Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are the inflexible extremist reactionary, no rational conservative, no mature Christian.
You mistake your "feelings" with what really happened.
You need to grow spiritually.
I am Republican, have been chair of the county and regional organization, and while we want your vote, we don't want your type making policy.
Look, ma, I can post at the top too. Ah yes, so now we see where your liberal views will take us. In your relativistic world, eventually honor killings will be fine in certain communities in America. Any way the wind blows, right?
Deflection.
However, within our code, citizens can agree to arbitration based on certain standards, whether bishop's courts or shar'ia contract, as long as that does conflict with statutory or constitutional restraint of such.
Go back and read your participation in the thread.
Read everyone else.
Get out your dictionary and read.
Act polite, and you will get it in return.
And your little threats? Pssh.
Wow, repeat back to me what I just said to you. Now that's a new one.
UR! Stop!! Look at me!!! Look me in the eye. Do you understand "religious", "religious influence", "church", and "organized religion"?
Do not use them interchangeability. Look them up if you don't understand them.
Now stay focused!
Well, now that makes perfect sense. You were making those 33,000 posts while on the Government clock siphoning off taxpayers hard earned money while you dinked around on internet. Let's Facebook and get to know each other. Take the anonymity away so respect can flourish.
You don't read is your problem. Look at your silly post of imagination immediately above.
I am the manager of a set of successful family owned businesses throughout the south, after my time on active duty and with citi. I probably make in two years what you earned in your police career.
You are, according to the far right extremist reactionaries, a "parasite" with your inflated police pension. I don't happen to think that myself, but it is what it is on the far right: dream land.
Threaten and pay the price. Be polite and get nice.
Capiche?
Well, now that makes perfect sense. You were making those 33,000 posts while on the Government clock siphoning off taxpayers hard earned money while you dinked around on internet. Let's Facebook and get to know each other. Take the anonymity away so respect can flourish.
You are the only one that has made a threat and I guarantee I make way more money in one year than you have in the last five. I am bigger than you too and my dad can beat you up.
Are you reading what you just posted? So mature. Facebook. Just PM me and I will friend you.
You don't read is your problem. Look at your silly post of imagination immediately above.
I am the manager of a set of successful family owned businesses throughout the south, after my time on active duty and with citi. I probably make in two years what you earned in your police career.
You are, according to the far right extremist reactionaries, a "parasite" with your inflated police pension. I don't happen to think that myself, but it is what it is on the far right: dream land.
Threaten and pay the price. Be polite and get nice.
Capiche?
Well, now that makes perfect sense. You were making those 33,000 posts while on the Government clock siphoning off taxpayers hard earned money while you dinked around on internet. Let's Facebook and get to know each other. Take the anonymity away so respect can flourish.
It didn't used to be that way....it's only been a short time that people have said this. Keep saying it enough people will believe it......
Let's look at the little post that started this whole legal discussion. Now can anyone count how many strawmen were erected in response? Last post said I claimed our legal system is based on the Bible. This is a fact not disputed by any attorney or historian. However, no where is this thread was the claim made it was exclusively on the Bible, which is the main strawmen that started crawling out of the ground like zombies. So many posters bring so much of a constrained worldview to this thread, they think they know what is being said before it is being said.
Seriously? Our legal standard was based in Christianity. Why would I expect you to know this since you and others here are bent on rewriting history. However, if you would like to educate yourself, you can study these links. If not, remain in your ignorance. Please just don't pretend you know what you are talking about when trying to put down others. The Blackstone was used as the basic law book up until the mid to late 1800's, when it was replaced by Darwin followers at Harvard, who viewed the law as not absolute, but evolving. The basic theme of he Blackstone is "does the law we seek conform to the Bible?".
William Blackstone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://constitution.org/18th/ale1762/ale1762_001-050.pdf
I will await your PM internet tough guy.
Your comment about the baton reminds me of a line from the movie The Untouchables, something about bringing a knife to a gunfight.
Don't dish what you can't take, whiner.
You will be batoned down here when you act out.
So mature. And so bossy for someone hiding behind their keyboard. Why don't you post up a link to your Facebook account so you can friend me, and then we can dispense with the anonymous enabling internet courage thing. Or you can just pm me with it if you don't want everyone knowing who you really are.
