it is funny how liberals like crabs can't see it. They say we sold WMD's in one breath but that Saddam didn't have any in the next. Come on, crabs, explain it.
We went right to the source of the person that had the "nonexistent" WMD's
the source isn't in Iraq. Didn't you see the list of how they are the buyers, not the sellers. The selleris the source.If we "went to the souce", we would have bombed DuPont and H-P.
They say we sold WMD's in one breath but that Saddam didn't have any in the next
ever hear of the Gulf Storm War?
it's a profiteering scam...sell them weapons and then have a war with them.
the source isn't in Iraq. Oh but it was. Saddam had them didn't he?Didn't you see the list of how they are the buyers, not the sellers. I know they bought them. That is how I know they were the source of those that we wanted to eliminate.
it's a profiteering scam...sell them weapons and then have a war with them.
a result of a logical progression in our jurisprudence toward radical individualism -- the rights of the individual trump everything else -- including the interest of the majority in establishing a moral and stable society.
Funny, the rights of the individual are what conservatives used to champion; according to Limbaugh, Coulter, Ingraham et al., it's the "liberal elite" who want to impose their vision of how people should think, talk, act, eat and buy on rugged individualist Americans who don't need to be told what to do by people who think they're better than the average Joe -- yet David Limbaugh thinks HE should have the right to tell everyone else how to live. How do you keep your head from exploding, Jethro?
I'm old enough to have been involved in the civil rights movement of the '60s, and the argument of conservatives at that time against anti-discrimination laws was "You can't legislate morality." How times have changed.
What's the mechanism by which we get to participate in the decisions corporations make?
I'm old enough to have been involved in the civil rights movement of the '60s, and the argument of conservatives at that time against anti-discrimination laws was "You can't legislate morality." How times have changed.
Now I understand the root of your ignorance.
According to jethro, standing up for the rights of people who are unjustly and immorally oppressed is a source of ignorance. I always thought that bigotry and support for fascist oppression were expressions of ignorance. I'm glad jethro has pointed out for me that the reverse is really true. Now I feel enlightened.
What's the mechanism by which we get to participate in the decisions corporations make?
If I don't own stock in the company I generally don't give a damn what they do. Unless of course, they violate the law.
According to jethro, standing up for the rights of people who are unjustly and immorally oppressed is a source of ignorance. No that isn't what I said. What I meant was that the '60's was a time of in which the gullible were mislead into believing in utopian dreams.
A typical extreme left wing tactic. You find an opponent that you can't stand and attempt to label them as racist. But that is just simply disgusting immoral behavior exhibited by people that are generally conceited and full of their own delusions of superiority. The utopian dreams can be the result of generally gullible people listening to rock and dropping acid. It happens.
I have very few utopian dreams left, cousin Jethro. You will excuse me, but when I say that I was involved in the civil rights movement, and you respond with "Now I understand the root of your ignorance," I don't think it's much of a stretch to see a racial implication.
What the hell is "utopian" about believing that everyone should have the right to vote, go to a school in their own neighborhood, buy a house any place they can afford, and have a shot at any job for which they're qualified?
The utopian dreams can be the result of generally gullible people listening to rock and dropping acid.
If that's not the statement of one who is "generally conceited and full of [his] own delusions of superiority," I don't know what is.
I believe that somone whose idea of how society should be run is dependent upon what long-dead people who thought they were being spoken to by an invisible sky pixie wrote down in ancient languages (which may or may not have been accurately translated into English) is the gullible one, not I. And if we are going to govern by Biblical laws, how shall I put to death my officemate, who insists upon wearing polyester/cotton shirts? (Leviticus 19:19)
I guess the fact that corporate lobbyists are unelected political actors who get to shape the laws we live by doesn't trouble you. But that's not surprising since you earlier indicated your open support of fascism. I thought I would remind the other people here where your loyalties are when you discuss "freedom" and "democracy."
the '60's was a time of in which the gullible were mislead into believing in utopian dreams.
