When Gary told me he had found Jesus, I thought, Ya-hoo! We're rich! But it turned out to be something different.
Luv2Fly
A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law.
Which parts of scripture do we make law and which do we ignore? Oh my God you are right!!! We better get rid of those laws against murder, stealing and perjury as those are cited in scripture!!!!! But seriously, simply because certain matters are addressed in scripture should not disqualify them from consideration or implementation in current law. Â
Jethro, my point is that the people who want their favorite parts of the Bible made law would be pretty unhappy, if not under a death sentence, if all of the Bible were made law. Once again I ask: Who decides?
Will pork chops and shrimp cocktail become contraband, available only at Mafia-run restaurants at exorbitant prices? Will the NFL have to change the leather that the ball is made of, or will it be moot since the entire league would be put to death for breaking the Sabbath? Will you be able to go to an emergency room if you have a heart attack on a Sunday? Come to think of it, which day will be the official Sabbath -- Saturday or Sunday?
Will museums have to destroy all their graven images of "what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth"? Is a photograph a "graven image"? If covetousness is outlawed, can you be prosecuted for keeping up with the Joneses? Will all purchased male slaves have to be set free in the seventh year, or only the Jewish ones? I assume female slaves will still be slaves for life.
Will Miss Cleo and Sylvia Browne be publicly executed for sorcery? Will the banks and credit-card issuers have to renounce the collection of interest? Would the observance of Universal Precautions during blood offerings at church altars be considered blasphemy? Will Geico be disbanded because its mascot is unclean?
All this and I'm not even halfway through Leviticus . . .
 December parade in Denver will feature everyone from Chinese lion dancers to gay and lesbian shamans, according to the Rocky Mountain News, but not Christians who want to sing yuletide hymns or carry a Merry Christmas message.
Denver pastor George Morrison said his request to enter a float in the annual Parade of Lights, which apparently only coincidentally happens in late December, was rejected because parade officials won't allow any "direct religious themes."
"It's a little confusing to me," said Morrison. "Here we have this holiday, Christmas, approaching, and Parade of Lights is suddenly changed into something where you can't even sing a Christmas song?"
The one-hour parade features elaborate floats with holiday symbols such as Santa Claus and gingerbread houses, plus an "international procession" of cultural groups.
The international portion this year features the Two Spirit Society, which honors gay and lesbian American Indians as holy people; a German folk dance group; and performers of the Lion Dance, a Chinese New Year tradition "meant to chase away evil spirits and welcome good luck and good fortune for the year."
Those groups are considered examples of ethnic diversity, not religious groups, a parade official said.
The Sarasota Herald Tribunesays some schools in Florida are so worked up over the thought of anything smacking of Christianity appearing in classes that they are banning seasonal celebrations altogether.
In this year’s winter concert at Freedom Elementary School in East Manatee students will be singing about America and patriotism instead of about C-----mas and the holidays. Even snowflakes are verboten among the classroom decorations.
"There's a lot of rules and regulations out there," said Freedom Principal Gary Holbrook. "You're trying to be respectful of everyone."
A Georgia principal who read a satirical ditty about how kids today can elect pregnant prom queens and dress like freaks but can’t mention God in school was accused of breaching that pesky line between church and state, reports The Associated Press.
Tommy Craft, principal of Cedar Shoals High School in Athens, apologized for reading a poem entitled "The New School Prayer" over the school's intercom. He said he just wanted to provoke a little thought.
But because the poemsounded sorta like a prayer and mentioned God, some parents complained. "Basically, I found the poem offensive, but even if I didn't, I still would believe it crossed the line between church and state,'' said Ginger Smith, whose daughter is a junior at Cedar Shoals.
The poem has circulated on the Internet since at least 1992 and is written in the rhyming style of the children's prayer that begins "Now I lay me down to sleep."
A sign outside a California church promoting a Sunday sermon titled "Why I Am Not a Muslim" has drawn complaints from some locals who say it is offensive to people of that faith, reports The Associated Press.
The sign outside the Church of the Nazarene in the San Francisco suburb of Sunnyvale is intended to promote a lecture by the Rev. Donald Fareed about his conversion to Christianity and attempts to close the rifts between Christians and Muslims since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
"My goal is not to offend Muslims, but to communicate why I changed my religion," said Fareed, who was born an Iranian Muslim and fled after the Islamist revolution.
