In a Slidell Court House in St. Tammany Parish in Louisiana, a big religious debate continues to brew over a picture of Jesus Christ hanging on a Court house wall.The ACLU and others oppose the portrait.Meantime, protestors are angry, claiming the Jesus photo should remain.
While there are various religious, legal and certainly emotional arguments surrounding this issue, the key question is whether any religious picture favoring one religion over another should be present in a public building such as a Court House.
The issue is emotionally explosive.There arguments in favor of allowing the picture claiming that America is a Christian nation, so Christ should be depicted in and outside of public buildings.
Those opposing the picture generally claim that America is made up of various religions which do not recognize Jesus Christ as God and that no picture of any religious figure should be hanging in a Court House or any government building.They also claim that while the word God does adorn the US money and grace historical American documents, but the word Jesus does not.
Attorneys with the ACLU believe the picture implies that only those who believe in the law of Jesus Christ will receive justice in city court.
So, what do you think?Should a picture of Jesus be hanging in a St. Tammany Court House?Should any picture or symbol of any particular religious figure be hanging or adorning in any government building in Louisiana and in America?
Here is one opinion and various responses to this very emotional debate that could continue to have legal consequences in a higher Court than the one in Slidell. ACLU Fights Jesus Portrait In Louisiana Court
After reading the comments, feel free to discuss the issue on the Buzzbacks below.
ok freedomlovingliberal by the looks of your comments it is becoming pretty clear that you don't believe in any God whatsoever. Well i really dont want to take the time to point out how incredibly stupid you are but it is just so easy... even if you dont want to label yourself with a religion i dont understand how you could choose not to believe in anything at all. I feel sorry for you... your life must be pretty empty and sad... but anyway i will say have a nice time spending your eternity in hell. Don't forget: God never gives up on anyone. If you want forgiveness for your sins, he will always give it to you.
Written by annabanana
on 10/28/2007
Okay this is in regard to jj's comment (the first comment that was posted here.) This country actually was founded by christian men (The Puritans, the Quakers, etc.) Also, every single one of our founding fathers was a Christan. So just to correct you, this country actually was founded on christian morals and values. I'm not saying that we should mix church and state, because we were given the freedom of religion, but you can't honestly believe religion will always be completely seperated from goverenment. Also, i believe if seeing Jesus Christ hanging on the wall in a courthouse bugs you that badly, than you probably need to take out whatever is stuck up your butt and get over it. Along with the freedom of religion, we were also given the freedom of speech which lets us express our beliefs any way we want.
peaacccceeee *
Written by annabanana
on 10/28/2007
I just wanted to say how much I loved reading the comments, they are amazing, LA is a great place, and very active.
I support LA and invest in it's future.!
Written by JJ
on 8/21/2007
religion should not be in court houses. the country was not founded on christianity and christians would not appreciate a picture of buddha or ganesh hanging in the courtrooms either.
religion is the problem not the answer.
practice the religion of love.
Written by christopher
on 8/20/2007
You are quite welcome, and Semper Fi
Written by Underground Devil Dog
on 7/27/2007
thank you..... thank you very much
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/27/2007
Freedomlovingliberal, it appears the thread was initially intended to generate discussion on the subject of a picture that has meaning which can be seen hanging on a Court House wall in Slidell. Somehow though the trail of the thread became retarded and entangled with veiled Islamic ideals promotion, and as it progressed it became more obvious that it was also a pro ACLU agenda being presented which wants to step on the desires of the majority. You harp on and on about the 1st amendment as if you really understand the inner thoughts of the men who first penned it to paper. You espouse LAW! LAW! LAW! yet you disregard Motus Operandi which is an instrument utilized in a court of law to provide information on habit, pattern, and sub sequentially, intent. From their one can arrive at reasoning for rendering a decision. I for one cannot make the claim of knowing what was inside the writers mind as they set forth the 1st amendment, but I do understand the Motus Operandi behind it, and it was laid out for you. Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights. You speak of not feeling that justice can be achieved because of an image on the wall. I have heard nuances of discomfort at the sight of such a display. Did you know that Cows have a Bill of Rights in India under ‘Hindu’ law. That is correct, you cannot kill a cow in India. So, you being one to want to change things, let’s make it equal for all and include the Indian Bill of Rights in our court proceedings. But you better pray to Jesus for forgiveness for eating all those Big Macs, because I am sure their Lord Vishnu (God of truth) will find you guilty, and of course its other face Karttikeya will seal your fate. To make it simple, Ole Jarhead got it right when he asked if the American Flag was next to please you. Faith is the cornerstone of any progressive society. No faith, no action, no action, only abandonment and decay. My advice to you is if you detest the imagery of Christ the compassionate one so much, don’t do anything that will cause you to end up in court. And if you do end up in court, I would suggest that you thank God for the mercy and compassion of Christ, and pray to him as you look at that image that the judge and jury will provide the same, being as they were reared in a society that is supposed to possess the same. If that doesn’t work for you, my suggestion would be to move to Iran and experience the justice and temporal mercies they provide. So, in retrospect to Motus Operandi and what behooved the founding fathers to pen what they did in the fashion they did, and having respect for history, I think the spirit and the intent of the 1st amendment is fairly obvious to the informed that have a stake in the future, and in my opinion the picture stays. God Bless America, and may the peace and Comfort of Jesus alayhi salaam be shed upon you, Assalaamu Alaykum (That is about as good as it gets. aleichem shalom).
Written by Underground Hound
on 7/26/2007
Written by
on 7/26/2007
Written by
on 7/26/2007
My oh my, the emotions do fly. While you point your index finger at me, 4 are turned back, and aimed at your eye.