We don't have any of that today. Today we are being led into a global christian holy war to kill the infidels and then proclaim democracy in countries controlled by puppets of the corporate fascists in the oil industry. No misguided idealism there.
Completely outrageous. Just because you have a fondness for the flag used by the terrorist KKK is NO EXCUSE to label you a racist. It must be your fine upstanding morals that are being treated with contempt.
I believe that someone whose idea of how society should be run is dependent upon what long-dead people who thought they were being spoken to by an invisible sky pixie wrote down in ancient languages (which may or may not have been accurately translated into English) is the gullible one, not I.
You can believe that all you want. But the problem with liberals is that they want to find ways to prevent their voices from being heard in government. Hence the rule by judiciary that is ever increasing in power.
Completely outrageous. Just because you have a fondness for the flag used by the terrorist KKK is NO EXCUSE to label you a racist.
If you would bother to try see it from my viewpoint you would see that the confederate flag has nothing to do with race. But you would rather label me a racist than to deal with the substance of my statements.
the problem with liberals is that they want to find ways to prevent [gullible] voices from being heard in government.
Liberals have been trying to do that since the country was founded. Hence the separation of church and state in the constitution.
Hence the rule by judiciary that is ever increasing in power.
Don't worry. I'm sure some of the Bush judicial appointees will bring back the "nullification" legal theory beloved by the confederacy and the segregationists. That ought to make you happy. Someday soon you might be able to say "nigger" in public again without being ostracized or unfairly labeled as a racist. "Nigger jokes" will make a comeback, and all will be well in jethro's world.
They pay income taxes. If you are referring to the earned income tax credit, you gotta be SO POOR to qualify for that!! Most of the beneficiaries are children in low income households.
When I say "poor people pay taxes" I'm referring to people that make 8k-20k a year. It's nearly impossible to afford an apartment unless you make at least 16k. Below 8k are the ones who might get back more than they paid in. I've been there and it ain't much.
According to the CBO website, if you have a family of 5 (2 adults and 3 children) and made $27,100 in 1999, you are in the lowest quintile which averaged an "Effective Individual Income Tax Rate" of...
You claimed that "people who make 25k a year don't pay taxes" was a false statement. I showed you how it was possible. So tell me, what was wrong?
And no, I don't think they are trying to "stick it to the man", but I am pointing out that it does happen that they do not pay taxes and actually get some back.
I am off to spend time with my son at b-ball practice. Have a goodd night and I will check in later.
You can believe that all you want. But the problem with liberals is that they want to find ways to prevent their voices from being heard in government. Hence the rule by judiciary that is ever increasing in power.
Would you care to rephrase that in grammatical English? There are a number of unclear antecedents and referents.
How would you, if David Limbaugh's desire to have Biblical law made the Law of the Land, decide which Biblical laws would be included and which discarded? Would shrimp cocktails become contraband? Baby back ribs illegal?
Could children be put to death for cursing their parents? Could I sell my daughter into slavery? Should those who work on the Sabbath be put to death, and if so, which Sabbath -- Saturday or Sunday? Would footballs and driving gloves have to be made of something other than pigskin? You haven't answered my query about my officemate whose clothing breaks the Law. How should I kill him?
the point is that if you want to get rid of WoMD, you might want to start at the source.
That's a valid point.
Two adults and three kids on an income of 27k?
What's wrong with this example?
I'll tell you what's wrong with that example. What the fuck are two adults doing reproducing, three times mind you, if they're only bringing in $27K a year?
They are raising a family. They won't have the new boat and the big screen television (not for long anyway), but it can be done. It all depends on how you wish to live.
Don't worry. I'm sure some of the Bush judicial appointees will bring back the "nullification" legal theory beloved by the confederacy and the segregationists. It is quite obvious you don't have a clue what nullification means.