But local resident Jay Keller was among a handful who called the sign offensive. "I work with a lot of Muslims and don’t know why someone would put up a sign like that," he said. "They can’t possibly be oblivious to the fact that it might be offensive to some people."
The mayor of Somerville, Mass., has to issue a written apology for daring to refer to the city’s upcoming celebration as a "Christmas party," reports the Somerville Journal.
Mayor Joe Curtatone's apology statement said: "A press release issued from my office last week mistakenly identified this month's City Holiday Party as a 'Christmas Party.' I apologize for the mistake and to anyone who was offended by it. On Dec. 21, City Hall will welcome the entire community to a party honoring all holiday traditions and celebrating this most festive of seasons."
And those Ribbons... Man, people have trivialized the troops and this War, and they will continue to splatter those ribbons all over their bumpers and think they are doing "Something".
Yea what horrible people. They ought to be ashamed. I guess all the people with Kerry bumper stickers thought they were doing something too.
Jethro, my point is that the people who want their favorite parts of the Bible made law would be pretty unhappy, if not under a death sentence, if all of the Bible were made law. Once again I ask: Who decides? Your point was a knee jerk anti religious expression. There are very few people that want "all of the Bible" to be the law.
Will pork chops and shrimp cocktail become contraband, available only at Mafia-run restaurants at exorbitant prices? Will the NFL have to change the leather that the ball is made of, or will it be moot since the entire league would be put to death for breaking the Sabbath? Will you be able to go to an emergency room if you have a heart attack on a Sunday? Come to think of it, which day will be the official Sabbath -- Saturday or Sunday? .............All this and I'm not even halfway through Leviticus . . . Your concerns are paranoid fantasies of oppression.Â
... Since there is nothing in the Constitution about steroid users, then what should be done about MLB and the NFL and the NBA and all the other areas where Steroids are now wrecking major-league sports???
Did I give you the impression that I think the feds should do something?
And since these steroids are illegal in so many places, how should we treat Barry Bonds, and all the other "Heroes" of sports, from the last 20 years or more ...? why do you think I care?
Your point was a knee jerk anti religious expression.
The only jerking knee I saw was when I questioned the codification of scripture into law, and you came back with something to the effect of "we might as well make murder and theft legal if that's how you feel."
There are very few people that want "all of the Bible" to be the law.
Precisely my point. When it's convenient, the Bible is used to justify enshrining something in the law, but often inconvenient things in the same chapter are ignored by those same people. Again I ask -- who chooses?
Let's just look at the Ten Commandments, for example. First, which ten? There are differences of opinion between the major faiths about what the Ten Commandments actually are. Protestants, Catholics and Jews use different versions.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
That makes the worship of anything but the G-d of Abraham unlawful, as Christianity didn't exist at the time.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth
All representational art is unlawful, possibly including those little chrome fish.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Dealt with previously. The penalty for breaking the sabbath is death, mentioned in several places. Bye-bye NFL, 24/7 services of any kind, etc.
Honor thy father and thy mother
Are you in favor of the stoning to death of rebellious children, as mentioned in the OT?
Thou shalt not kill.
Finally one we can all agree on, but man has put a lot of conditions on this one to make killing OK when it's convenient.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
If this one was enforced as described in the OT, there'd be a lot of dead preachers as well as regular folk. Oh, yeah -- a strict interpretation makes divorced people who remarry adulterers as well. Uh-oh.
The only jerking knee I saw was when I questioned the codification of scripture into law, and you came back with something to the effect of "we might as well make murder and theft legal if that's how you feel." You lump it all together so as not to deal with any particular issue.
There are very few people that want "all of the Bible" to be the law.
Precisely my point. Precisely not your point. You don't want to deal with the specific issues.When it's convenient, the Bible is used to justify enshrining something in the law, but often inconvenient things in the same chapter are ignored by those same people. Again I ask -- who chooses? The people choose. It is their government. You want, apparently, want to exclude from the discussion anything that remotely could be construed to have anything to do with the Bible.
Let's just look at the Ten Commandments, for example. First, which ten? There are differences of opinion between the major faiths about what the Ten Commandments actually are. Protestants, Catholics and Jews use different versions. Here is a novel idea: let the people decide!
