Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Alabama Justice Won't Remove Commandments

j8ear · 08-19-2003, 05:37 AM

I have never...nor do I suspect I ever will comment on spelling or grammer.

Actually there is something much more significant about :"school in summer"...some one will figure it out. It's a jab to be sure, at somoeone who brags about coveting.

I fail to see how a judge of any demonination forcing someone to wear ANYTHING is in anyway shape or form relates to the discussion at hand.

Ten Commandments in the court house vs a judge forcing women to wear a veil? What's the connection.

Nor do I see a relevance to what sect of religion it stems or what our countries form of government is based on.

To discount as irrevlevant civil law because it's "fucked up" as you claimed is rediculous, K...it's us...here and now, and it, as was criminal law, directly influenced by the ten commandments.

I'll let the dude defend his own definitions. He didn't ask anything...he told us how his ideas of the commandments restrictions were not applicable. I think his thought process has been exposed as non-sensical.

"the government" simply wanting to ensure that public servants server the public, and not just their vision if God, is laudible. Yet how is it possible. Must you then discriminated against those who believe in God? Otherwise their vision will interfere or even influence or even worse INSPIRE their work? I think using your arguements that indeed you must. ONLY declared athiests should be allowed to work for the government...ever. Is this what you believe? Do you really believe that religion has no place in the lives of those who serve the public? Is it even possible?

You never answered my questions about the Seven Deadly Sins...or the Golden Rule. What's your take on them?

bear

It is my firm belief...and no amount of quibbling about orgins or previous supreme court rulings...that for the government to attempt in ANY WAY SHAPE OR form to pass laws regulating religion, or the practice there of...IS A VIOLATION OF the constitution. That's it. We can argue till I'm blue in the face.

That's exactly what the applicable ammendment (exclusively) says regarding these matters.

08-19-2003, 05:37 AM	#63 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	I have never...nor do I suspect I ever will comment on spelling or grammer. Actually there is something much more significant about :"school in summer"...some one will figure it out. It's a jab to be sure, at somoeone who brags about coveting. I fail to see how a judge of any demonination forcing someone to wear ANYTHING is in anyway shape or form relates to the discussion at hand. Ten Commandments in the court house vs a judge forcing women to wear a veil? What's the connection. Nor do I see a relevance to what sect of religion it stems or what our countries form of government is based on. To discount as irrevlevant civil law because it's "fucked up" as you claimed is rediculous, K...it's us...here and now, and it, as was criminal law, directly influenced by the ten commandments. I'll let the dude defend his own definitions. He didn't ask anything...he told us how his ideas of the commandments restrictions were not applicable. I think his thought process has been exposed as non-sensical. "the government" simply wanting to ensure that public servants server the public, and not just their vision if God, is laudible. Yet how is it possible. Must you then discriminated against those who believe in God? Otherwise their vision will interfere or even influence or even worse INSPIRE their work? I think using your arguements that indeed you must. ONLY declared athiests should be allowed to work for the government...ever. Is this what you believe? Do you really believe that religion has no place in the lives of those who serve the public? Is it even possible? You never answered my questions about the Seven Deadly Sins...or the Golden Rule. What's your take on them? bear It is my firm belief...and no amount of quibbling about orgins or previous supreme court rulings...that for the government to attempt in ANY WAY SHAPE OR form to pass laws regulating religion, or the practice there of...IS A VIOLATION OF the constitution. That's it. We can argue till I'm blue in the face. That's exactly what the applicable ammendment (exclusively) says regarding these matters. __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.