That ought to make you happy. Someday soon you might be able to say "n****r" in public again without being ostracized or unfairly labeled as a racist. While such a thing would indeed be wrong, the first amendement, on its face, allows such a thing.
How would you, if David Limbaugh's desire to have Biblical law made the Law of the Land, decide which Biblical laws would be included and which discarded? Well if the people wanted to do so they could enact a constitutional amendment that overrides the first amendment. Now that won't happen, of course, but theoretically it is possible.
Could children be put to death for cursing their parents? Could I sell my daughter into slavery? Should those who work on the Sabbath be put to death, and if so, which Sabbath -- Saturday or Sunday? Would footballs and driving gloves have to be made of something other than pigskin? You haven't answered my query about my officemate whose clothing breaks the Law. How should I kill him? I suggest you kill yourself. It must be hell being so damn stupid.
And if we are going to govern by Biblical laws, how shall I put to death my officemate, who insists upon wearing polyester/cotton shirts? (Leviticus 19:19)
I don't believe the peanlty for such an act would be death. You would have to show me where that is the stipulated penalty for such an act in the Bible.
Leviticus 18:5 'So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them;I am the LORD. Â Â
Leviticus 19:19 'You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together. Â Â
You may have a point here -- it is unclear whether the penalty for wearing garments of mixed material is death or exile. Mules are against God's law, however; no doubt about that.
Leviticus 20:9 'If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him.
And again, cousin Jethro, will pork chops, bacon and shrimp cocktails be made illegal? The prohibitions against them are clear and unequivocal.
Leviticus 18:5 'So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.
Apparently you take the broadest meaning of the phrase "a man may live if he does them." But it seems unlikely that all violations of God's law are punishable by death because if that were so there would be no purposes in specifying punishment in the following manner for a different violation:
"Say to the people of Israel, Any man of the people of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, who gives any of his children to Molech shall be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones."
Penalty aside, Jethro, the D. Limbaugh article you linked seemed to be arguing that US law is, and should continue to be, based upon the Bible. I ask you, which laws of the Bible should be enforced, and which should not, and most importantly, who gets to decide?You might also address the question of the First Amendment vs. the adoption of the Bible as the source of laws.
Penalty aside, Jethro, the D. Limbaugh article you linked seemed to be arguing that US law is, and should continue to be, based upon the Bible. I hate to break this to you but US law and the states laws are based fundamentally on the concepts and teachings of the Bible.I ask you, which laws of the Bible should be enforced, and which should not, and most importantly, who gets to decide? I do not know of anyone, although I am sure there are a few, that advocates implementing all the laws that are mentioned in the Bible. As for who decides what laws will be enforced, well that would be done through the democratic processes just like all of the laws we have now are supposed to be enacted.You might also address the question of the First Amendment vs. the adoption of the Bible as the source of laws. Like I said the Bible is the fundamental source of our laws. As for the Constitution it only forbids the US government from establishing a church and preventing other churches from competing with a federally sanctioned church. I know you want to believe that the first amendment is a broad based prohibition against all religion but it isn't true.
It never began. There is only one reference to religion in the body of the US Constitution, and it is this:
Article VI[snip] The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
The concepts of not killing, stealing or lying are not unique to the Bible. I know this may come as a shock, but it's true, and those principles are the basis of most all laws.
pieter, you are another one that can't deal with reality. The Constitution is supposed to be implementing specific concepts set forth earlier by the Declaration of Independence. If you wanted to deal with reality you could look at that and history in general. The people that came here and set up shop so to speak were Christian. Their laws reflected Christianity and the concepts contained therein. Our government is based on those concepts and that history. If you want to live in fantasy land be my guest. You just shouldn't expect everyone else to be there with you. Now as for you, too, end of discussion.
The Constitution is supposed to be implementing specific concepts set forth earlier by the Declaration of Independence.
like this specific concept?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The people that came here and set up shop so to speak were Christian.
well...no.