Written by Thumbs up!!!!! Not
on 7/26/2007
What an insufferable load of crap. Again, nobody gives a fat rat’s what you have on your porch. This discussion is about religious imagery hanging in a courthouse, which I have consistently argued is contrary to the First Amendment. And honestly, after your latest bitter, rambling rant it really is just comical for you to question anyone else’s state of mind. I doubt you can even articulate a non-emotive, coherent response to any opposing point of view. Your whole strategy consists of losing your cool, changing the subject and spewing bizarre, over the top abuse – oh, and of course insisting that your brand of Christianity is the only true path to God. So thanks, Tsk (or whatever you’re calling yourself today), for taking up space and poisoning the discussion. You inveterate parasite.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/26/2007
Freedomlovingliberal.... Being the grandchild of a holocaust survivor I can tell you what would care about a cross hanging on someone's porch. I heard of horrible things done to people that simply wore a star around their neck. I was almost in agreement with authors whom made earlier posts that offered up for consideration that you appear to be some form of a Fascist. No, you are not a Fascist; you are more closely akin to the egotistical megalomaniac coupled with a strong inferiority complex driven by an acute anxiety disorder. You almost appear to perhaps fall within the catch all diagnostic moniker we sometimes use to explain people such as yourself; Paranoid Schizophrenic being as in the various writings you posted on this thread, and considering the subject matter of the thread in the first place appear to possess many of the classical symptoms of this sickness. I am curious; do you hear voices in your head? Do you ever have an urge to act upon their suggestions impulsively?
Written by Hannible
on 7/26/2007
Professor I must say I think your nuttier than squirrel poop! Just because a small group thinks its unfair doesn't make it so! thats like saying that a small group of us that would want say, the American flag to be taken down because we think its offensive, then your logic is take it down? SINCE WHEN does the MINORITY rule the Majority? like I said NUTTIER than SQUIRREL POOP!!
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/26/2007
Tsky, I’m not surprised at your hate-fuelled hysteria, because it’s clear by now that you couldn’t form a valid point on which to hang an argument even if your life depended on it. Who cares what picture you might choose to hang on your front porch? Nobody, that’s who. What people like myself object to is religious imagery in the courthouse because the state should not elevate one religion above others. That’s the whole point of the First Amendment, whether you like it or not. Your repeated claim that the solution to our problem with the picture is that we should all convert to your religion is an insult to true American values.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/26/2007
Yes, our justice system violates my civil rights when it sentences me to do time in a prision instituion as a result of a crime committed, I agree with your view, IT JUST AIN'T FAIR I should have the right to rob and maim at will. We need to just do away with the justice system altogether and let anarchy rule! (Sounds like a good idea until you hit 65 and some 16 year old punk bashes your gourd in with a baseball bat because you have a cross hanging on the wall on the front porch.)
Written by Freedomlovingwut?
on 7/25/2007
Next you are going to be blaming the use of 'english' in the court room as being a basis for not getting justice. Give it a break and head on down the road.
Written by duhteduh
on 7/25/2007
Most of you are missing the point. It's not is YOU mind it being up there - it's if OTHERS mind it being up there. If a group of people, even a minority group, believes that the picture creates some kind of indication of injustice, then it must be removed. When the US was a segregated country, whites "knew" that minorities could get a fair trial most of the time. But, because of the social institutions in place, the minorities didn't believe that they could get one. If one group of people tells you that they don't think our justice system is fair, then, by definition, it's not fair.
WAIT JUST A COTTON PICKIN MINUTE FLL YOU KNOW I support the pic being there, he is not the only one there are others too just read the posts below mine!
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/25/2007
Freedomlovingliberal, you sound to me to be a trolling and absolutely disgruntled hater. Why don't you go out and do something positive for a change? If you want to tear something down, tear down the walls of oppression and disparity. If you want to build, build on the rock.......... It is the only way.
Written by Cheap Trick
on 7/25/2007
Seems to me that our approach to law, although arguably and admittedly highly flawed, has worked pretty good so far when it come to serving the people, in fact, quite a bit better than Islamists courts of law, and communists courts of law, and Nazis courts of law, and of course the Aztecs courts of law, and on and on and on. You must be a sniveling misanthrope hell bent on obtaining some kind of power. And who is this TSKY guy, I never saw any posts by him. But if he is the only one standing up and acknowledging that he believes in the virtues of Christ, perhaps there is some hope left for our country after all. Better than being led by the nose down the streets of disparity by sheeple or jagoffs with ulterior motives. You suffer from TSKY phobia, I wonder wut ur agender or bender really is................. I think the picture is fine where it is. So here is someone else that appreciates its presence. Wear some sunglasses if you don't like the glare it is putting off.
Written by Underground hound
on 7/25/2007
It’s quite telling that the only person on this thread who supports the picture of Jesus hanging in the Slidell courthouse (that’s Tsky, who likes to use a new moniker each time he posts) actually wants an American justice system based on his religion, and his interpretation of his religion, not our civil laws. Tsky, you have more in common with the Taliban and the insane jihadists than you’d ever dare acknowledge.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/25/2007
Laws...... Basically it is could be said that law is a double edged sword. One side of the blade is that laws are for stupid people that don't know how to contribute to society, and the other side of the blade could be that laws are for the protection of people from the stupid people who don't know how to contribute to society. Sort of a redundancy in reasoning and intended effect, but then there is the darker side of law... That which is effected by the few to unfairly impose their will upon the innocent masses for personal gain or gratification. Take Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party for instance. They were totally legal. Their party merely instituted laws in their land that made this so. Now enter God and our relationship with this great entity and the undeniable miracle of the gift of his only son. So shines a beacon of light for the world to recognize and follow as they stumble and bumble through life trying to find the most meaningful and productive way to live in a free society.
Written by Round and round
on 7/25/2007
I think the ordeals suffered at the Salem Witchcraft trial are a good enough example that no sound thinking judge would attempt to influence a jury in such a manner that would cause a guilty verdict to be rendered in such a juxtapossision.
Written by Good Judges Judge well, bad Judges simply smell
on 7/25/2007
That is the best example of double speak talk that I have read in a very long time. "Only 2 are illegal, and the other 8 are legal 99% of the time? Oh law, law, law, law and the myriad interpretations of them. Who's law? God's law (10 commandmants, thou shalt not.....) Christs law overriding the law of Moses (Love thy neighbor as you would love thy self), or is it simply man's law. And the court room in Slidell is merely going by laws that are written by man, subject to Amendment, abolishment, or change. So, illegal today, legal tomorrow? Does anybody really know what time it is?
Written by Gagging on the apathy
on 7/25/2007
And by all means, puhleeeessseee don't let a situation happen where "she turns up dead" Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...............
Written by Ditto the motion
on 7/25/2007
Wut? Because of a picture of Christ on a cross? I don't don't think that would 'compell' a judge to make any kind of a decision, and besides professor, that is up to the jury. So do yourself, your wife, and your kids a favor, quit thinking about committing adultry.