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
That makes the worship of anything but the G-d of Abraham unlawful, as Christianity didn't exist at the time. I am sure that that would be one the people would reject. I don't fear the issue but it appears you do. And, of course, Congress has no power to enact such a law anyway.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth
All representational art is unlawful, possibly including those little chrome fish. Congress can make no law, remember?Â
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Dealt with previously. The penalty for breaking the sabbath is death, mentioned in several places. Bye-bye NFL, 24/7 services of any kind, etc. There were blue laws in this country for a long time, no harm was done. If the people of another state want them, who are you to say otherwise?
Honor thy father and thy mother
Are you in favor of the stoning to death of rebellious children, as mentioned in the OT? Again let the people decide. If someone wants to propose it as a law let them. We can see how far it goes. What are you afraid of? Just for the record I think this one has been decided.
Thou shalt not kill.
Finally one we can all agree on, but man has put a lot of conditions on this one to make killing OK when it's convenient. I think the original was thou shall not murder, but as I have said, let the people decide.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
If this one was enforced as described in the OT, there'd be a lot of dead preachers as well as regular folk. Oh, yeah -- a strict interpretation makes divorced people who remarry adulterers as well. Uh-oh. If the people of another state want such laws, again who are you to say otherwise?
The people choose. It is their government. You want, apparently, want to exclude from the discussion anything that remotely could be construed to have anything to do with the Bible.
so, if "the people" decided to outlaw a certain religion, you would be okay with it? as long as a majority of "the people" say it's okay, it's okay? No protection for the rights of the individual whatsoever?
Congress can make no law, remember?ÂÂ
But states can, right? So, if your car has it's little graven fish image and it's okay in your state but not in the next state, you have to remove it before you drive there or risk imprisonment?
I think the original was thou shall not murder, but as I have said, let the people decide.
and so it comes down to this... bodine thinks that if a majority of a state thinks it's okay to kill someone because of their religion (or anything else for that matter), then they can do that. In bodine's world there are no individual rights whatsoever, only State Totalitarianism and mob rule.
The people choose. It is their government. You want, apparently, want to exclude from the discussion anything that remotely could be construed to have anything to do with the Bible.
No, I want questions of law and policy decided on rational bases, not because some con artist with good hair and an overmascara-ed wife says that an invisible being will strike us dead if we don't pass said law.
The two may be in agreement on many things, but they are two separate types of law.
You start using higher law in place of common law and you degrade both.
Take murder for example... both common law and higher law forbid it. But the reason common law forbids it is because it denies someone of their inalienable right to life. Higher law forbids it too, but because it does harm to the soul of the murderer. The higher law against murder is not the same as the common law against murder. Higher law should only exist between you and your creator, while common law should only be intended for you in regards to your fellow humans.
Higher law may also say that masturbation does harm to one's soul, but it's not against common law because it doesn't hurt anyone else.
This concept is something Thomas Jefferson recognised as being essential to a free nation.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by molegrass on Dec 6, 2004 at 06:22pm.]
but seriously, what's really abnormal is when someone masturbates constantly, like Torpedo... even his name reveals his abnormal fixation with his penis.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by molegrass on Dec 7, 2004 at 07:17am.]
The people choose. It is their government. You want, apparently, want to exclude from the discussion anything that remotely could be construed to have anything to do with the Bible.
No, I want questions of law and policy decided on rational bases, not because some con artist with good hair and an overmascara-ed wife says that an invisible being will strike us dead if we don't pass said law. I see you are anti democratic. That is not news to me.
so, if "the people" decided to outlaw a certain religion, you would be okay with it? as long as a majority of "the people" say it's okay, it's okay? No protection for the rights of the individual whatsoever?
This is why we are a republic and not a democracy.
[Edited by on Dec 3, 2004 at 12:47pm.]
Which parts of scripture do we make law and which do we ignore? Oh my God you are right!!! We better get rid of those laws against murder, stealing and perjury as those are cited in scripture!!!!! But seriously, simply because certain matters are addressed in scripture should not disqualify them from consideration or implementation in current law. Â
[Edited by on Dec 3, 2004 at 01:32pm.]
jethro bodine 12/3/04 1:26pm
Jethro, my point is that the people who want their favorite parts of the Bible made law would be pretty unhappy, if not under a death sentence, if all of the Bible were made law. Once again I ask: Who decides?
Will pork chops and shrimp cocktail become contraband, available only at Mafia-run restaurants at exorbitant prices? Will the NFL have to change the leather that the ball is made of, or will it be moot since the entire league would be put to death for breaking the Sabbath? Will you be able to go to an emergency room if you have a heart attack on a Sunday? Come to think of it, which day will be the official Sabbath -- Saturday or Sunday?
