Lekatt: You left out “or at all, for that matter” after your comment about you not answering questions.
Just for grins, how about telling us how you managed to be reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to include the words “under God” way back before those were inserted into it.
The post seemed quite sincere to me. However, answering that post would force you to say that either :
A) Having Captain Coca-Cola to tell all the kids to drink Coca-Cola every day before school would not indicate school support of Coca-Cola, which would be an obviously absurd stance to take.
or…
B) Having a school official lead prayers would indicate illegal school promotion religion, which you seem intent on not admitting.
So, presented with a lose-lose situation, you chose to ignore the post completely. I would consider that running away. Wouldn’t it be better for you to just admit that you might be mistaken about something?
By what measure do we say a person is Catholic or Jewish or Pagan. By their word? By their beliefs? By their actions? Anyone can claim anything now, can’t they. That is not proof.
I love how you switch the topics and ignore the statements you don’t care to answer, while accusing others of doing same.
I don’t care what they do with the rock, and I doubt if Judge Moore does. It has served its purpose.
At no time since the beginning of this country has government received orders from the “church”, whatever that means. These issues are raised by people who seem to be offended by representations or symbols of God. These people do not believe in God, and are usually called atheists.
No one, theists, atheists, lumberjacks, etc., can change the world. To try is to fail, we can only change ourselves. If you are wish to do battle with the windmills of society. Go for it.
God Bless America
Love
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by lekatt *
Anyone can claim anything now, can’t they. That is not proof.[/QUOUTE]
Everybody remember that he said this!
**
Do you talk to yourself often?
I agree with you on this point
No, these issues are raised by people who want to ensure that government never receives "orders from the ‘church’ ". They are called freedom lovers.
Wow. I’m definatly saving this. Oh, the irony…
Alexander, Caesar, Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Washington,Ghengis Kahn… Didn’t change a thing, hmm? Humanity has changed the world quite a bit durring their short reign here on earth.
I’m hurt, Leroy. I’m being patient. I’m not calling you names, like some other people. I’m just sitting here, talking plain, about a topic we can both understand. Prayer in school. It’s a good analogy to the main topic, and I think the Captain Coca-Cola point is a reasonable one. (Admittedly, though, the thought process behind it was, "Well, what if Duffman… wait, it’s a school, can’t use Duffman. Coca Cola works. Coke is all american, too. Works better.)
So, really, I’m sitting here, talking in words we both can understand, about one simple thing. Trying to have a conversation. Eliminate a little ignorance about something maybe you havn’t thought too hard about. And I’m seeing you cover your eyes and run away when I bring up something you don’t want to think about. I don’t like that.
Can you understand me, Leroy?
hmm - last I checked, only individuals had religious beliefs, not states.
so if the state is putting up the religious monument as an aspect of its soverignty, hmm, what’s the term for that again?
oh yeah, a state establishing a religion.
knew I could work that out if I tried hard enough. 
“Nostres vitz sont plus grandez.”
Yeah, you’re right, you had to “work” that out.
Displaying the Ten Commandments is not establishing an official religion that the citizens are required by law to pay homage to. The displaying of the Ten Commandments is nothing more than an acknowledgement. The citizens of Alabama are not under any jeopardy by the display of the Commandments.
Now, if the citizens were required by the state to pay homage to, and tithe to a religion, under penalty of law for failure to do so, then there would be a violation of the establishment clause.
Razorsharp: So, you’re just ignoring everything Moore’s said on the subject?
can’t have it both ways, Razorsharp. In the passage I quoted, you suggested that the state’s actions were a religious exercise, apparently to support an argument that it was protected under the “free exercise” clause. Now you’re saying that it’s just an acknowledgement, to wiggle away from the establishment issue.
For a good analysis of what the Constitutions reall says about the First and Fourteenth Amendments as applied to the Alabama controversy.
<http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34270>
Politicians and others want to control religion and/or extinguish it!
What you do to others will come back to bite your rear!
It’s nice to see a little spoofing introduced into the thread. The thought that the worldnetdaily.com (supported only by a link to a religious web address) is the ultimate authority on what the First and Fourteenth Amendements really say brings much needed levity into the discussion.
Update:
This actually is a great article. In fact it complete contradicts Alan Keyes’ Worldnet.com claim that this is more of a States vs. Feds problem. (By the way, if you have the stomach to read the Worldnet.com article posted above, more power to you. His arguements are at best “interesting”.)
So we kinda knew that’s where the Chief Justice stood. Here’s where the kooks get kookier.
The religion of nontheistic beliefs? You mean I could have been tax exempt all of this time? Thank you Alabama, for making me laugh at you, again.
and finally:
CNN
I would like to do my happy dance now.
Now, all that needs to happen is the Judge get brought down on all 6 ethics violation charges and be removed from the bench.
Not time to dance yet. Many armies have won battles before losing the war. The Godless have much work to do to squash religion. The Christians will be back and in much greater numbers.
God Bless America
lekatt: Try to keep up, will you? The Christians aren’t only those people supporting the unconstitunional cramming of one particular religious view down the collective throat of the populace. I, for one, am a Christian and see Moore’s stunt as not only unconstitutional but unchristian and unethical.
Feel free to whip out the “no true Scotsman” argument now. That will be doubly laughable because not only am I a Christian, I’m also of Scots descent.
CITE?