Somewere, but some (including the authors of the document above) were not.
The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are two separate and distinct documents, and the Declaration does not in any way outline principles of government. It is just exactly what its title indicates -- a statement that the colonies were seceding from the British Empire, and an explanation of why they were doing so. There are statements within the Declaration about what a just nation should aspire to, but it was not and never has been a blueprint for governance. The rough draft of the Constitution was the Articles of Confederation, which like the Constitution, contains no reference to God, and only one to religion.
Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration and a major architect of the Constitution, was vigorously opposed by many clergymen because of his insistence on the separation of church and state. His well-known "I have sworn upon the altar of God" statement is from a letter to Benjamin Rush about that opposition.
"[T]hey believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough too in their opinion. And this is the Cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me..
On the meaning and intent of the First Amendment's establishment clause, he wrote:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. --Letter to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, January 1, 1802
And that, cousin Jethro, is the intent of at least one Founding Father. Further study will allow you to learn that he was not unique in his beliefs.
'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'
The Liberals have taken the slippery slope on this.
There's a big diffence between establishing a religion, such as the Church of England at the time, and not being able to acknowledge Christmas in public schools.
There's a big diffence between establishing a religion, such as the Church of England at the time, and not being able to acknowledge Christmas in public schools.
go ahead and explain it if it's such a big difference.
The Liberals have taken the slippery slope on this.
actually, the slippery slope is the one that says that some state-sponsered Religion is okay...I don't think that's the liberal view though
the point is that if you want to get rid of WoMD, you might want to start at the source.
Well we did. We went right to the source of the person that had the "nonexistent" WMD's, namely Saddam.
it is funny how liberals like crabs can't see it. They say we sold WMD's in one breath but that Saddam didn't have any in the next. Come on, crabs, explain it.
the source isn't in Iraq. Didn't you see the list of how they are the buyers, not the sellers. The selleris the source.If we "went to the souce", we would have bombed DuPont and H-P.
ever hear of the Gulf Storm War?
it's a profiteering scam...sell them weapons and then have a war with them.
that's what it's about.
the source isn't in Iraq. Oh but it was. Saddam had them didn't he?Didn't you see the list of how they are the buyers, not the sellers. I know they bought them. That is how I know they were the source of those that we wanted to eliminate.
it's a profiteering scam...sell them weapons and then have a war with them.
that's what it's about.
So you admit Saddam had WMD's?
Sounds like he's admitting it.
The Gulf War was for profit?
Nevermind that Saddam invaded and overthrew a Democracy.
Mainly over a long running oil dispute. Remember that crabs.
Saddam can occupy a country for oil and not a peep from you about that.
Funny, the rights of the individual are what conservatives used to champion; according to Limbaugh, Coulter, Ingraham et al., it's the "liberal elite" who want to impose their vision of how people should think, talk, act, eat and buy on rugged individualist Americans who don't need to be told what to do by people who think they're better than the average Joe -- yet David Limbaugh thinks HE should have the right to tell everyone else how to live. How do you keep your head from exploding, Jethro?
I'm old enough to have been involved in the civil rights movement of the '60s, and the argument of conservatives at that time against anti-discrimination laws was "You can't legislate morality." How times have changed.
No he didn't. He champions balancing social stability and personal freedom through democratic government. How sad that you don't understand that.
jethro bodine 11/21/03 1:47pm
What's the mechanism by which we get to participate in the decisions corporations make?
According to jethro, standing up for the rights of people who are unjustly and immorally oppressed is a source of ignorance.
I always thought that bigotry and support for fascist oppression were expressions of ignorance. I'm glad jethro has pointed out for me that the reverse is really true. Now I feel enlightened.
What's the mechanism by which we get to participate in the decisions corporations make?
If I don't own stock in the company I generally don't give a damn what they do. Unless of course, they violate the law.