Written by Reading about the confused masses
on 7/25/2007
As a conservative Christian, I even have a problem with that picture and the accompanying slogan. "To know peace, obey these laws"? I'm assuming they mean the 10 Commandments, since those are the most popular and well-defined "laws" in the Bible. However, only 2 of the 10 are actually illegal! The other 8 are perfectly legal 99% of the time. That slogan, along with the picture, says to me that, if i broke a commandment, but not a law, then I may still be judged guilty. Say, for instance, I've cheated on my wife. And then, my wife turns up dead. I didn't kill her, but I'm on trial for it. The evidence points to a conclusion that I didn't do it, but I am guilty of adultery. I'd be very worried that the judge in that courtroom would view my guilt of adultery as indicative of my guilt of murder, and try to skew the case in that direction (by not allowing testimony, evidence, etc.).
Written by Professor
on 7/25/2007
Rote Latin...... Duh you macadamia nut........... msp?
Written by Cheap Trick
on 7/23/2007
Oh FLL, There you go trying to be thinking again................. Simple is as simple does I suppose. I know 6 year olds have better arguments than that one. The picture of the cross stays.............Good night Irene.
Written by Inquisicio Facta
on 7/23/2007
Oh FLL, There you go trying to be thinking again................. Simple is as simple does I suppose. I know 6 year olds have better arguments than that one. The picture of the cross stays.............Good night Irene.
Written by Cheap Trick
on 7/23/2007
Oh, Tsky, when you try to be clever you’re even more amusing. First you misspell ‘academia’ as ‘acedemia’ (maybe you should avoid using these big fifty cent words for now), then you compound that clanger by getting your sock puppets confused – boorishly repeating verbatim the pathetic “J.C.” posting as “Cheap Trick’s”. Talk about cheap tricks. What a crashing bore.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/23/2007
Oh FLL, There you go trying to be thinking again................. Simple is as simple does I suppose. I know 6 year olds have better arguments than that one. The picture of the cross stays.............Good night Irene.
Written by Cheap Trick
on 7/23/2007
No prizes for seconds, Tsky.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/23/2007
Oh FLL, There you go trying to be thinking again................. Simple is as simple does I suppose. I know 6 year olds have better arguments than that one. The picture of the cross stays.............Good night Irene.
Written by Cheap Trick
on 7/23/2007
Academia? Say, Tsky, where’d you get that big fifty cent word? Sock puppets or not, you can run but you can’t hide.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/23/2007
Hmmmm.... SCOTUS got it right, you try to appear to be scholarly, I don't even think you know what critical thinking in acedemia is...... Get a life you wistfull freedomlovingliberal.
Written by Cheap Trick
on 7/23/2007
Oh FLL, There you go trying to be thinking again................. Simple is as simple does I suppose. I know 6 year olds have better arguments than that one. The picture of the cross stays.............Good night Irene.
Written by J.C.
on 7/23/2007
Wow, what a comeback. Tsky, I think anyone with half a brain who reads the history of this thread can see consistent critical thinking in my arguments and counterarguments regarding the First Amendment. What’s been your contribution? Childish personal abuse, using a raft of monikers (to create the illusion of support perhaps?), and incessant evangelical ‘Christian’ rants by the truck load. Not compelling, not convincing and not even on topic.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/23/2007
He didn't know what he was looking for, till he heard the ringing in his ears............................
Written by Cheap Trick
on 7/23/2007
Hmmm.... FreedomLovingLiberal, You attempt to appear scholarly, and even knowledgable on constitutional issues, my observation is that when a little Latin is thrown out there for you to nibble on, you fold up like a little rag doll. Wut's da matter you don't understand the language of the court?
Written by SCOTUS
on 7/23/2007
Wuts da matter Freedomlovingliberal? When someone plays the same game you play and not only outmanuvers you, but also out thinks you, you want to cry foul. I think you are a Fascist.
Written by J.C.
on 7/23/2007
Freedomlovingliberal, if you really valued freedom you would seek that which you do not have. Freedom....... It is non existant. Sorry....................... Games up.
Written by TSK TSK TSK
on 7/23/2007
He seems to be pretty much right on line, I think it is you freedomlovingliberal that got 'stomped'. No objectivity in any of your critics whatso ever. In fact, completely blind and void of any form of critical thinking or consternation. Sorry, you lose.
Written by Clearly focused
on 7/23/2007
Tsky, is this how you always react when you’re getting your ass kicked? Pathetic personal abuse, multiple-personality monikers, scatter-brained postings and irrelevant, interminable postings of Latin documents? You seem wholly incapable of a measured, coherent response to any issue or counter-argument presented. Making sense is just not a priority with you. Dominating space to drown out opposing views seems to be your only goal and strategy in this discussion. Such boorish, territorial behavior is entirely consistent with your misguided belief that America and our justice system should be ‘Christian’ territory.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/23/2007
As a whole, I see a lot of good in this Nation that a subversive element is trying to banish back into the caves. Understand this, Christians are not the enemy of the world, and in a world full of people that want to make it appear so I simply say bring it on, simply because we care about people and want to do good things does not mean we are cowards. The cross stays, it is our inspiration, and if it were not for Christians, we would still be living in the Dark Ages.
Written by Clearly focused
on 7/23/2007
Oh frothy freedomloovinglooberal..... O.K. let's not even put the Magna Carta into the picture, let me put IT'S forerunner into view:Johannes del gracia rex Anglie, dominus Hibernie, dux Normannie, Aquitannie et comes Andegavie, archiepiscopis, episcopis, abbatibus, comitibus, baronibus, justiciariis, forestariis, vicecomitibus, prepositis, ministris et omnibus ballivis et fidelibus suis salutem.
