is absolute and 2)that faith creates thought. It leans more toward needing to think up reasons to keep that faith. Our verbal sparring is more thought provoking than just believing in anything. If you still feel that this is wrong, show some sort of evidence to the contrary outside of an emotional response. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 17 Sep 2007 17:42
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: I want my kid taught that God created the world,
You can teach them that, go to church or pay for a private school.
Quote: Ok so what about the judgments that were pro-God in the old days? Are you going to ignore those?
Name one supreme court judgement that is pro-God for beginners. If you can provide one, I have to follow it. I'm not ignoring anything. Seems like you're making this up too. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 17 Sep 2007 17:46
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: Do the math dude, you know there aren't as many atheists as Christians. More Christians equal more money.
Barring that you have have no figures to back it up, and that you forget that not all non-Christians are not atheists....
Do some math yourself.
If it's about which religious group has more taxpayers having more of a voice, you can shut up with us. The Jews and Muslims seperately each have us outnumbered combined. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
One such case occurred in the United States Supreme Court during the early months of 1892. The case was the Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States. The case was formed around the decision of Holy Trinity Church of New York City to hire a pastor from England.
The final opinion was authored by Justice David J. Brewer, and his comments have become a virtual encyclopedia of the many references to faith in the founding of America. He concludes: “No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people…This is a Christian nation.”
Justice Brewer reached this conclusion after reviewing volumes of primary sources, ranging in diversity from the commission of Christopher Columbus to the charters and constitutions of several states.
Brewer also referred to the words of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...and for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 17 Sep 2007 20:50
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
From Wikipedia:
Quote: Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)[1], was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding an employment contract between The Church of the Holy Trinity, New York and an English preacher.
Contracts to import labor were forbidden by the U.S. Code, and specifically by "An act to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States, its territories, and the District of Columbia." The court held that a minister was not a foreign laborer under the statute even though he was a foreigner.
The court used the soft plain meaning rule to interpret the statute in this case. Justice David Josiah Brewer made a principle of statutory construction that "It is a familiar rule that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit nor within the intention of its makers." Its decision stated that "the circuit court did err when it held that the contract hiring an English rector was within the prohibition of the statute which disallowed a "...person, company, partnership, or corporation, in any manner whatsoever to prepay the transportation, or in any way assist or encourage the importation or migration, of any alien or aliens, any foreigner or foreigners, into the United States ... under contract or agreement ... to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States..."
This case is cited most often for its determination of how legislative intent can be determined. The case is famous for being misinterpreted as a religion case, from a line in obiter dicta in which Justice Brewer claimed that the United States is a "Christian nation." Many people have cited that as the case's holding, though that is incorrect.
Short and to the point-the judge's comment does not make the judgement 'pro-God'. If anything it defines procedure. The judge could have said it was a Quaker or Protestant nation and it would not have altered the actual case or outcome. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 17 Sep 2007 20:54
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Oboy, I proved my point I found a case. It ain't easy searching through the net pouring through court cases. It's much easier just relying on my memory, but no you can't never take my word for it, so I got to take 20 minutes to find junk all the time. And then you got to nerve to argue with plain english. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 17 Sep 2007 21:02
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Wow. I just went and found the actual comments made by Justice Brewer. Your book is a biased piece of fiction, yet again.
Quote: Even the constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the first amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' etc.,--and also provides in article 1, s 7, (a provision common to many constitutions,) that the executive shall have 10 days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill.
There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Com., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that, 'Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; * * * not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.' And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294, 295, Chancellor KENT, the great commentator on American law, speaking as chief justice of the supreme court of New York, said: 'The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. * * * The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors.' And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard's Ex'rs, 2 How. 127, 198, this court, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provision for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: 'It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.'
If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, 'In the name of God, amen;' the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?
Suppose, in the congress that passed this act, some member had offered a bill which in terms declared that, if any Roman Catholic church in this country should contract with Cardinal Manning to come to this country, and enter into its service as pastor and priest, or any Episcopal church should enter into a like contract with Canon Farrar, or any Baptist church should make similar arrangements with Rev. Mr. Spurgeon, or any Jewish synagogue with some eminent rabbi, such contract should be adjudged unlawful and void, and the church making it be subject to prosecution and punishment. Can it be believed that it would have received a minute of approving thought or a single vote? Yet it is contended that such was, in effect, the meaning of this statute. The construction invoked cannot be accepted as correct. It is a case where there was presented a definite evil, in view of which the legislature used general terms with the purpose of reaching all phases of that evil; and thereafter, unexpectedly, it is developed that the general language thus employed is broad enough to reach cases and acts which the whole history and life of the country affirm could not have been intentionally legislated against. It is the duty of the courts, under those circumstances, to say that, however broad the language of the statute may be, the act, although within the letter, is not within the intention of the legislature, and therefore cannot be within the statute.
That's the entire closing-unedited.
Let's look at it.
The justice was quoting another case in which someone else had made that claim of a Christian nation. See it? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 17 Sep 2007 21:44
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
One how do i know your source isn't a bunch of fiction? Two cut to the chase which line is the most significant here, and three it wasn't my book, I posted the link. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 18 Sep 2007 00:46
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
1)Actual transcript
2)Actual transcript
3)Tripe, whoever it belongs to. They either did not understand what they read or flat out lied. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 18 Sep 2007 15:06
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Alright had more time this morning, read it, and I'm not sure where it actually contradicts what I said.
Quote: These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.
second paragraph toward the bottom, wasn't this the justice? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 18 Sep 2007 15:34
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
That was indeed the justice leading up to a final judgement. The justice had to spell out the definition included in a statute, relating to religion(s). Read the entire thing, instead of just that one line.
Quote: Ok so what about the judgments that were pro-God in the old days? Are you going to ignore those?
That is what you thought you were showing with this. It's not.
Quote: It's much easier just relying on my memory, but no you can't never take my word for it
The same reason I usually don't just rely on my own memory. We have a tendency to remember people,things and events how we'd like them to be instead of how they are or were especially when it comes to remembering someone else's opinion in a piece of literature.
Let me save you some time. The first amendment says no pro-God laws; for your satisfaction it also says no anti-God laws. A justice or judge of any stripe could not deliver a pro-God decision ever since we've had a bill of rights. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 18 Sep 2007 19:20
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: That was indeed the justice leading up to a final judgement. The justice had to spell out the definition included in a statute, relating to religion(s). Read the entire thing, instead of just that one line.
Well where in that whole thing is he denying America is a Christian nation? I'm not seeing what it is your seeing.
Quote: Let me save you some time. The first amendment says no pro-God laws; for your satisfaction it also says no anti-God laws. A justice or judge of any stripe could not deliver a pro-God decision ever since we've had a bill of rights.
Denying expressions of religion would be an example of anti-God law in my opinion. If they made a law that said you had to stay out of school, how would you take it, as pro-pak, or anti-pak? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 18 Sep 2007 23:22
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
He was defining the language of the statute. Your selective blindness is a little irritating at this point.
Where is someone being denied expression of religion in the discussion we are presently having?
Quote: pro-pak, or anti-pak
How adult of you. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 19 Sep 2007 15:39
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Again where in that whole thing is he denying America is a Christian nation?
Quote: Where is someone being denied expression of religion in the discussion we are presently having?
All I know is at some point you asked me to prove the Supreme Court has ever voted in a pro-God stance ever. So I went looking. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
i'm telling you the MOAB will solve all our problems