According to jethro, standing up for the rights of people who are unjustly and immorally oppressed is a source of ignorance. No that isn't what I said. What I meant was that the '60's was a time of in which the gullible were mislead into believing in utopian dreams.
I caught it by consorting with niggers? Why don't you just say it, cousin Jethro?
A typical extreme left wing tactic. You find an opponent that you can't stand and attempt to label them as racist. But that is just simply disgusting immoral behavior exhibited by people that are generally conceited and full of their own delusions of superiority. The utopian dreams can be the result of generally gullible people listening to rock and dropping acid. It happens.
ever hear of the Gulf Storm War?
No, but I did hear of Desert Storm.
If that is what you meant, are you saying that all WMD's were wiped out at that time?
I have very few utopian dreams left, cousin Jethro. You will excuse me, but when I say that I was involved in the civil rights movement, and you respond with "Now I understand the root of your ignorance," I don't think it's much of a stretch to see a racial implication.
What the hell is "utopian" about believing that everyone should have the right to vote, go to a school in their own neighborhood, buy a house any place they can afford, and have a shot at any job for which they're qualified?
If that's not the statement of one who is "generally conceited and full of [his] own delusions of superiority," I don't know what is.
I believe that somone whose idea of how society should be run is dependent upon what long-dead people who thought they were being spoken to by an invisible sky pixie wrote down in ancient languages (which may or may not have been accurately translated into English) is the gullible one, not I. And if we are going to govern by Biblical laws, how shall I put to death my officemate, who insists upon wearing polyester/cotton shirts? (Leviticus 19:19)
jethro bodine 11/21/03 2:11pm
I guess the fact that corporate lobbyists are unelected political actors who get to shape the laws we live by doesn't trouble you. But that's not surprising since you earlier indicated your open support of fascism. I thought I would remind the other people here where your loyalties are when you discuss "freedom" and "democracy."
We don't have any of that today. Today we are being led into a global christian holy war to kill the infidels and then proclaim democracy in countries controlled by puppets of the corporate fascists in the oil industry. No misguided idealism there.
jethro bodine 11/21/03 2:26pm
Completely outrageous. Just because you have a fondness for the flag used by the terrorist KKK is NO EXCUSE to label you a racist. It must be your fine upstanding morals that are being treated with contempt.
"Now I understand the root of your ignorance," I don't think it's much of a stretch to see a racial implication.
Well it is a stretch and a conclusion liberals reach with all too much ease.
I believe that someone whose idea of how society should be run is dependent upon what long-dead people who thought they were being spoken to by an invisible sky pixie wrote down in ancient languages (which may or may not have been accurately translated into English) is the gullible one, not I.
You can believe that all you want. But the problem with liberals is that they want to find ways to prevent their voices from being heard in government. Hence the rule by judiciary that is ever increasing in power.
Completely outrageous. Just because you have a fondness for the flag used by the terrorist KKK is NO EXCUSE to label you a racist.
If you would bother to try see it from my viewpoint you would see that the confederate flag has nothing to do with race. But you would rather label me a racist than to deal with the substance of my statements.
I don't care how his libertarian-wacko website crunches the numbers. Poor people pay taxes.
It's dishonest, to say the least, to include prisoners and corporate taxes in a data pool and then make the claims made on that website.
Poor people pay taxes.
Do they pay income taxes or do they get "money back" for something they never pay into in the form of "tax credits"?
Liberals have been trying to do that since the country was founded.
Hence the separation of church and state in the constitution.
Don't worry. I'm sure some of the Bush judicial appointees will bring back the "nullification" legal theory beloved by the confederacy and the segregationists. That ought to make you happy. Someday soon you might be able to say "nigger" in public again without being ostracized or unfairly labeled as a racist. "Nigger jokes" will make a comeback, and all will be well in jethro's world.
Woops! Maybe that's a tad too utopian, eh jethro?