Sciatis nos intuitu Dei et pro salute anime nostre et omnium antecessorum et heredum nostrorum ad honorem Dei et exaltacionem sancte Ecclesie, et emendacionem regni nostri, per consilium venerabilium patrum nostrorum, Stephani Cantuariensis archiepiscopi tocius Anglie primatis et sancte Romane ecclesie cardinalis, Henrici Dublinensis archiepiscopi, Willelmi Londoniensis, Petri Wintoniensis, Joscelini Bathoniensis et Glastoniensis, Hugonis Lincolniensis, Walteri Wygorniensis, Willelmi Coventrensis, et Benedicti Roffensis, episcoporum; magistri Pandulfi domini pape subdiaconi et familiaris, fratris Aymerici magistri milicie Templi in Anglia; et nobilium virorum Willelmi Mariscalli comitis Penbrocie, Willelmi comitis Sarrisberie, Willelmi comitis Warennie, Willelmi comitis Arundellie, Alani de Galeweya constabularii Scocie, Warini filii Geroldi, Petri filii Hereberti, Huberti de Burgo senescalli Pictavie, Hugonis de Nevilla, Mathei filli Hereberti, Thome Basset, Alani Basset, Philippi de Albiniaco, Roberti de Roppel', Johannis Mariscalli, Johannis filii Hugonis et aliorum fidelium nostrorum:
In primis concessisse Deo et hac presenti carta nostra confirmasse, pro nobis et heredibus nostris in perpetuum, quod Anglicana ecclesie libera sit, et habeat jura sua integra, et libertates suas illesas; et ita volumus observari; quod apparet ex eo quod libertatem electionum, que maxima et magis necessaria reputatur ecclesie Anglicane, mera et spontanea voluntate, ante discordiam inter nos et barones nostros motam, concessimus et carta nostra confirmavimus, et eam obtinuimus a domino papa Innocentio tercio confirmari; quam et nos observabimus et ab heredibus nostris in perpetuum bona fide volumus observari.
Concessimus eciam omnibus liberis hominibus regni nostri, pro nobis et heredibus nostris in perpetuum, omnes libertates subscriptas, habendas et tenendas eis et heredibus suis, de nobis et heredibus nostris.
Si quis comitum vel baronum nostrorum, sive aliorum tenencium de nobis in capite per servicium militare, mortuus fuerit, et cum decesserit heres suus plene etatis fuerit et relevium debeat, habeat hereditatem suam per antiquum relevium; scilicet heres vel heredes comitis de baronia comitis integra per centum libras; heres veI heredes baronis de baronia integra per centum libras; heres vel heredes militis de feodo militis integro per centum solidos ad plus; et qui minus debuerit minus det secundum antiquam consuetudinem feodorum. [Articles, section 1; 1225, section 2.]
Si autem heres alicujus talium fuerit infra etatem et fuerit in custodia, cum ad etatem pervenerit, habeat hereditatem suam sine relevio et sine fine. [Articles, section 2; 1225, section 3.]
Custos terre hujusmodi heredis qui infra etatem fuerit, non capiat de terra heredis nisi racionabiles exitus, et racionabiles consuetudines, et racionabilia servicia, et hoc sine destructione et vasto hominum vel rerum; et si nos commiserimus custodiam alicujus talis terre vicecomiti vel alicui alii qui de exitibus illius nobis respondere debeat, et ille destructionem de custodia fecerit veI vastum, nos ab illo capiemus emendam, et terra committatur duobus legalibus et discretis hominibus de feodo illo, qui de exitibus respondeant nobis vel ei cui eos assignaverimus; et si dederimus vel vendiderimus alicui custodiam alicujus talis terre, et ille destructionem inde fecerit vel vastum, amittat ipsam custodiam, et tradatur duobus legalibus et discretis hominibus de feodo illo qui similiter nobis respondeant sicut predictum est. [Articles, section 3; 1225, section 4.]
Custos autem, quamdiu custodiam terre habuerit, sustentet domos, parcos, vivaria, stagna, molendina, et cetera ad terram illam pertinencia, de exitibus terre ejusdem; et reddat heredi cum ad plenam etatem pervenerit, terram suam totam instauratam de carucis et waynagiis, secundum quod tempus waynagii exiget et exitus terre racionabiliter poterunt sustinere. [Articles, section 3, 35; 1225, section 5.]
Heredes maritentur absque disparagacione, ita tamen quod, antequam contrahatur matrimonium, ostendatur propinquis de consanguinitate ipsius heredis. [Articles, section 3; 1225, section 6.]
Vidua post mortem mariti sui statim et sine difficultate habeat maritagium et hereditatem suam, nec aliquid det pro dote sua, vel pro maritagio suo, vel hereditate sua, quam hereditatem maritus suus et ipsa tenuerint die obitus ipsius mariti, et maneat in domo mariti sul per quadraginta dies post mortem ipsius, infra quos assignetur ei dos sua. [Articles, section 4; 1225, section 7.]
Nulla vidua distringatur ad se maritandum, dum voluerit vivere sine marito, ita tamen quod securitatem faciat quod se non maritabit sine assensu nostro, si de nobis tenuerit, vel sine assensu domini sui de quo tenuerit, si de alio tenuerit. [Articles, section 17; 1225, section 7.]
Nec nos nec ballivi nostri seisiemus terram aliquam nec redditum pro debito aliquo, quamdiu catalla debitoris sufficiunt ad debitum reddendum; nec plegii ipsius debitoris distringantur quamdiu ipse capitalis debitor sufficit ad solucionem debiti; et si capitalis debitor defecerit in solucione debiti, non habens unde solvat, plegii respondeant de debito; et si voluerint, habeant terras et redditus debitoris, donec sit eis satisfactum de debito quod ante pro eo solverint, nisi capitalis debitor monstraverit se esse quietum inde versus eosdem plegios. [Articles, section 5; 1225, section 8.]
Si quis mutuo ceperit aliquid a Judeis, plus vel minus, et moriatur antequam debitum illud solvatur, debitum non usuret quamdiu heres fuerit infra etatem, de quocumque teneat; et si debitum illud inciderit in manus nostras, nos non capiemus nisi catallum contentum in carta. [Articles, section 34.]
Et si quis moriatur, et debitum debeat Judeis, uxor ejus habeat dotem suam, et nichil reddat de debito illo, et si liberi ipsius defuncti qui fuerint infra etatem remanserint, provideantur eis necessaria secundum tenementum quod fuerit defuncti et de residuo solvatur debitum, salvo servicio dominorum; simili modo fiat de debitis que debentur aliis quaim Judeis. [Articles, section 35.]
Nullum scutagium vel auxilium ponatur in regno nostro, nisi per commune consilium regni nostri, nisi ad corpus nostrum redimendum, et primogenitum filium nostrum militem faciendum, et ad filiam nostram primogenitam semel maritandam, et ad hec non fiat nisi racionabile auxilium; simili modo fiat de auxiliis de civitate Londoniarum. [Articles, section 32.]
