Connecting Singles^® Forums100% Free Online Dating

LOL

yea, I'm short ...but wiry

In a display would mean it's like a novelty or a show, which can even travel to other locations. On display would be more like the sidearm the bailiff is wearing, meaning he'll use it if necessary.

Plain enough?

So NOW religion IS a part of it. This is progress.

And religious freedom was an add on to the list of reasons the colonies wanted to be independant. The origional reason was unfair british tax laws. (boston tea party, stamp act) One of the reasons that wondows with muttons are called colonial. Glass was taxed according to size, so the colonists bought smaller pieces of class to save on the tax imposed by the british.

Here's a list of events leading up to the revolutionary war.

Freedom of religon, though PART of it, is not the main reason for the revolution. Though it is often misinterpreted as being such.

The following events represent the major events along the way to war. While it would be hard to point to any one event that singularly led to the Revolution, there is no doubt that the American view that they were entitled to the full democratic rights of Englishmen, while the British view that the American colonies were just colonies to be used and exploited in whatever way best suited the Great Britain, insured that war was inevitable.

I went all the way back to find what it was he said, and it looks to me like he took up from the tea party. and yes that was because the king was imposing his tax his rule over here.
But I had said we left england and religion was a big factor!
If we are going to disagree shouldnt we be in the same year and in the same country?

So post a thread and expect no debate?

Rediculous.

Funny thing about you gnome, you push and push to try to make someone so irrate that you look good. Kinda the same strategy I used against bullies like you wen I was younger.

Example....bringing up Trish's personal background in a public forum to make her so mad that she might get belligerant. Doesn't work on me.


Still waiting for the PHYSICAL quote where I changed my mind.......

Judge Roy Moore's Lawless Battle:

Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama has built his career on demagoguing about the Ten Commandments. As an obscure state court judge, he posted the commandments on a wall behind his bench, and used the controversy over the display to get himself elected to Alabama's highest judicial post. Once in office he installed a two-and-a-half-ton Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of the main judicial building in Montgomery. When two federal courts ordered him to remove it, he resisted, claiming that he is an independent constitutional officer. Now that he is facing a court deadline of Aug. 20, he is milking the drama for all it's worth. He says he will announce tomorrow whether he will comply.

There is a very serious principle at risk in Justice Moore's grandstanding. The federal Constitution applies to the states, and the federal courts are its ultimate interpreter. Justice Moore's desire to ignore the Constitution's mandates on the separation of church and state has an uncomfortable resemblance to the arguments Gov. George Wallace made when he mounted his stand in the "schoolhouse door" to block blacks from enrolling at the University of Alabama.

Justice Moore's disturbing crusade recently spread to Congress, where the House of Representatives attached an amendment to an appropriations bill that would ban the use of federal funds to enforce the order to remove the Ten Commandments monument. The Senate must make sure that this lawless provision does not find its way into the final bill, and members of both houses of Congress should make clear that this sort of attack on federal judicial power is unacceptable.

Attorney General John Ashcroft, the nation's highest law enforcement officer, has a special duty to stand up, as his predecessors did in the civil rights era, for the authority of the federal courts. But Justice Moore can spare the nation a divisive constitutional showdown, and himself further embarrassment, by announcing that he will obey the law.

GNOME, I said that at the beginning.....

only a part...but the unfair tax laws were the real reason....DUH

There yo ugo little gnomie....said it from the beginning...an ally of your's was kind enough to prove my point...

Not only that..but it was to be with other historical documents...not on it's own!!!!!!!!

still waiting for the quote.....

Ok Let's take it slow.
You state above that The commandments were a part of what our laws are based on.

You have also said that they are not in a previous post.

I maintain that they are a reference point to our laws, a portion of the foundation of Western Legal history, if you will.

I have no great love or respect for Mr. Moore. Ido know however that judges can be VERY tempermental in what they consider THIER courtroom. Personally I have reservations about prayer in government, but it IS a simple fact that prayer IS a part of our government. Congress has a chaplain who delivers an opening prayer, or at least did until relatively recently. IAt our City Council meeting they offered prayers, knowing full well we were going to do things in the meeting that would be detrimental to some of those affected. How do you ask a blessing on a vote to fire an employee. The only prayer I felt comfortable with was one that asked for guidance in our decesions. But it all boils down to community standards.

I didn't write this...I just re-posted it...apparently they look at them as a small portion in a historical sense....that's the reason they could have been posted with other historical documents....