Will museums have to destroy all their graven images of "what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth"? Is a photograph a "graven image"? If covetousness is outlawed, can you be prosecuted for keeping up with the Joneses? Will all purchased male slaves have to be set free in the seventh year, or only the Jewish ones? I assume female slaves will still be slaves for life.
Will Miss Cleo and Sylvia Browne be publicly executed for sorcery? Will the banks and credit-card issuers have to renounce the collection of interest? Would the observance of Universal Precautions during blood offerings at church altars be considered blasphemy? Will Geico be disbanded because its mascot is unclean?
All this and I'm not even halfway through Leviticus . . .
for that matter, will people have to take them little fishes off of their cars?
[Edited by molegrass on Dec 5, 2004 at 02:09am.]
 December parade in Denver will feature everyone from Chinese lion dancers to gay and lesbian shamans, according to the Rocky Mountain News, but not Christians who want to sing yuletide hymns or carry a Merry Christmas message.
Denver pastor George Morrison said his request to enter a float in the annual Parade of Lights, which apparently only coincidentally happens in late December, was rejected because parade officials won't allow any "direct religious themes."
"It's a little confusing to me," said Morrison. "Here we have this holiday, Christmas, approaching, and Parade of Lights is suddenly changed into something where you can't even sing a Christmas song?"
The one-hour parade features elaborate floats with holiday symbols such as Santa Claus and gingerbread houses, plus an "international procession" of cultural groups.
The international portion this year features the Two Spirit Society, which honors gay and lesbian American Indians as holy people; a German folk dance group; and performers of the Lion Dance, a Chinese New Year tradition "meant to chase away evil spirits and welcome good luck and good fortune for the year."
Those groups are considered examples of ethnic diversity, not religious groups, a parade official said.
The Sarasota Herald Tribunesays some schools in Florida are so worked up over the thought of anything smacking of Christianity appearing in classes that they are banning seasonal celebrations altogether.
In this year’s winter concert at Freedom Elementary School in East Manatee students will be singing about America and patriotism instead of about C-----mas and the holidays. Even snowflakes are verboten among the classroom decorations.
"There's a lot of rules and regulations out there," said Freedom Principal Gary Holbrook. "You're trying to be respectful of everyone."
A Georgia principal who read a satirical ditty about how kids today can elect pregnant prom queens and dress like freaks but can’t mention God in school was accused of breaching that pesky line between church and state, reports The Associated Press.
Tommy Craft, principal of Cedar Shoals High School in Athens, apologized for reading a poem entitled "The New School Prayer" over the school's intercom. He said he just wanted to provoke a little thought.
But because the poemsounded sorta like a prayer and mentioned God, some parents complained. "Basically, I found the poem offensive, but even if I didn't, I still would believe it crossed the line between church and state,'' said Ginger Smith, whose daughter is a junior at Cedar Shoals.
The poem has circulated on the Internet since at least 1992 and is written in the rhyming style of the children's prayer that begins "Now I lay me down to sleep."
A sign outside a California church promoting a Sunday sermon titled "Why I Am Not a Muslim" has drawn complaints from some locals who say it is offensive to people of that faith, reports The Associated Press.
The sign outside the Church of the Nazarene in the San Francisco suburb of Sunnyvale is intended to promote a lecture by the Rev. Donald Fareed about his conversion to Christianity and attempts to close the rifts between Christians and Muslims since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
"My goal is not to offend Muslims, but to communicate why I changed my religion," said Fareed, who was born an Iranian Muslim and fled after the Islamist revolution.
But local resident Jay Keller was among a handful who called the sign offensive. "I work with a lot of Muslims and don’t know why someone would put up a sign like that," he said. "They can’t possibly be oblivious to the fact that it might be offensive to some people."
The mayor of Somerville, Mass., has to issue a written apology for daring to refer to the city’s upcoming celebration as a "Christmas party," reports the Somerville Journal.
Mayor Joe Curtatone's apology statement said: "A press release issued from my office last week mistakenly identified this month's City Holiday Party as a 'Christmas Party.' I apologize for the mistake and to anyone who was offended by it. On Dec. 21, City Hall will welcome the entire community to a party honoring all holiday traditions and celebrating this most festive of seasons."
And those Ribbons... Man, people have trivialized the troops and this War, and they will continue to splatter those ribbons all over their bumpers and think they are doing "Something".