Regardless of the context, you still got owned. You claimed it wasn't there and you were flat wrong.
The "context" (mambie, pambie) used in the Constitution was "OUR" "LORD". That is not some impersonal diety in a galaxy far, far away. A possesive pronoun was used for a purpose. Those signing the Constitutions acknowledged by their signatures that "LORD" was indeed "their" personal "LORD". Now feel free to go off on another tangent about them being cult members or Satanic followers because the word "LORD" did not have a definition written behind it for the willfully ignorant. But, please provide some evidence for your "braying".
"IF" those signing the Constitution disagreed with that (if they were all truly deists and atheists) why would they have not had that word changed to "the" or "a"?
That's so silly. In your haste to insert your gods into the constitution, you have mistaken a closing salutation for some relevance to constitutional law.
The bottom line is very common sense related: the FF's knew that religions tend to propogate and that religions tend to be negatively disposed toward those not of that particular religion.
We don't have to guess at their intent in forming a thoroughly secular constitution, we only have to see what they wrote. The writers expressly and intentionally left out any mention of Lord, Jehovah, Gawds, Yahweh, etc., as some of the gods extant at the time.
The contention of the U.S. as a "christian nation" was specifically rejected by the framers of the constitution. Your hope to create the U.S. as a totalitarian fear society of christian fundies is expressly not what the framers of the Constitution intended. As much as you and other fundies would like to strip away fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, our Supreme Court, in upholding the constitution, has wisely overridden you.
I will await your PM internet tough guy.
Your comment about the baton reminds me of a line from the movie The Untouchables, something about bringing a knife to a gunfight.
Don't dish what you can't take, whiner.
You will be batoned down here when you act out.
Interesting.
The "context" (mambie, pambie) used in the Constitution was "OUR" "LORD". That is not some impersonal diety in a galaxy far, far away. A possesive pronoun was used for a purpose. Those signing the Constitutions acknowledged by their signatures that "LORD" was indeed "their" personal "LORD". Now feel free to go off on another tangent about them being cult members or Satanic followers because the word "LORD" did not have a definition written behind it for the willfully ignorant. But, please provide some evidence for your "braying".
"IF" those signing the Constitution disagreed with that (if they were all truly deists and atheists) why would they have not had that word changed to "the" or "a"?
That's so silly. In your haste to insert your gods into the constitution, you have mistaken a closing salutation for some relevance to constitutional law.
The bottom line is very common sense related: the FF's knew that religions tend to propogate and that religions tend to be negatively disposed toward those not of that particular religion.
We don't have to guess at their intent in forming a thoroughly secular constitution, we only have to see what they wrote. The writers expressly and intentionally left out any mention of Lord, Jehovah, Gawds, Yahweh, etc., as some of the gods extant at the time.
The contention of the U.S. as a "christian nation" was specifically rejected by the framers of the constitution. Your hope to create the U.S. as a totalitarian fear society of christian fundies is expressly not what the framers of the Constitution intended. As much as you and other fundies would like to strip away fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, our Supreme Court, in upholding the constitution, has wisely overridden you.
I did not seek to insert the Lord into the Constitution. A person said that there was not a "single" reference to God in the Constitution. I proved them wrong.
Now the willfully ignorant want to pretend that our calendar is not based on the greatest event in human history: the birth of our Savior. They deceive themselves into bearing false witness against the FF by implying that was the only calendar system used at that time. This is a falsehood. If this country had been founded by Arabs, the calendar would be different. If this country had been founded by atheist, they could have declared themselves the "creators" of the country and started a brand new calendar. Even as a child, I was taught the importance of "AD" and "BC", in reference to the Lord. I cannot imagine how Biblically literate the FF were without the distractions of the electronic age. You are displaying your falseness to any that read this thread.
Sorry, you, should not mention "common sense". The FF wanted no organized Christian DENOMINATION to be promoted by the gov't. The people that signed the Constitution and made up the newly formed gov't were very much practicing Christians. Those people came together and decided that there would be no gov't order that the people of this nation (varying Christian denominations) would be forced to follow a particular Christian DENOMINATION. They knew with the first Amendment that all the Christians could practice their "denominations". There were many that did not attend church on a regular basis due to geography and the location of their homes at a good distance from population centers. Walking miles and miles for Sunday services was not convenient. There are very, very few documented cases of atheists settlers, if any.