I don't look at it that way....I look at it purely from a law perspective and not a religious perspective....Religion to me has no place in a court-room or court-house...it is to be totally unbiased and seen as supporting nobody one way or the other when it comes to religion...race...class of people etc...The Constitution represents the law of the land and there are NOT just Christians in the land...The very essence of The 1st Ammendment is seperation between Church and State for this very reason....If you read my 20 reasons for Church and State seperation...it backs up entirely what I am saying right now!!!!!!

By the way this is the way the law is in any democracy...including Canada....

Which is the point we've been trying to make since the beginning, but those who believe always turn a debate into "my way" or "highway" mentality.

So why not MY way?

Because THAT'S not religious freedom.

Do you think that if a judge put a sign up that said "There is no GOD." that there wouldn't be an uproar?

Or if the judge was a muslim and convicted defendants based on the fact that they ate Christman Ham and the koran forbids eating pork?

I like these threads....intellegent minds site facts.

Believers debate with opnion.

Don't remember that in even high school level dabates.

Shit, back then we were even civil enough to not call people names. Not the people in this thread who time and again poke their stick to try to piss off who ever they can because they have nothing else left to argue...

So wher do we stop.
No display of anything religious in a courtroom right?
So no wood, (not even Imitation) might offend the Druids
No leather- PETA ( they think they are a religion)
No Gavel- Norse mythology
No robes- Too much like roman Togas
Not in a building- gotta be in the woods for the wiccans

If we follow your logic we must remove ANY and ALL items, procedures, etc that might be offensive to, or promote ANY religious belief. Since we have innnumerable religions in The USA, I believe it would be impractical if not impossible to create a non threatening coiurtroom.

LOL Hey who is twisting now? I put it there to remind you that you had Oh screw it I forgot why now!

No silly.....symbols and rules are two different things, I'm afraid. Thor's hammer(gavel....stretch)

Actually your whole post is a pretty big stretch. Robes are used because the western Jurisprudence is based on ancient Roman courts.(HISTORICAL, not RELIGIOUS)

Commandment 1 reads "I am the lord your God, you shall have no other besides me."

I suppose to you that means "I am the lord your God, but you can ahve a bunch of other ones, just don't display them in a courtroom, where MY commandments are, because that's just wong because I'm the only god"

preposterous

I never changed my stance....posting what you did reinforced that....

that is his plan with his so called war is to get you confused, don't let him, keep your faith it will be his downfall.

The Godless Constitution:

The word "God" does not appear within the text of the Constitution of the United States. After spending three-and-a-half months debating and negotiating about what should go into the document that would govern the land, the framers drafted a constitution that is secular. The U.S. Constitution is often confused with the Declaration of Independence, and it's important to understand the difference.

The Declaration of Independence is seen as that document that established the new nation of the United States. It was written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776. It was signed by the Continental Congress and sent to King George III of England. It is a very eloquent document that is celebrated every July 4, but it is not the law of the land. It is a statement of sentiments directed to King George III in reaction to unfair taxation. The U.S. Constitution was ratified on March 4, 1789 -- thirteen years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence refers to "the Creator:"

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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document; it is not the U.S. Constitution. Foes of the principle of separation of church and state often refer to the word "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence as proof that the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended for the United States to be ruled by a soveriegn being. Nothing could be further from the truth. The United States Constitution was written and ratified by elected officials representing a coalition of Enlightenment rationalists and evangelical Christians who were deeply concerned about entanglements between religion and government.


From Legacy Of Freedom by Rob Boston, Church and State, January, 2003. "Jefferson, Madison And The Nation's Founders Left Us Church-State Separation. Can We Keep It?"

What the Religious Right doesn't tell people, and what, tragically, many Amer­icans apparently don't know, is that when it comes to determining what the laws of the United States mean, the only document that matters is the Consti­tution. The Constitution, a completely secular document, contains no references to God, Jesus or Christianity. It says absolutely nothing about the United States being officially Christian. The Religious Right's constant appeals to documents like the Declaration of Independence, which contains a deistic reference to "the Creator," cloud the issue and make some people believe their rights spring from these other documents.The Godless Constitution was written by two professors of government and history at Cornell University. Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore have spent their careers studying religion in American life. Some quotes from their book:[/b]

The preamble of the Constitution invokes the people of the United States. It does not invoke any sort of God

The Constitution forbids any religious test to hold office. A godless person is just as eligible as a godly one! (Article 6, Paragraph 3)

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin strongly suggested on June 28 that the convention have prayers said there. Evangelists take this as proof that the convention then went on with prayers. But, in fact, the convention did not accept the suggestion, and the convention went on without prayers.