I just thought of something-guys, I’m going to have to find a new psychiatrist. Because it’s so obvious-my doctor must be inferior-because see…he’s BLACK!!!
OH MY GOD! Thank you, Sandy! Thank you, Jan!
:rolleyes:
This is way too easy.
Here is what you were waitng for.
Note the fifth paragraph. Kentucky Senate Joint Resolution - SJ57
was signed into law by the the State of Kentucky, but was thrown out by the Federal Court. You are right, Minty, the Federal Court was in violation of the 14 th amendment when it overturned a law passed by Kentucky.
Ten Commandments - Kentucky Loses Again
Dateline: 08/02/00
For the second time since 1980, the U.S. federal court system has issued a “separation of church and state” decision preventing the state of Kentucky from commemorating the Ten Commandments.
A Federal District Judge ruled on July 25, that the state’s plans to erect a monument of the Ten Commandments on its Frankfort, KY capitol grounds would violate of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In deciding the suit brought against the State of Kentucky by the American Civil Liberties Union, Judge Joseph Hood of the U.S. District Court in Frankfort ruled that by installing the nine-foot monument, the state would indicate an “expressed favor” for both the Christian and Jewish faiths which base their beliefs on the Commandments. Past decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, have found actions of governments indicating a preference for any particular religion over others to be in violation of the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
The 86 inch by 42 inch monument stood on the Kentucky capitol grounds from 1971 to 1980 when it was removed for construction of a new building. The same year (1980), the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Stone v. Graham struck down a Kentucky law requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each Kentucky public school classroom.
Relocation of the monument was included as an amendment to Kentucky Senate Joint Resolution - SJ57 requesting the Kentucky Board of Education and Department of Education to encourage teachers and school administrators to post and teach from historic displays of original documents reflecting American history, which may include the Ten Commandments. The resolution was signed into law on April 21, 2000 by Kentucky Gov. Paul E. Patton.
In support of relocating the monument, the amendment lists several examples of the importance and status of the Ten Commandments in American government. For example:
"WHEREAS, America’s colonial governments adopted the Ten Commandments not as an object of worship or an icon, but as the basis for their civil and criminal law, as illustrated on April 3, 1644, when the New Haven Colony Charter was adopted establishing that “[t]he judicial laws of God, as they were delivered by Moses be a rule to all the courts in this jurisdiction,”
The State of Kentucky has not yet decided if it will appeal the District Court’s decision.
Reference Links
Amendment – Relocation of Ten Commandments Monument
The complete text of the amendment to the Kentucky resolution contains several interesting references to the status and importance of religion in American government.
What does any of that have to do with Washington’s Inaugural Address?
Also, do you think Americans who worship “false gods” should be put to death?
Skemper, you are quite possibly the dumbest person in the world.
What the fuck does any of that have to do with Washington’s Inaugural Address?
Also, do you have the slightest idea what the 14th Amendment actually says and what it has been interpreted–for much more than a century, way back to your good ol’ days when the darkies knew their place–to mean vis a vis the states?
No, minty, Guin is the dumbest person in the world.
Guin, if you don’t mind my asking, just what the fuck were you thinking? If you want to go slumming, that’s your business. While I think it’s needlessly cruel, you’re free to torment any deranged homeless that you find yammering on the street corners.
What you do not do is bring these schizophrenic crack-heads home with you after you’ve had your fun. 
My pubic hairs ain’t curly any more…
Okay, let me see if I understand this correctly:
On one hand, the FF were all Christians, who intended this country to be a Christian nation.
On the other hand, they didn’t believe in the deity of Christ (sounds like Arianism, to me then, if they called themselves Christian), and so, they didn’t make this country a Christian nation?
Is that correct?
Boy, I guess the Dutch are fucked, then.
From this 1999 source (scroll down a bit):
Nope, things were much better in the 17[sup]th[/sup] century, when (very Christian) Dutchmen settled in South Africa, laying the foundation of what was later to become the Apartheid regime. :rolleyes:
Good governance of a country does not require a religion.
Nor does full understanding of a religion require a specific race (yeah, the social construct).
Failure to understand the first is merely narrow-minded.
Failure to understand the latter is outright racist.
Apartheid, so I’ve read somewhere, is the only word which is the same all over the world. It is literally translated into every other language.
Even though I am in no way personally responsible for this, it shames me to no end that the word is Dutch - especially when reading the thoughts (or what passes for them) of individuals like janl and Skemper.
Mugabe is a thug who should be stopped. But to use Zimbabwe’s (or South Africa’s) current state of affairs as a stepping stone for your own little supremacist agenda is nothing short of disgusting.
Alles sal reg kom, janl. But not because of people like you.
