-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Think about it: Babtist (among others) have been clamoring and demanding for Christian symbols and sponcered Christian activities and accommmodations in our public facilities and activities for decades and, whenever some legal action is taken to prevent that conflict with the Constitution, you have called for the Constitution to be ignored.
Just exactly why are Muslims granted less consideration and tolerance by your kind? It really isn't the American way, you know.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You just like the old Star Trek alien lizard costume don't you?
Was the article every really there or did you just want to see the responses?
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not a well informed question, tman.....or maybe you voted t=for that predessor to abu graib and agree with him....
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No dude you answered on the right thread. Please spell correctly and put together a sentence that makes sense. A sentence that applies to the thread. A thought that the rest of us can understand. It would be greatly appreciated.
Whether you believe it or not this country that you live in was based on Christian ideals. Read the Supreme Court Justices opinions from the late 1790's. They upheld that idealism and the separation of church and state was to keep the state from deciding what religions were acceptable and which were not. I doubt the Founding Fathers of this country were worried about the church taking over the state. Maybe they should have been. Muslims have no more right to demand anything than a Christian, a Jew or Buddhist. They have rights under the constitution and it applies to all persons. To make demands is asinine in my opinion. TMAN...
-------------------- In the end, trust only yourself when trading stocks. Posts: 2048 | From: Texas | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
ok ...wow you doubt everything you see dont you? yeah bigfoot my whole goal was to see just what the responses were from a fake story...look allstocks blocked out the link so just go to google and type in a search "mosques at stadium" and you will see im not blowing smoke. my goodness i cant believe some of the posts were SUPPORTIVE of this...and the focus went from islam to now...oh well what about you christians blah blah blah
there always has to be a twist with some people. i have no idea what the old star trek alien lizard costume is bigfoot, and i really dont see the link between the post i started and costume wearing.
im pretty open minded like most posters on this forum. however im not so open minded that it makes me narrow minded at the same time. i just dont believe that a minority group in numbers should be given special attention just because they cry louder than others...and to dispute them would be un-P.C.
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: You just like the old Star Trek alien lizard costume don't you?
Was the article every really there or did you just want to see the responses?
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tmanfromtexas: No dude you answered on the right thread. Please spell correctly and put together a sentence that makes sense. A sentence that applies to the thread. A thought that the rest of us can understand. It would be greatly appreciated.
Whether you believe it or not this country that you live in was based on Christian ideals. Read the Supreme Court Justices opinions from the late 1790's. They upheld that idealism and the separation of church and state was to keep the state from deciding what religions were acceptable and which were not. I doubt the Founding Fathers of this country were worried about the church taking over the state. Maybe they should have been. Muslims have no more right to demand anything than a Christian, a Jew or Buddhist. They have rights under the constitution and it applies to all persons. To make demands is asinine in my opinion. TMAN...
Please, accept my sincerest apologies for typos and blunders of haste, physical limitations, and etc., I may inflict.
" No dude you answered on the right thread.", is missing a comma after "dude" and "Please spell correctly and put together a sentence that makes sense.', is missing a comma after "please". (Spell, specifically, what correctly")
I suppose when you say "put together" (correctly it is "put-together") you actually mean to say "structure" or "word", but then, that leaves the question as to exactly what is ment by "a sentence that makes sense".
Speaking structurally, which is the only actual restriction on a "sentence", a "proper sentence" is only an arrangement of words with a subject and predicate, whether the particular arrangement allows or transfers something or not and, if it does either, whatever is transferred or allowed is not required to make sense.
I suspect you actually were thinking of a statement rather than a sentence, as a statement is defined in logical studies, so as to require one to make sense and to not be self inconsistant.
For example, ponder a bit on the perfectly constructed sentence, "Let the symbol F denote the set of all those people who attend each other's funeral.", but which allows no logical meaning, conveys no information, makes no sense, and is not, thereby, a logical statement (or simply, not a statement).
Now, "Whether you believe it or not this country that you live in was based on Christian ideals. Read the Supreme Court Justices opinions from the late 1790's. They upheld that idealism and the separation of church and state was to keep the state from deciding what religions were acceptable and which were not. I doubt the Founding Fathers of this country were worried about the church taking over the state." is a claim of pure B.S. and misrepresentation of the Court's decisions....the kind of trash fostered and spread about in the most backward of far right-wing fascist circles by the likes of an O'Reily or a Limbaugh...the anti-Constitutional (i.e., anti-American) extreme and hate faction of the society.