Yea what horrible people. They ought to be ashamed. I guess all the people with Kerry bumper stickers thought they were doing something too.
Jethro, my point is that the people who want their favorite parts of the Bible made law would be pretty unhappy, if not under a death sentence, if all of the Bible were made law. Once again I ask: Who decides? Your point was a knee jerk anti religious expression. There are very few people that want "all of the Bible" to be the law.
Will pork chops and shrimp cocktail become contraband, available only at Mafia-run restaurants at exorbitant prices? Will the NFL have to change the leather that the ball is made of, or will it be moot since the entire league would be put to death for breaking the Sabbath? Will you be able to go to an emergency room if you have a heart attack on a Sunday? Come to think of it, which day will be the official Sabbath -- Saturday or Sunday? .............All this and I'm not even halfway through Leviticus . . . Your concerns are paranoid fantasies of oppression.Â
By the way
Jethro
... Since there is nothing in the Constitution about steroid users, then what should be done about MLB and the NFL and the NBA and all the other areas where Steroids are now wrecking major-league sports???
Did I give you the impression that I think the feds should do something?
And since these steroids are illegal in so many places, how should we treat Barry Bonds, and all the other "Heroes" of sports, from the last 20 years
or more
...? why do you think I care?
Â
The only jerking knee I saw was when I questioned the codification of scripture into law, and you came back with something to the effect of "we might as well make murder and theft legal if that's how you feel."
Precisely my point. When it's convenient, the Bible is used to justify enshrining something in the law, but often inconvenient things in the same chapter are ignored by those same people. Again I ask -- who chooses?
Let's just look at the Ten Commandments, for example. First, which ten? There are differences of opinion between the major faiths about what the Ten Commandments actually are. Protestants, Catholics and Jews use different versions.
That makes the worship of anything but the G-d of Abraham unlawful, as Christianity didn't exist at the time.
All representational art is unlawful, possibly including those little chrome fish.
Dealt with previously. The penalty for breaking the sabbath is death, mentioned in several places. Bye-bye NFL, 24/7 services of any kind, etc.
Are you in favor of the stoning to death of rebellious children, as mentioned in the OT?
Finally one we can all agree on, but man has put a lot of conditions on this one to make killing OK when it's convenient.
If this one was enforced as described in the OT, there'd be a lot of dead preachers as well as regular folk. Oh, yeah -- a strict interpretation makes divorced people who remarry adulterers as well. Uh-oh.
[Edited by on Dec 6, 2004 at 11:25am.]
absolutely including those little chrome fish.
take a look at them, they aren't flat. they are three-demensional. They are "graven".
The only jerking knee I saw was when I questioned the codification of scripture into law, and you came back with something to the effect of "we might as well make murder and theft legal if that's how you feel." You lump it all together so as not to deal with any particular issue.
Precisely my point. Precisely not your point. You don't want to deal with the specific issues.When it's convenient, the Bible is used to justify enshrining something in the law, but often inconvenient things in the same chapter are ignored by those same people. Again I ask -- who chooses? The people choose. It is their government. You want, apparently, want to exclude from the discussion anything that remotely could be construed to have anything to do with the Bible.
Let's just look at the Ten Commandments, for example. First, which ten? There are differences of opinion between the major faiths about what the Ten Commandments actually are. Protestants, Catholics and Jews use different versions. Here is a novel idea: let the people decide!
That makes the worship of anything but the G-d of Abraham unlawful, as Christianity didn't exist at the time. I am sure that that would be one the people would reject. I don't fear the issue but it appears you do. And, of course, Congress has no power to enact such a law anyway.
All representational art is unlawful, possibly including those little chrome fish. Congress can make no law, remember?Â
Dealt with previously. The penalty for breaking the sabbath is death, mentioned in several places. Bye-bye NFL, 24/7 services of any kind, etc. There were blue laws in this country for a long time, no harm was done. If the people of another state want them, who are you to say otherwise?
Are you in favor of the stoning to death of rebellious children, as mentioned in the OT? Again let the people decide. If someone wants to propose it as a law let them. We can see how far it goes. What are you afraid of? Just for the record I think this one has been decided.
Finally one we can all agree on, but man has put a lot of conditions on this one to make killing OK when it's convenient. I think the original was thou shall not murder, but as I have said, let the people decide.