Et civitas Londoniarum habeat omnes antiquas libertates et liberas consuetudines suas, tam per terras quam per aquas. Preterea volumus et concedimus quod omnes alie civitates, et burgi, et ville, et portus, habeant omnes libertates et liberas consuetudines suas. [Articles, section 32; 1225, section 9.]
Et ad habendum commune consilium regni de auxilio assidendo aliter quam in tribus casibus predictis, vel de scutagio assidendo, summoneri faciemus archiepiscopos, episcopos, abbates, comites, et majores barones sigillatim per litteras nostras; et preterea faciemus summoneri in generali per vicecomites et ballivos nostros omnes illos qui de nobis tenent in capite ad certum diem, scilicet ad terminum quadraginta dierum ad minus, et ad certum locum; et in omnibus litteris illius summonicionis causam summonicionis exprimemus; et sic facta summonicione negocium ad diem assignatum procedat secundum consilium illorum qui presentes fuerint, quamvis non omnes summoniti venerint.
Nos non concedemus de cetero alicui quod capiat auxilium de liberis hominibus suis, nisi ad corpus suum redimendum, et ad faciendum primogenitum filium suum militem, et ad primogenitam filiam suam semel maritandam, et ad hec non fiat nisi racionabile auxilium. [Articles, section 6.]
Nullus distringatur ad faciendum majus servicium de feodo militis, nec de alio libero tenemento, quam inde debetur. [Articles, section 7; 1225, section 10.]
Communia placita non sequantur curiam nostram, set teneantur in aliquo loco certo. [Articles, section 8; 1225, section 11.]
Recogniciones de nova disseisina, de morte antecessoris, et de ultima presentacione, non capiantur nisi in suis comitatibus et hoc modo; nos, vel si extra regnum fuerimus capitalis justiciarius noster, mittemus duos justiciarios per unumquemque comitatum per quatuor vices in anno, qui, cum quatuor militibus cujuslibet comitatus electis per comitatum, capiant in comitatu et in die et loco comitatus assisas predictas. [Articles, section 8; 1225, section 12.]
Et si in die comitatus assise predicte capi non possint, tot milites et libere tenentes remaneant de illis qui interfuerint comitatui die illo, per quos possint judicia sufficienter fieri, secundum quod negocium fuerit majus vel minus. [Articles, section 13.]
Liber homo non amercietur pro parvo delicto, nisi secundum modum delicti; et pro magno delicto amercietur secundum magnitudinem delicti, salvo contenemento suo; et mercator eodem modo, salva mercandisa sua; et villanus eodem modo amercietur salvo waynagio suo; si inciderint in misericordiam nostram; et nulla predictarum misericordiarum ponatur, nisi per sacramentum proborum hominum de visneto. [Articles, section 9; 1225, section 14.]
advertising
disclaimer
advertising
disclaimer
advertising
disclaimer
Comites et barones non amercientur nisi per pares suos, et non nisi secundum modum delicti. [1225, section 14.]
Nullus clericus amercietur de laico tenemento suo, nisi secundum modum aliorum predictorum, et non secundum quantitatem beneficii sul ecclesiastici. [Articles, section 10; 1225, section 14.]
Nec villa nec homo distringatur facere pontes ad riparias, nisi qui ab antiquo et de jure facere debent. [Articles, section 11; 1225, section 15.]
Nullus vicecomes, constabularius, coronatores, vel alii ballivi nostri, teneant placita corone nostre. [Articles, section 14; 1225 section 17.]
Omnes comitatus, hundredi, wapentakii, et trethingi sint ad antiquas firmas absque ullo incremento, exceptis dominicis maneriis nostris. [Articles, section 14.]
Si aliquis tenens de nobis laicum feodum moriatur, et vicecomes vel ballivus noster ostendat litteras nostras patentes de summonicione nostra de debito quod defunctus nobis debuit, liceat vicecomiti vel ballivo nostro attachiare et inbreviare catalla defuncti inventa in laico feodo, ad valenciam illius debiti, per visum legallum hominum, ita tamen quod nichil inde amoveatur, donec persolvatur nobis debitum quod clarum fuerit, et residuum relinquatur executoribus ad faciendum testamentum defuncti; et si nichil nobis debeatur ab ipso, omnia catalla cedant defuncto, salvis uxori ipsius et pueris racionabilibus partibus suis. [Articles, section 15; 1225, section 18.]
Si aliquis liber homo intestatus decesserit, catalla sua per manus propinquorum parentum et amicorum suorum, per visum ecclesie, distribuantur, salvis unicuique debitis que defunctus el debebat. [Articles, section 16.]
Nullus constabularius, vel alius ballivus noster, capiat blada vel alia catalla allcujus, nisi statim inde reddat denarios, aut respectum inde habere possit de voluntate venditoris. [Articles, section 18; 1225, section 19.]
Nullus constabularius distringat aliquem militem ad dandum denarios pro custodia castri, si facere voluerit custodiam illam in propria persona sua, vel per alium probum hominem, si ipse eam facere non possit propter racionabilem causam; et si nos duxerimus vel miserimus eum in exercitum, erit quietus de custodia, secundum quantitatem temporis quo per nos fuerit in exercitu. [Articles, section 19; 1225, section 20.]
Nullus vicecomes, vel ballivus noster, vel aliquis alius, capiat equos vel carettas allcujus liberi hominis pro cariagio faciendo, nisi de voluntate ipsius liberi hominis. [Articles, section 20; 1225, section 21.]
Nec nos nec ballivi nostri capiemus alienum boscum ad castra vel alia agenda nostra, nisi per voluntatem ipsius cujus boscus ille fuerit. [Articles, section 21; 1225, section 21.]
Nos non tenebimus terras illorum qui convicti fuerint de felonia, nisi per unum annum et unum diem, et tunc reddantur terre dominis feodorum. [Articles, section 22; 1225, section 22.]
Omnes kidelli de cetero deponantur penitus de Tamisia, et de Medewaye, et per totam Angliam, nisi per costeram maris. [Articles, section 23; 1225, section 23.]
Breve quod vocatur 'Precipe' de cetero non fiat alicui de aliquo tenemento unde liber homo amittere possit curiam suam. [Articles, section 24; 1225, section 24.]
Una mensura vini sit per totum regnum nostrum, et una mensura cervisie, et una mensura bladi, scilicet quarterium Londoniense, et una latitudo pannorum tinctorum et russetorum et halbergettorum, scilicet due ulne infra listas; de ponderibus autem sit ut de mensuris. [Articles, section 12; 1225, section 25.]
