Quote:
Originally posted by j8ear
I have never...nor do I suspect I ever will comment on spelling or grammer.
|
Given the spelling error in that sentence, I see why.
Quote:
Originally posted by j8ear
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.
|
Not an effective jab if no one gets it but you. It's like back in seventh grade when we all learned the swears in the language we were taking and swore at our friends in the other classes.
Quote:
Originally posted by j8ear
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.
|
lurkette handled this most admirably, and I doff my cap to her.
Quote:
Originally posted by j8ear
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.
|
Lumping the rest into one:
The seven deadly sins are:
Pride
Sloth
Gluttony
Rage
Envy
Lust
Greed
None of these are affected by law in the least. You are free to engage in all of these sins, and encouraged to do some of them (gluttony, greed, lust, pride) by American societal pressures. The Golden Rule, as lurkette said, is not Christian, nor religious at all, so your appropriating it for your argument is not allowed!
You can do your smurf impression all day, but let's get some facts in here.
Here is something to read. Note this:
"Largely because of this prohibition against government regulation
or endorsement of religion..." and "
Yet the government plays almost no role in promoting, endorsing or funding religious institutions or religious beliefs. Free from government control -- and
without government assistance..."
I'd say a Federal judge promoting the commandments would count as endorsement.