Wolvie 11/21/03 3:23pm
They pay income taxes. If you are referring to the earned income tax credit, you gotta be SO POOR to qualify for that!! Most of the beneficiaries are children in low income households.
When I say "poor people pay taxes" I'm referring to people that make 8k-20k a year. It's nearly impossible to afford an apartment unless you make at least 16k. Below 8k are the ones who might get back more than they paid in. I've been there and it ain't much.
I don't care how his libertarian-wacko website crunches the numbers. Poor people pay taxes.
They used the CBO provided number crunching.
link
Are you saying that the CBO is a "Libertarian-wacko site"?
Dan Zachary 11/21/03 3:33pm
No, I'm saying the interpretation of that info is wacko.
I've often heard these jackasses on tv claim that people who make 25k a year don't pay taxes. Bullshit.
According to the CBO website, if you have a family of 5 (2 adults and 3 children) and made $27,100 in 1999, you are in the lowest quintile which averaged an "Effective Individual Income Tax Rate" of...
-6.8%
Dan Zachary 11/21/03 3:40pm
Two adults and three kids on an income of 27k?
What's wrong with this example?
You claimed that "people who make 25k a year don't pay taxes" was a false statement. I showed you how it was possible. So tell me, what was wrong?
And no, I don't think they are trying to "stick it to the man", but I am pointing out that it does happen that they do not pay taxes and actually get some back.
I am off to spend time with my son at b-ball practice. Have a goodd night and I will check in later.
Would you care to rephrase that in grammatical English? There are a number of unclear antecedents and referents.
How would you, if David Limbaugh's desire to have Biblical law made the Law of the Land, decide which Biblical laws would be included and which discarded? Would shrimp cocktails become contraband? Baby back ribs illegal?
Could children be put to death for cursing their parents? Could I sell my daughter into slavery? Should those who work on the Sabbath be put to death, and if so, which Sabbath -- Saturday or Sunday? Would footballs and driving gloves have to be made of something other than pigskin? You haven't answered my query about my officemate whose clothing breaks the Law. How should I kill him?
TD, some clerks I work with brag about the fact they don't pay taxes and they are in the 20-40k range.
Why? Single, head of household, earned income credit, child deductions, child tax credit(s)...etc.
Yes, they do pay taxes but they get more back from the above than what they actually pay in.
the point is that if you want to get rid of WoMD, you might want to start at the source.
That's a valid point.
Two adults and three kids on an income of 27k?
What's wrong with this example?
I'll tell you what's wrong with that example. What the fuck are two adults doing reproducing, three times mind you, if they're only bringing in $27K a year?
They are raising a family. They won't have the new boat and the big screen television (not for long anyway), but it can be done. It all depends on how you wish to live.
Don't worry. I'm sure some of the Bush judicial appointees will bring back the "nullification" legal theory beloved by the confederacy and the segregationists. It is quite obvious you don't have a clue what nullification means.
That ought to make you happy. Someday soon you might be able to say "n****r" in public again without being ostracized or unfairly labeled as a racist. While such a thing would indeed be wrong, the first amendement, on its face, allows such a thing.
How would you, if David Limbaugh's desire to have Biblical law made the Law of the Land, decide which Biblical laws would be included and which discarded? Well if the people wanted to do so they could enact a constitutional amendment that overrides the first amendment. Now that won't happen, of course, but theoretically it is possible.
Could children be put to death for cursing their parents? Could I sell my daughter into slavery? Should those who work on the Sabbath be put to death, and if so, which Sabbath -- Saturday or Sunday? Would footballs and driving gloves have to be made of something other than pigskin? You haven't answered my query about my officemate whose clothing breaks the Law. How should I kill him? I suggest you kill yourself. It must be hell being so damn stupid.
And if we are going to govern by Biblical laws, how shall I put to death my officemate, who insists upon wearing polyester/cotton shirts? (Leviticus 19:19)
I don't believe the peanlty for such an act would be death. You would have to show me where that is the stipulated penalty for such an act in the Bible.