If this one was enforced as described in the OT, there'd be a lot of dead preachers as well as regular folk. Oh, yeah -- a strict interpretation makes divorced people who remarry adulterers as well. Uh-oh. If the people of another state want such laws, again who are you to say otherwise?
so, if "the people" decided to outlaw a certain religion, you would be okay with it? as long as a majority of "the people" say it's okay, it's okay? No protection for the rights of the individual whatsoever?
But states can, right? So, if your car has it's little graven fish image and it's okay in your state but not in the next state, you have to remove it before you drive there or risk imprisonment?
and so it comes down to this... bodine thinks that if a majority of a state thinks it's okay to kill someone because of their religion (or anything else for that matter), then they can do that. In bodine's world there are no individual rights whatsoever, only State Totalitarianism and mob rule.
No, I want questions of law and policy decided on rational bases, not because some con artist with good hair and an overmascara-ed wife says that an invisible being will strike us dead if we don't pass said law.
There is common law and there is higher law.
The two may be in agreement on many things, but they are two separate types of law.
You start using higher law in place of common law and you degrade both.
Take murder for example... both common law and higher law forbid it. But the reason common law forbids it is because it denies someone of their inalienable right to life. Higher law forbids it too, but because it does harm to the soul of the murderer. The higher law against murder is not the same as the common law against murder. Higher law should only exist between you and your creator, while common law should only be intended for you in regards to your fellow humans.
Higher law may also say that masturbation does harm to one's soul, but it's not against common law because it doesn't hurt anyone else.
This concept is something Thomas Jefferson recognised as being essential to a free nation.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by molegrass on Dec 6, 2004 at 06:22pm.]
Higher law may also say that masturbation does harm to one's soul
Lucky for you, Crabby.
You don't masturbate?
That would explain a lot... what kind of freak doesn't masturbate?
Does your religion really have you THAT hung up about sexuality?
They have a word for people who masturbate... it's called "normal".
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by molegrass on Dec 6, 2004 at 07:40pm.]
Heh! crabhole giving a lecture on normal. And they say he isn't funny.
I was joking around Crabby.
so was I.
but seriously, what's really abnormal is when someone masturbates constantly, like Torpedo... even his name reveals his abnormal fixation with his penis.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by molegrass on Dec 7, 2004 at 07:17am.]
Sometimes a torpedo is just a torpedo
No, I want questions of law and policy decided on rational bases, not because some con artist with good hair and an overmascara-ed wife says that an invisible being will strike us dead if we don't pass said law. I see you are anti democratic. That is not news to me.
I seem to recall telling crabhole not to talk about me.
notices Torpedo didn't deny his excessive masturation problem.
Notices Crabby's obsession with Torpedo jerkin his gerkin.
heh!
no more than your's with mine
no more than your's with mine
How do you get that?
I'm not the one that brought this subject up.
I used it to explain a point I was making about common law and higher law.
You made a joke.
I made a joke.
I can't help but notice that your joke has resulted in your managing to ingore the point I was making altogether.
I scanned your post, but I didn't want to get into the whole "inalienable rights" thing again.
Especially when they're "endowed by their creator", which you don't recognize anyway so I don't understand the stance you take.
Strange, but our normal roles have sort of flip flopped on this subject.
I find "rights" to be given by man. You seem to find them "endowed by their creator".
But like I said, I don't want to get into that again.
But like I said, I don't want to get into that again.
I recognize, you obviously don't understand what I believe at all.
[Edited by molegrass on Dec 8, 2004 at 11:30pm.]
I'm sorry, I should have said respect instead of recognize.
I respect the Constitution, you obviously do not.
I respect that which deserves it.
I respect the Constitution, you obviously do not.
When it serves your purpose.
the 2nd Amendment doesn't serve my purpose whatsoever.
so no.
You called that one, JT.
so, if "the people" decided to outlaw a certain religion, you would be okay with it? as long as a majority of "the people" say it's okay, it's okay? No protection for the rights of the individual whatsoever?
This is why we are a republic and not a democracy.
jethro, you listening?
jethro, you listening?
The people are a herd of asses.
Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups
in any sufficiently large group of people, most are idiots
artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
I can see that Moral Values has no regard for democracy. In that regard he has a lot in common with Saddam, Osama, Hitler and Stalin.
This is a republic. Why do you hate America?
as I said before, call it democracy or republic it is a difference without much meaning.
That's a crock.
ah yes... the beauty of debate.