Nichil detur vel capiatur de cetero pro brevi inquisicionis de vita vel membris, set gratis concedatur et non negetur. [Articles, section 26; 1225, section 26.]
Si aliquis teneat de nobis per feodifirmam, vel per sokagium, vel per burgagium, et de alio terram, teneat per servicium militare, nos non habebimus custodiam heredis nec terre sue que est de feodo alterius occasione illius feodifirme, vel sokagii, vel burgagii; nec habebimus custodiam illius feodifirme, vel sokagii, vel burgagii, nisi ipsa feodifirma debeat servicium militare. Nos non habebimus custodiam heredis vel terre alicujus, quam tenet de alio per servicium militare, occasione alicujus parve serjanterie quam tenet de nobis per servicium reddendi nobis cultellos, vel sagittas, vel hujusmodi. [Articles, section 27; 1225, section 27.]
Nullus ballivus ponat decetero aliquem ad legem simplici loquela sua, sine testibus fidelibus ad hoc inductis. [Articles, section 28; 1225, section 28.]
Nullus liber homo capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut disseisiatur, aut utlagetur, aut exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super cum ibimus, nec super cum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terre. [Articles, section 29; 1225, section 29.]
Nulli vendemus, nulli negabimus aut differemus rectum aut justiciam. [Articles, section 30; 1225 section 29.]
Omnes mercatores habeant salvum et securum exire de Anglia, et venire in Angliam, et morari, et ire per Angliam, tam per terram quam per aquam, ad emendum et vendendum, sine omnibus malis toltis, per antiquas et rectas consuetudines, preterquam in tempore gwerre, et si sint de terra contra nos gwerrina; et si tales inveniantur in terra nostra in principio gwerre, attachientur sine dampno corporum et rerum, donec sciatur a nobis vel capitali justiciario nostro quomodo mercatores terre nostre tractentur, qui tunc invenientur in terra contra nos gwerrina; et si nostri salvi sint ibi, alii salvi sint in terra nostra. [Articles, section 31; 1225, section 30.]
Liceat unicuique decetero exire de regno nostro, et redire, salvo et secure, per terram et per aquam, salva fide nostra, nisi tempore gwerre per aliquod breve tempus, propter communem utilitatem regni, exceptis imprisonatis et utlagatis secundum legem regni, et gente de terra contra nos gwerrina, et mercatoribus, de quibus fiat sicut predictum est. [Articles, section 33.]
Si quis tenuerit de aliqua eskaeta, sicut de honore Wallingefordie, Notingeham, Bolonie, Lancastrie, vel de aliis eskaetis que sunt in manu nostra et sunt baronie, et obierit, heres ejus non det aliud relevium, nec faciat nobis aliud servicium quam faceret baroni si baronia illa esset in manu baronis; et nos eodem modo eam tenebimus quo baro eam tenuit. [Articles, section 36; 1225, section 31.]
Homines qui manent extra forestam non veniant decetero coram justiciariis nostris de foresta per communes summoniciones, nisi sint in placito, vel plegii alicujus vel aliquorum, qui attachiati sint pro foresta. [Articles, section 39]
Nos non faciemus justiciarios, constabularios, vicecomites, vel ballivos, nisi de talibus qui sciant legem regni et eam bene velint observare. [Articles, section 42.]
Omnes barones qui fundaverunt abbacias, unde habent cartas regum Anglie, vel antiquam tenuram, habeant earum custodiam cum vacaverint, sicut habere debent. [Articles, section 43; 1225, section 33.]
Omnes foreste que afforestate sunt tempore nostro, statim deafforestentur; et ita fiat de ripariis que per nos tempore nostro posite sunt in defenso. [Articles, section 47; 1225 section 16]
Omnes male consuetudines, de forestis et warennis, et de forestariis et warennariis, vicecomitibus et eorum ministris, ripariis et earum custodibus, statim inquirantur in quolibet comitatu per duodecim milites, juratos de eodem comitatu, qui debent eligi per probos homines ejusdem comitatus, et infra quadraginta dies post inquisicionem factam, penitus, ita quod numquam revocentur, deleantur (per eosdem, ita quod nos hoc sciamus prius, vel justiciarius noster, si in Anglia non fuerimus).[1] [Articles, section 39.]
Omnes obsides, et cartas statim reddemus, que liberate fuerunt nobis ab Anglicis in securitatem pacis vel fidelis servicii. [Articles, section 38.]
Nos amovebimus penitus de balliis, parentes Gerardi de Athyes, quod decetero nullam habeant balliam in Anglia, Engelardum de Cygony, Petrum et Gionem et Andream de Cancellis, Gionem de Cygony, Galfridum de Martinny et fratres ejus, Philippum Marc et fratres ejus, et Galfridum nepotem ejus, et totam sequelam eorundem. [Articles, section 40.]
Et statim post pacis reformacionem amovebimus de regno omnes alienigenas milites, balistarios, servientes, stipendiarios, qui venerint cum equis et armis ad nocumentum regni. [Articles, section 41.]
Si quis fuerit disseisitus vel elongatus per nos sine legali judicio parium suorum de terris, castellis, libertatibus, vel jure suo, statim ea ei restituemus; et si contencio super hoc orta fuerit, tunc inde fiat per judicium viginti quinque baronum, de quibus fit mencio inferius in securitate pacis. De omnibus autem illis de quibus aliquis disseisitus fuerit vel elongatus sine legali judicio parium suorum, per Henricum regem patrem nostrum vel per Ricardum regem fratrem nostrum, que in manu nostra habemus, vel que alii tenent, que nos oporteat warantizare, respectum habebimus usque ad communem terminum crucesignatorum, exceptis illis de quibus placitum motum fuit vel inquisicio facta per preceptum nostrum ante suscepcionem crucis nostre; cum autem redierimus de peregrinacione nostra, vel si forte remanserimus a peregrinacione nostra, statim inde plenam justiciam exhibebimus. [Articles, section 25.]
Eundem autem respectum habebimus (et eodem modo de justicia exhibenda),[1] de forestis deafforestandis (vel remansuris forestis)[1] quas Henricus pater noster vel Ricardus frater noster afforestaverunt, et de custodiis terrarum que sunt de alieno feodo, cujusmodi custodias hucusque habuimus occasione feodi quod aliquis de nobis tenuit per servicium militare, et de abbaciis que fundate fuerint in feodo alterius quam nostro, in quibus dominus feodi dixerit se jus habere; et cum redierimus, vel si remanserimus a peregrinacione nostra, super hiis conquerentibus plenam justiciam statim exhibebimus.