If a country is made of practicing Christians, it is, by default a Christian nation. Because the freedom offered by Christianity is a welcome refuge to other religions does not change that fact.
If Buddahism or Hinduism had such a strong "influence", then why don't we have "caste" systems? Why is the underlying belief that every individual is unique and special in their own way (something that is not promoted in: Hinduism, Buddahism, or islam)? Why do we teach that "everyone" is equal under the law (that justice is blind)? Again, something that is not promoted in the other big 3 religions.
The signatures were not affixed to the attestation (notarization) of Anno Domini. The attestation was affixed to the document.
No legal scholar considers that the attestation according to law meant the signers were affixing their belief in Jesus Christ.
Grow up.
Regardless of the context, you still got owned. You claimed it wasn't there and you were flat wrong.
The "context" (mambie, pambie) used in the Constitution was "OUR" "LORD". That is not some impersonal diety in a galaxy far, far away. A possesive pronoun was used for a purpose. Those signing the Constitutions acknowledged by their signatures that "LORD" was indeed "their" personal "LORD". Now feel free to go off on another tangent about them being cult members or Satanic followers because the word "LORD" did not have a definition written behind it for the willfully ignorant. But, please provide some evidence for your "braying".
"IF" those signing the Constitution disagreed with that (if they were all truly deists and atheists) why would they have not had that word changed to "the" or "a"?
The "context" (mambie, pambie) used in the Constitution was "OUR" "LORD". That is not some impersonal diety in a galaxy far, far away. A possesive pronoun was used for a purpose. Those signing the Constitutions acknowledged by their signatures that "LORD" was indeed "their" personal "LORD". Now feel free to go off on another tangent about them being cult members or Satanic followers because the word "LORD" did not have a definition written behind it for the willfully ignorant. But, please provide some evidence for your "braying".
"IF" those signing the Constitution disagreed with that (if they were all truly deists and atheists) why would they have not had that word changed to "the" or "a"?
That's so silly. In your haste to insert your gods into the constitution, you have mistaken a closing salutation for some relevance to constitutional law.
The bottom line is very common sense related: the FF's knew that religions tend to propogate and that religions tend to be negatively disposed toward those not of that particular religion.
We don't have to guess at their intent in forming a thoroughly secular constitution, we only have to see what they wrote. The writers expressly and intentionally left out any mention of Lord, Jehovah, Gawds, Yahweh, etc., as some of the gods extant at the time.
The contention of the U.S. as a "christian nation" was specifically rejected by the framers of the constitution. Your hope to create the U.S. as a totalitarian fear society of christian fundies is expressly not what the framers of the Constitution intended. As much as you and other fundies would like to strip away fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, our Supreme Court, in upholding the constitution, has wisely overridden you.
I did not seek to insert the Lord into the Constitution. A person said that there was not a "single" reference to God in the Constitution. I proved them wrong.
Now the willfully ignorant want to pretend that our calendar is not based on the greatest event in human history: the birth of our Savior. They deceive themselves into bearing false witness against the FF by implying that was the only calendar system used at that time. This is a falsehood. If this country had been founded by Arabs, the calendar would be different. If this country had been founded by atheist, they could have declared themselves the "creators" of the country and started a brand new calendar. Even as a child, I was taught the importance of "AD" and "BC", in reference to the Lord. I cannot imagine how Biblically literate the FF were without the distractions of the electronic age. You are displaying your falseness to any that read this thread.
Sorry, you, should not mention "common sense". The FF wanted no organized Christian DENOMINATION to be promoted by the gov't. The people that signed the Constitution and made up the newly formed gov't were very much practicing Christians. Those people came together and decided that there would be no gov't order that the people of this nation (varying Christian denominations) would be forced to follow a particular Christian DENOMINATION. They knew with the first Amendment that all the Christians could practice their "denominations". There were many that did not attend church on a regular basis due to geography and the location of their homes at a good distance from population centers. Walking miles and miles for Sunday services was not convenient. There are very, very few documented cases of atheists settlers, if any.