Considering the false claim that the Founding Fathers structured the Constitution to make the U. S. a christian entity of any kind, belies facts. Mostly, the Founding fathers were a decidely non-religious group of intellectuals and free thinkers who believed most fundamentally in the worth and worthwhile results of unstructured thought, as is pointed out in their writings. They granted freedom to religious thought, but demanded it have no power or authority in governmental actions.
"Muslims have no more right to demand anything than a Christian, a Jew or Buddhist. They have rights under the constitution and it applies to all persons." YES!!! CORRECT!!! CONGRATULATIONS!!! GOOD JOB!!!
"To make demands is asinine in my opinion. TMAN..." Of course you and everyone else have the right to your opinion, even if, as in this case, acceptance of your opinion would deprive others of the right to make demands, which would directly contradict their Constitutional right to petition the Government.
We may reject the action they demand of our Government, but to demand of our government is a right they have by the Constitution. To object to them exercising that right is no more correct than to object that they choose their own religion.
Notice that you are attempting to make demands of another's religion while you state of them that "To make demands is asinine in my opinion." Doesn't that simultaneously speak of your opinions and your demands? Aren't we just a bit more generous than that? Shouldn't we be if we actually claim a belief in the sancity of the Constitution?
Now back to your statement. "No dude you answered on the right thread." I absolutely did not post in the correct thread as I stated before. I'm sorry you chose to insult my effort to correct my misunderstanding and misstatements.
Moreover, as for your demand that I spell correctly and structure sentences to suit you, you might be careful what you ask for. I'm quite capable of correcting your spelling and your grammer and I promise I am not shy about interpreting the Constitution or logical structures of your English usages, as I have red-marked so many thousands of student pages before.Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notice that you are attempting to make demands of another's religion while you state of them that "To make demands is asinine in my opinion." Doesn't that simultaneously speak of your opinions and your demands? Aren't we just a bit more generous than that?
I made no demands. I posted my opinion. Our generosity and our "politically correct" ways have put us in the position we are in today. That is also my opinion. Below are two websites that, may contradict, the website posted earlier. TMAN...
you might be interested to know that Puritans murdered quakers just for being quakers..
Although they were victims of religious persecution in Europe, the Puritans supported the Old World theory that sanctioned it, the need for uniformity of religion in the state. Once in control in New England, they sought to break "the very neck of Schism and vile opinions." The "business" of the first settlers, a Puritan minister recalled in 1681, "was not Toleration, but [they] were professed enemies of it." Puritans expelled dissenters from their colonies, a fate that in 1636 befell Roger Williams and in 1638 Anne Hutchinson, America's first major female religious leader. Those who defied the Puritans by persistently returning to their jurisdictions risked capital punishment, a penalty imposed on four Quakers between 1659 and 1661. Reflecting on the seventeenth century's intolerance, Thomas Jefferson was unwilling to concede to Virginians any moral superiority to the Puritans. Beginning in 1659 Virginia enacted anti-Quaker laws, including the death penalty for refractory Quakers. Jefferson surmised that "if no capital execution took place here, as did in New England, it was not owing to the moderation of the church, or the spirit of the legislature."
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Article VI bans religious tests for public office in the federal government. During ratification debates, some opponents of the Constitution argued that belief in God should be a requirement for office seekers. The Supreme Court extended the ban on religious tests to state governments, holding that they violated freedom of religion under the First Amendment, in Torcaso v. Watkins (1961).
in other words? swearing on the bible and many other supposed requirements like swearing to God for various oaths are in fact UNconstitutional... even tho they are practiced by "tradition"
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tmanfromtexas: Notice that you are attempting to make demands of another's religion while you state of them that "To make demands is asinine in my opinion." Doesn't that simultaneously speak of your opinions and your demands? Aren't we just a bit more generous than that?
I made no demands. I posted my opinion. Our generosity and our "politically correct" ways have put us in the position we are in today. That is also my opinion. Below are two websites that, may contradict, the website posted earlier. TMAN...
Yeah, you did make denmands, opinuated forceful demands.
Maybe you simply are too incapable with the English language to actually understand your own words or maybe you are simply an opinionated loudmouth or both, but at least one is the case.
The Constitution is the only foundation or explaination of the United States of America and no amount of twisted religious confusion is allowed to undermine that fact. It stands on its own, neither dependent on other sources or influenced by them. If you can't handle the language well enough to handle that, you need to remember the saying often attributed to Abe Lincoln, "It's better to let someone think you are an Idiot than to open your mouth and prove it."
Once again, I posted, above, under the incorrect assumption that I was speaking on the topic of a different thread and, thereby, misunderstood and responed incorrectly. Upon recognizing my error, I attemped, politely, to correct my blunder and my misdirection of the thread. Thank you for being gentlmanly enough to understand my apology. That was your intent, was it not?
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
<----------------------------- 