Nullus capiatur nec imprisonetur propter appellum femine de morte alterius quam viri sui. [1225, section 34.]
Omnes fines qui injuste et contra legem terre facti sunt nobiscum, et omnia amerciamenta facta injuste et contra legem terre, omnino condonentur, vel fiat inde perjudicium viginti quinque baronum de quibus fit mencio inferius in securitate pacis, vel per judicium majoris partis eorundem, una cum predicto Stephano Cantuariensi archiepiscopo si interesse poterit et aliis quos secum ad hoc vocare voluerit. Et si interesse non poterit, nichilominus procedat negocium sine eo, ita quod, si aliquis vel aliqui de predictis viginti quinque baronibus fuerint in simili querela, amoveantur quantum ad hoc judicium et alii loco eorum per residuos de eisdem viginti quinque tantum ad hoc faciendum electi et jurati substituantur. [Articles, section 37.]
Si nos disseisivimus vel elongavimus Walenses de terris vel libertatibus vel rebus aliis, sine legali judicio parium suorum (in Anglia vel in Wallia),[2] eis statim reddantur; et si contencio super hoc orta fuerit, tunc inde fiat in Marchia per judicium parium suorum de tenementis Anglie secundum legem Anglie; de tenementis Wallie secundum legem Wallie; de tenementis Marchic secundum legem Marchie. Idem facient Walenses nobis et nostris. [Articles, section 44.]
De omnibus autem illis de quibus aliquis Walensium disseisitus fuerit vel elongatus, sine legali judicio parium suorum, per Henricum regem patrem nostrum vel Ricardum regem fratrem nostrum, que nos in manu nostra habemus, vel que alii tenent que nos oporteat warantizare, respectum habebimus usque ad communem terminum crucesignatorum, illis exceptis de quibus placitum motum fuit vel inquisicio facta per preceptum nostrum ante suscepcionem crucis nostre; cum autem redierimus, vel si forte remanscrimus a peregrinatione nostra, statim eis inde plenam justitiam exhibebimus, secundum leges Walensium et partes predictas. [Articles, section 44.]
Nos reddemus filium Lewelini statim, et omnes obsides de Wallia, et cartas que nobis liberate fuerunt in securitatem pacis. [Articles, section 45.]
Nos faciemus Alexandro regi Scottorum de sororibus suis et obsidibus reddendis, et libertatibus suis, et jure suo, secundum formam in qua faciemus aliis baronibus nostris Anglie, nisi aliter esse debeat per cartas quas habemus de Willelmo patre ipsius, quondam rege Scottorum; et hoc erit per judicium parium suorum in curia nostra. [Articles, section 46.]
Omnes autem istas consuetudines predictas et libertates quas nos concessimus in regno nostro tenendas quantum ad nos pertinet erga nostros, omnes de regno nostro, tam clerici quam laici, observent quantum ad se pertinet erga suos. [Articles, section 48; 1225, section 37]
Cum autem pro Deo, et ad emendacionem regni nostri, et ad melius sopiendum discordiam inter nos et barones nostros ortam, hec omnia predicta concesserimus, volentes ea integra et firma stabilitate (in perpetuum)[2] gaudere, facimus et concedimus eis securitatem subscriptam;
videlicet quod barones eligant viginti quinque barones de regno quos voluerint, qui debeant pro totis viribus suis observare, tenere, et facere observari, pacem et libertates quas cis concessimus, et hac presenti carta nostra confirmavimus; ita scilicet quod, si nos, vel justiciarius noster, vel ballivi nostri, vel aliquis de ministris nostris, in aliquo erga aliquem deliquerimus, vel aliquem articulorum pacis aut securitatis transgressi fuerimus, et delictum ostensum fuerit quatuor baronibus de predictis viginti quinque baronibus, illi quatuor barones accedant ad nos vel ad justiciarium nostrum, si fuerimus extra regnum, proponentes nobis excessum, petent ut excessum illum sine dilacione faciamus emendari.
Et si nos excessum non emendaverimus, vel, si fuerimus extra regnum, justiciarius noster non emendaverit infra tempus quadraginta dierum computandum a tempore quo monstratum fuerit nobis vel justiciario nostro, si extra regnum fuerimus, predicti quatuor barones referant causam illam ad residuos de illis viginti quinque baronibus, et illi viginti quinque barones cum communa tocius terre distringent et gravabunt nos modis omnibus quibus poterunt, scilicet per capcionem castrorum, terrarum, possessionum et aliis modis quibus poterunt, donec fuerit emendatum secundum arbitrium eorum, salva persona nostra et regine nostre et liberorum nostrorum; et cum fuerit emendatum intendent nobis sicut prius fecerunt.
Et quicumque voluerit de terra juret quod ad predicta omnia exequenda parebit mandatis predictorum viginti quinque baronum, et quod gravabit nos pro posse suo cum ipsis, et nos publice et libere damus licenciam jurandi cuilibet qui jurare voluerit, et nulli umquam jurare prohibebimus. Omnes autem illos de terra qui per se et sponte sua noluerint jurare viginti quinque baronibus de distringendo et gravando nos cum eis, faciemus jurare eosdem de mandato nostro sicut predictum est.
Et si aliquis de viginti quinque baronibus decesserit, vel a terra recesserit, vel aliquo alio modo impeditus fuerit, quominus ista predicta possent exequi, qui residui fuerint de predictis viginti quinque baronibus eligant alium loco ipsius, pro arbitrio suo, qui simili modo erit juratus quo et ceteri. In omnibus autem que istis viginti quinque baronibus committuntur exequenda, si forte ipsi viginti quinque presentes fuerint, et inter se super re aliqua discordaverint, vel aliqui ex eis summoniti nolint vel nequeant interesse, ratum habeatur et firmum quod major pars eorum qui presentes fuerint providerit vel preceperit ac si omnes viginti quinque in hoc consensissent;
et predicti viginti quinque jurent quod omnia antedicta fideliter observabunt, et pro toto posse suo facient observari.