Hmm, maybe the founding fathers just knew the bible better than Skemper does.
**Job 38
33 Do you know the laws of the heavens?
Can you set up God’s dominion over the earth? **
Maybe it is just me, but this sort of points out that man can not create a “Kingdom or Nation of God on Earth”.
So, does this verse mean that the founding fathers didn’t even try to create a Christian totalitarian state, or a religeous totalitarian state of any sort for biblical reasons?
The previous statement of making those African nations into Christian nations is in flaw from the verse I have quoted above.
Also, sharing Jesus is a fine thing. Forcing Jesus on people is wrong. Just like every other person on the earth, you believe what you think the bible, etc. says. Just because you believe or are taught a thing does not make it real or true. That is why religion is called Faith.
Like I have stated before when arguing religion, study religion for 20 or 30 years, then enlighten us with your knowledge.
Ya know, it is threads like this that pull me out of my peaceful lurcking state. Cut this out so I can peacefully read about Nazi ground hogs, and such other important matters. 
Bhudda
You say that like it’s a bad thing!
Nazi Ground Hogs-BAND NAME!!!
No I don’t. That’s why I’m asking him to clarify.
So the phrase “less intelligent” is okay, but “of inferior intelligence” is not?
-
Then I would say that the whites of South Africa, as a “superior” race, did not behave as befitting a “superior” race. A “superior” race ought to be able to rule without resorting to a system like Apartheid.
-
To paraphrase JanL: “I think people are equal morally - unless science proves Apartheid correct - then I’m all for oppression. But no, I am NOT a racist.”
That’s nice, dear.
Do you enjoy these semantic games, Ryan? I do not.
Neither phrase is accurate or objective. If I were studying the reasoning ability of two groups of people, I’d first go through the exercise of describing exactly what type of reasoning was being investigated. The word ‘intelligence’ is too broad to be useful. I would then report findings something along the lines of: “Group A completed the task at an average time 26min 17sec with a standard deviation of 4min 32sec; group B completed the task at an average time of 23min 20sec with a standard deviation of 4min 7sec. Given a population n, this deviation is statistically significant to a .95 confidence interval."
Anyone who took the results to mean one group was ‘less intelligent’ than the other, would be guilty of oversimplifying. Anyone who stated group A was ‘of inferior intelligence’ would not only be oversimplifying, but also sensationalizing and obscuring the true nature of the investigation. ‘Inferior’ is obviously a subjective judgement that goes beyond establishing a hierarchy.
I think your own intelligence is satisfactory for understanding these concepts. That you choose to explore these tangents probably indicates a borderline personality of some sort.
Octavia Smythe-Bunion I. Esq.
Good to see you here! Have the people we’ve been lambasting gone away? Hmm. Oh, well.
Methinks we scared them away. Oh well, never fear-there’s never a shortage of tinfoil hat-wearers around here.
That really wasn’t nice, drawing them into the Pit like that, Guin. We’re supposed to be fighting ignorance, not just scaring the shit out of it.
Yep, and I’m sure you’ll find them and lead them back to the pit, Diana, Huntress of the Online Fora. Maybe you could give us a short respite, or post a warning before you lead over the crew of wack-jobs, eh?
Damn straight-although now Skemper is probably telling her looney friends to come bother us.
sigh
I guess I just take things a bit too seriously, but dammit, if we’re going to fight ignorance, I’m going to FIGHT!
And hey-we survived JDT. We can survive anything.
Huntress of the Online Fora-I like that. It has a certain ring to it…
Carry on…
Hey, I’m not the one going on about the difference between “less” and “infererior” or “intelligence” and “reasoning ability”.
The word “intelligence” refers to reasoning abilities in general. If several reasoning abilities were tested, and tere was a clear pattern, I think that a statement about intelligence would be quite accurate. If we were to speak solely about the exact results of scientific tests, we would never get anything done.
Given your abhorrance of subjective statements, I’m surprised at your use of the word “oversimplifying” since, of course, the matter of just how much simplifying is appropiate is a subjective issue. I personally do not think that describing one group that has poorer reasoning abilities as “less intelligent” is oversimplifying; I think that it is simplfying that is necessary for reasonable discourse. Do you really think that instead of “lower intelligence has been linked to lead exposure”, people should list the specific tests and the specific results, and make no conclusions of their own?
So doctors that refer to part of the heart as “inferior vena cava” are sensationalizing and going beyond establishing a hieracrchy?
The fact that, on a website dedicated to frank discussion, I choose to try to have a discussion about people’s views of race indicates that I have a “borderline personality”? And did you mean “borderline personality disorder”? I personally find the attribution of deragatory terms to people who are trying to understand other people’s points of view to be a more worrisome trait than the trying to understand itself.