Discussion:
Another Ten Commandments Case:
(too old to reply)
buckeye
2008-08-01 09:34:45 UTC
Permalink
SOURCE: EXCERPT Journal of Church and State Volume 50 Spring 2008 Number
2, * Notes on Church-State Affairs David W. Hendon and Charles
McDaniel 393

Another Ten Commandments Case: The U.S. Supreme Court decided in April to
hear yet another case involving the display of the Ten Commandments on
government property. This case from Pleasant Grove, Utah, stems from the
decision of a federal appeals court that a public park in the city that
displays a privately donated Ten Commandments monument must also display
the Seven Aphorisms of the Summum, the foundational tenets of a faith
tradition that was started by a former member of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saints. The American Center for Law and Justice, founded by
Pat Robertson, has weighed in on the matter and, despite its traditional
support for individual religious expression, the organization is supporting
the right of the city of Pleasant Grove to reject the display of the Seven
Aphorisms based on the fact that the location for the display is a publicly
funded park and thus constitutes "government speech" and not private
speech.

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS ยท Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
Jack
2008-08-05 15:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by buckeye
SOURCE: EXCERPT Journal of Church and State Volume 50 Spring 2008 Number
2, * Notes on Church-State Affairs David W. Hendon and Charles
McDaniel 393
Another Ten Commandments Case: The U.S. Supreme Court decided in April to
hear yet another case involving the display of the Ten Commandments on
government property.
If the courthouse displays the ten commandments, they court should have to
follow them including Thou Shall Not Kill meaning no more executions.
mariposas rand mair fheal
2008-08-05 16:39:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack
Post by buckeye
SOURCE: EXCERPT Journal of Church and State Volume 50 Spring 2008 Number
2, * Notes on Church-State Affairs David W. Hendon and Charles
McDaniel 393
Another Ten Commandments Case: The U.S. Supreme Court decided in April to
hear yet another case involving the display of the Ten Commandments on
government property.
If the courthouse displays the ten commandments, they court should have to
follow them including Thou Shall Not Kill meaning no more executions.
the law is to not murder
the remainder of the law includes capital punishment
as well as compensation for various types of non-murder homicide

what is more relevant to christians is what jesus taught
jesus did not set capital punishment
he merely pointed out the hypocrisy of sinners executing to eradicate sin

let he who is without sin throw the first stone
since it would heretical for a christian to declare himself without sin
it means christians would hypocrites if they execute people

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven
Jack
2008-08-05 17:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
Post by Jack
Post by buckeye
SOURCE: EXCERPT Journal of Church and State Volume 50 Spring 2008 Number
2, * Notes on Church-State Affairs David W. Hendon and Charles
McDaniel 393
Another Ten Commandments Case: The U.S. Supreme Court decided in April to
hear yet another case involving the display of the Ten Commandments on
government property.
If the courthouse displays the ten commandments, they court should have to
follow them including Thou Shall Not Kill meaning no more executions.
the law is to not murder
the remainder of the law includes capital punishment
as well as compensation for various types of non-murder homicide
what is more relevant to christians is what jesus taught
jesus did not set capital punishment
he merely pointed out the hypocrisy of sinners executing to eradicate sin
let he who is without sin throw the first stone
since it would heretical for a christian to declare himself without sin
it means christians would hypocrites if they execute people
arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven
Oh.
Mike Painter
2008-08-05 23:42:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack
Post by buckeye
SOURCE: EXCERPT Journal of Church and State Volume 50 Spring 2008 Number
2, * Notes on Church-State Affairs David W. Hendon and
Charles McDaniel 393
Another Ten Commandments Case: The U.S. Supreme Court decided in
April to hear yet another case involving the display of the Ten
Commandments on government property.
If the courthouse displays the ten commandments, they court should
have to follow them including Thou Shall Not Kill meaning no more
executions.
If they display the ten commandments they should have the rest of them
available and follow the whole book of laws.
Thou shalt not kill probably means thou shalt not murder, so legal
executions would be fine.
The immediate effect would be that all the jails would be emptied and the
jailers would be put to other uses in the short term.
The bible has no place for jails. You were killed, made resstitution or made
a slave.
No more circumstantial evidence, eye witnesses are mandatory.
The role of the jailers? They would be making contact with the people who
took part in the trial since they will now have to take part in the
execution of the people who were in jail.