If a country is made of practicing Christians, it is, by default a Christian nation. Because the freedom offered by Christianity is a welcome refuge to other religions does not change that fact.
If Buddahism or Hinduism had such a strong "influence", then why don't we have "caste" systems? Why is the underlying belief that every individual is unique and special in their own way (something that is not promoted in: Hinduism, Buddahism, or islam)? Why do we teach that "everyone" is equal under the law (that justice is blind)? Again, something that is not promoted in the other big 3 religions.
The signatures were not affixed to the attestation (notarization) of Anno Domini. The attestation was affixed to the document.
No legal scholar considers that the attestation according to law meant the signers were affixing their belief in Jesus Christ.
Grow up.
The "context" (mambie, pambie) used in the Constitution was "OUR" "LORD". That is not some impersonal diety in a galaxy far, far away. A possesive pronoun was used for a purpose. Those signing the Constitutions acknowledged by their signatures that "LORD" was indeed "their" personal "LORD". Now feel free to go off on another tangent about them being cult members or Satanic followers because the word "LORD" did not have a definition written behind it for the willfully ignorant. But, please provide some evidence for your "braying".
"IF" those signing the Constitution disagreed with that (if they were all truly deists and atheists) why would they have not had that word changed to "the" or "a"?
When you sign a "contract", are you signing your agreement for "everything" that is written there?
I was asked to provide a single reference to God in the Constitution. I did that. Now the braying starts.
I'm waiting to hear how atheists and deists are supposed to measure years without the approximate birth of Christ as a frame of reference.
well, i'm neither a deist nor an atheist, but we measure it by the "common era". does it really matter for purposes of whether or not the US was ever intended to be religious in nature?
The signatures were not affixed to the attestation (notarization) of Anno Domini. The attestation was affixed to the document.
No legal scholar considers that the attestation according to law meant the signers were affixing their belief in Jesus Christ.
Grow up.
The "context" (mambie, pambie) used in the Constitution was "OUR" "LORD". That is not some impersonal diety in a galaxy far, far away. A possesive pronoun was used for a purpose. Those signing the Constitutions acknowledged by their signatures that "LORD" was indeed "their" personal "LORD". Now feel free to go off on another tangent about them being cult members or Satanic followers because the word "LORD" did not have a definition written behind it for the willfully ignorant. But, please provide some evidence for your "braying".
"IF" those signing the Constitution disagreed with that (if they were all truly deists and atheists) why would they have not had that word changed to "the" or "a"?
When you sign a "contract", are you signing your agreement for "everything" that is written there?
I was asked to provide a single reference to God in the Constitution. I did that. Now the braying starts.
The signatures were not affixed to the attestation (notarization) of Anno Domini. The attestation was affixed to the document.
No legal scholar considers that the attestation according to law meant the signers were affixing their belief in Jesus Christ.
Grow up.
no. no normal person thinks a notary saying Anno Domini was the signer's assertion of a belief in any deity.
We are born with our natural rights. No one gives them to us...they just are.I'm waiting to hear how atheists and deists are supposed to measure years without the approximate birth of Christ as a frame of reference.
well, i'm neither a deist nor an atheist, but we measure it by the "common era". does it really matter for purposes of whether or not the US was ever intended to be religious in nature?
Only if you want to differentiate if "our" rights are granted by a greater than man force (the Creator), or if you want to elevate gov't to the grantor of basic rights (those listed in the Bill of Rights).
BTW, in countries that have given the gov't the power to grant rights, human rights aren't doing so well.
It is okay, you can admit that you like riding the prosperity of Christians, but want to be free to revel in corruption whenever you want to, and how you please.
The signatures were not affixed to the attestation (notarization) of Anno Domini. The attestation was affixed to the document.
No legal scholar considers that the attestation according to law meant the signers were affixing their belief in Jesus Christ.
Grow up.
no. no normal person thinks a notary saying Anno Domini was the signer's assertion of a belief in any deity.
As you said before, they could pretend, and use the lukewarm CE (common era), contridicting yourself so quickly?