You may have a point here -- it is unclear whether the penalty for wearing garments of mixed material is death or exile. Mules are against God's law, however; no doubt about that.
And again, cousin Jethro, will pork chops, bacon and shrimp cocktails be made illegal? The prohibitions against them are clear and unequivocal.
You are debating old testament law in a new testament world.
Leviticus 18:5 'So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.
Apparently you take the broadest meaning of the phrase "a man may live if he does them." But it seems unlikely that all violations of God's law are punishable by death because if that were so there would be no purposes in specifying punishment in the following manner for a different violation:
Penalty aside, Jethro, the D. Limbaugh article you linked seemed to be arguing that US law is, and should continue to be, based upon the Bible. I ask you, which laws of the Bible should be enforced, and which should not, and most importantly, who gets to decide?You might also address the question of the First Amendment vs. the adoption of the Bible as the source of laws.
Penalty aside, Jethro, the D. Limbaugh article you linked seemed to be arguing that US law is, and should continue to be, based upon the Bible. I hate to break this to you but US law and the states laws are based fundamentally on the concepts and teachings of the Bible.I ask you, which laws of the Bible should be enforced, and which should not, and most importantly, who gets to decide? I do not know of anyone, although I am sure there are a few, that advocates implementing all the laws that are mentioned in the Bible. As for who decides what laws will be enforced, well that would be done through the democratic processes just like all of the laws we have now are supposed to be enacted.You might also address the question of the First Amendment vs. the adoption of the Bible as the source of laws. Like I said the Bible is the fundamental source of our laws. As for the Constitution it only forbids the US government from establishing a church and preventing other churches from competing with a federally sanctioned church. I know you want to believe that the first amendment is a broad based prohibition against all religion but it isn't true.
no it's not.
Like I said the Bible is the fundamental source of our laws.
no it's not.
Deny it all you want but it is true. Since you don't want to deal with reality there is no point continue down this path with you. End of discussion.
It never began. There is only one reference to religion in the body of the US Constitution, and it is this:
The concepts of not killing, stealing or lying are not unique to the Bible. I know this may come as a shock, but it's true, and those principles are the basis of most all laws.
pieter, you are another one that can't deal with reality. The Constitution is supposed to be implementing specific concepts set forth earlier by the Declaration of Independence. If you wanted to deal with reality you could look at that and history in general. The people that came here and set up shop so to speak were Christian. Their laws reflected Christianity and the concepts contained therein. Our government is based on those concepts and that history. If you want to live in fantasy land be my guest. You just shouldn't expect everyone else to be there with you. Now as for you, too, end of discussion.
like this specific concept?
well...no.
Somewere, but some (including the authors of the document above) were not.
The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are two separate and distinct documents, and the Declaration does not in any way outline principles of government. It is just exactly what its title indicates -- a statement that the colonies were seceding from the British Empire, and an explanation of why they were doing so. There are statements within the Declaration about what a just nation should aspire to, but it was not and never has been a blueprint for governance. The rough draft of the Constitution was the Articles of Confederation, which like the Constitution, contains no reference to God, and only one to religion.
Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration and a major architect of the Constitution, was vigorously opposed by many clergymen because of his insistence on the separation of church and state. His well-known "I have sworn upon the altar of God" statement is from a letter to Benjamin Rush about that opposition.
On the meaning and intent of the First Amendment's establishment clause, he wrote:
And that, cousin Jethro, is the intent of at least one Founding Father. Further study will allow you to learn that he was not unique in his beliefs.
and they all grew pot.
'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'
The Liberals have taken the slippery slope on this.
There's a big diffence between establishing a religion, such as the Church of England at the time, and not being able to acknowledge Christmas in public schools.
go ahead and explain it if it's such a big difference.
actually, the slippery slope is the one that says that some state-sponsered Religion is okay...I don't think that's the liberal view though