After that the rules get worse, but we get Friday evening and Saturday off -
or die.
Nomen Publicus
2008-08-06 16:52:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Painter
If they display the ten commandments they should have the rest of them
available and follow the whole book of laws.
Thou shalt not kill probably means thou shalt not murder, so legal
executions would be fine.
Some read it to mean "Thou shalt not kill a member of our tribe but it's
open season on those devil worshiping bastards over the hill."
Post by Mike Painter
The immediate effect would be that all the jails would be emptied and the
jailers would be put to other uses in the short term.
The bible has no place for jails. You were killed, made resstitution or made
a slave.
No more circumstantial evidence, eye witnesses are mandatory.
The role of the jailers? They would be making contact with the people who
took part in the trial since they will now have to take part in the
execution of the people who were in jail.
Indeed, until quite recently jails used to be where the convicted were kept
(usually no more than a month) until execution. Lesser crimes were dealt
with by fines. The idea of _paying_ to keep someone locked up for years
would be laughed at by anybody from the middle ages.
Post by Mike Painter
After that the rules get worse, but we get Friday evening and Saturday off -
or die.
--
Voltaire: Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities
ZerkonX
2008-08-07 10:59:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nomen Publicus
Post by Mike Painter
Thou shalt not kill probably means thou shalt not murder, so legal
executions would be fine.
Some read it to mean "Thou shalt not kill a member of our tribe but it's
open season on those devil worshiping bastards over the hill."
Other take this all to mean "Thou shalt take all meaning as whatever
suits thy purpose at thy moment."
Bert Hyman
2008-08-05 17:17:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by buckeye
Another Ten Commandments Case: The U.S. Supreme Court decided in
April to hear yet another case involving the display of the Ten
Commandments on government property.
It's unfortunate that some religious folks are apparently so insecure
in their beliefs that they feel they have to loudly proclaim their
faith at every opportunity and plaster their symbols everywhere they
can.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | ***@iphouse.com
Jack
2008-08-05 17:28:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bert Hyman
Post by buckeye
Another Ten Commandments Case: The U.S. Supreme Court decided in
April to hear yet another case involving the display of the Ten
Commandments on government property.
It's unfortunate that some religious folks are apparently so insecure
in their beliefs that they feel they have to loudly proclaim their
faith at every opportunity and plaster their symbols everywhere they
can.
--
That's how I feel about some atheists.
DanielSan
2008-08-06 01:42:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack
Post by Bert Hyman
Post by buckeye
Another Ten Commandments Case: The U.S. Supreme Court decided in
April to hear yet another case involving the display of the Ten
Commandments on government property.
It's unfortunate that some religious folks are apparently so insecure
in their beliefs that they feel they have to loudly proclaim their
faith at every opportunity and plaster their symbols everywhere they
can.
--
That's how I feel about some atheists.
Sorry, but atheists don't have faith about the existence of gods.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He *
* can't eat it? *
****************************************************
Jack
2008-08-06 13:55:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by DanielSan
Post by Jack
Post by Bert Hyman
Post by buckeye
Another Ten Commandments Case: The U.S. Supreme Court decided in
April to hear yet another case involving the display of the Ten
Commandments on government property.
It's unfortunate that some religious folks are apparently so insecure
in their beliefs that they feel they have to loudly proclaim their
faith at every opportunity and plaster their symbols everywhere they
can.
--
That's how I feel about some atheists.
Sorry, but atheists don't have faith about the existence of gods.
Ok but why are you sorry?
DanielSan
2008-08-07 00:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack
Post by DanielSan
Post by Jack
Post by Bert Hyman
Post by buckeye
Another Ten Commandments Case: The U.S. Supreme Court decided in
April to hear yet another case involving the display of the Ten
Commandments on government property.
It's unfortunate that some religious folks are apparently so insecure
in their beliefs that they feel they have to loudly proclaim their
faith at every opportunity and plaster their symbols everywhere they
can.
--
That's how I feel about some atheists.
Sorry, but atheists don't have faith about the existence of gods.
Ok but why are you sorry?
Sorry you feel the way you do.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He *
* can't eat it? *
****************************************************
Jack
2008-08-07 13:23:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by DanielSan
Post by Jack
Post by DanielSan
Post by Jack
Post by Bert Hyman
Post by buckeye
Another Ten Commandments Case: The U.S. Supreme Court decided in
April to hear yet another case involving the display of the Ten
Commandments on government property.
It's unfortunate that some religious folks are apparently so insecure
in their beliefs that they feel they have to loudly proclaim their
faith at every opportunity and plaster their symbols everywhere they
can.
--
That's how I feel about some atheists.
Sorry, but atheists don't have faith about the existence of gods.
Ok but why are you sorry?
Sorry you feel the way you do.
--
Ok.

Bert Hyman
2008-08-07 00:19:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack
Post by DanielSan
Post by Jack
Post by Bert Hyman
Post by buckeye
Another Ten Commandments Case: The U.S. Supreme Court decided in
April to hear yet another case involving the display of the Ten
Commandments on government property.
It's unfortunate that some religious folks are apparently so
insecure in their beliefs that they feel they have to loudly
proclaim their faith at every opportunity and plaster their symbols
everywhere they can.
That's how I feel about some atheists.
Sorry, but atheists don't have faith about the existence of gods.
Ok but why are you sorry?
Find a native English speaker and have him explain the idiomatic usage
that's confusing you.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN ***@iphouse.com
bushlyed
2008-08-06 02:26:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack
Post by Bert Hyman
Post by buckeye
Another Ten Commandments Case: The U.S. Supreme Court decided in
April to hear yet another case involving the display of the Ten
Commandments on government property.
It's unfortunate that some religious folks are apparently so insecure
in their beliefs that they feel they have to loudly proclaim their
faith at every opportunity and plaster their symbols everywhere they
can.
--
That's how I feel about some atheists.
Where do atheists plast their symbols?
Jack
2008-08-06 13:56:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack
Post by Bert Hyman
Post by buckeye
Another Ten Commandments Case: The U.S. Supreme Court decided in
April to hear yet another case involving the display of the Ten
Commandments on government property.
It's unfortunate that some religious folks are apparently so insecure
in their beliefs that they feel they have to loudly proclaim their
faith at every opportunity and plaster their symbols everywhere they
can.
--
That's how I feel about some atheists.
Where do atheists plast their symbols?
----------------------------

In bulky signatures in usenet.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...