Et nos nichil impetrabimus ab aliquo, per nos nec per alium, per quod aliqua istarum concessionum et libertatum revocetur vel minuatur; et, si aliquid tale impetratum fuerit, irritum sit et inane et numquam eo utemur per nos nec per alium. [Articles, section 49.]
Et omnes malas voluntates, indignaciones, et rancores, ortos inter nos et homines nostros, clericos et laicos, a tempore discordie, plene omnibus remisimus et condonavimus. Preterea omnes transgressiones factas occasione ejusdem discordie, a Pascha anno regni nostri sextodecimo usque ad pacem reformatam, plene remisimus omnibus, clericis et laicis, et quantum ad nos pertinet plene condonavimus. Et insuper fecimus eis fieri litteras testimoniales patentes domini Stephani Cantuariensis archiepiscopi, domini Henrici Dublinensis archiepiscopi, et episcoporum predictorum et magistri Pandulfi, super securitate ista et concessionibus prefatis.
Quare volumus et firmiter precipimus quod Anglicana ecclesia libera sit et quod homines in regno nostro habeant et teneant omnes prefatas libertates, Jura, et concessiones, bene et in pace, libere et quiete, plene et integre, sibi et heredibus suis, de nobis et heredibus nostris, in omnibus rebus et locis, in perpetuum, sicut predictum est. Juratum est autem tam ex parte nostra quam ex parte baronum, quod hec omnia supradicta bona fide et sine malo ingenio observabuntur. Testibus supradictis et multis aliis. Data per manum nostram in prato quod vocatur Ronimed inter Windlesoram et Stanes, quinto dccimo die Junii, anno regni nostri decimo septimo.
Of course, I posted this in Latin, if you want a translation of it, I will gladly provide that as well. Ad Hoc. The cross stays and you are an idiot, but I duz luvs yoooooooooooooooooo
Written by Bustin da Booble's Brains
on 7/23/2007
More froth,,,,,,, The Mayflower compact isn't the issue here? Well then why bring up a Mesianic battering view. In other words preschooler, which comes first Kindergarten or the 12th grade, or to keep it simple for you, which came first, the chicken or the egg? It is all based on the Mayflower.......
Written by Given the ACLU the migrain it deserves
on 7/23/2007
You DON'T H A V E to swear on a BIBLE!!!!!!! Well then wuts the fuss you freedomloovinglooberal? There is your prescious separation of church and state, and you are't being violated. Idiot.................... The cross stays, and the Bible can still sit on the Judges Bench if he wants to also. And if I feel like it, I will wear a cross around my neck when I am in court, and I will probably put my foot up your arse if you try to rip it off. Go back to your ACLU funded toon town........
Written by J.C.
on 7/23/2007
Oh dear, Bubbles. The Mayflower Compact is not relevant here – the First Amendment IS. You seem to be advocating a state religion. Shame on you for such an un-American aspiration. It’s a shame that all the continents have been discovered, otherwise I might be able to help you in locating a place to establish a religious state. But here and now, with respect to the current discussion, it is you who is trying to rewrite US history, the Constitution and the First Amendment.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/23/2007
<<< "Hey Freedomlovingliberal, religiously neutral? Yeah, that's what swearing on the Bible before testifying is all about. Idiot." >>> Dear Idiot, no one is actually required to swear on the Bible before taking the stand. People are free to just give an affirmation that they will to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in court.<<<<<<<<<<< Yeah that's a real smart move on a defendants or an accusers part, "Don't swear on the Bible" It makes you look sinister. Retardo..................
Written by J.C.
on 7/23/2007
I get the picture.....................
Written by J.C.
on 7/23/2007
Yeah, that ACLU (Against Christians Living United) has got to go, and the picture needs to stay......
Written by The Voice of America
on 7/23/2007
Oh, almost forgot, I 250 millionth the motion,.......... The picture stays..................
Written by Bustin Bubbles
on 7/23/2007
Oh FreedomLovingLooberallllllllllll............... The Declaration of Independence, which was the forrunner to the United States Constitution also had a forerunner........ The MayFlower Compact................. Here it is in its entirety.....The original document was lost, but the transcriptions in Mourt's Relation and William Bradford's journal Of Plymouth Plantation are in agreement and accepted as accurate. Bradford's hand written manuscript is kept in a special vault at the State Library of Massachusetts.[2] Bradford's transcription is as follows:
In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwriten, the loyall subjects of our dread soveraigne Lord King James by the grace of God, of Great Britaine, Franc, & Ireland king, defender of the faith, e&
Haveing undertaken, for ðe glorie of god, and advancemente of the Christian faith and honour of our king & countrie, a voyage to plant the first colonie in the Northerne parts of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly & mutualy in ðe presence of God, and one of another, covenant & combine our selves togeather into a civill body politick, for our better ordering & preservation & furtherance of ðe ends aforesaid; and by vertue hearof to enacte, constitute, and frame such just & equall lawes, ordinances, Acts, constitutions, & offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meete & convenient for ðe generall good of ðe Colonie, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witnes wherof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cap-Codd ðe .11. of November, in the year of the raigne of our soveraigne Lord King James, of England, France, & Ireland ðe eighteenth, and of Scotland the fiftie fourth. Ano: Dom. 1620.[3]....... So breath hard into the bag, you are trying to rewrite history, and I ain't buying it, or any of your Mesianic spew..........
Written by Bustin Bubbles
on 7/23/2007
<<< "Hey Freedomlovingliberal, religiously neutral? Yeah, that's what swearing on the Bible before testifying is all about. Idiot." >>> Dear Idiot, no one is actually required to swear on the Bible before taking the stand. People are free to just give an affirmation that they will to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in court.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/23/2007
I just loved it when Jesus ripped into the Pharisees. OUTSTANDING!!!!!!!!!!!
Written by Who are U?
on 7/23/2007
Kind of eerie actually, I mean seriously, did you think a picture was blogging with you and saying thanks for the vote of confidence?????? Idiot, you really are dillusional, P.S. what was that wise crack about not being able to think my way out of a paper bag? Quick grab one and start breathing in AND out into it, you are hyperventalating... MORON
Written by J.C.
on 7/23/2007
How can one, if one is with the one, be an impersonator of the one if one is only one, then where are you and that makes 2. Primordal, and u have understanding? HO!HO!HO!HO!
Written by J.C.
on 7/23/2007
FreedomLovingLiberalololololololol, heh, heh, wut a miragee, wut an ultra maroon.....................
Written by No TSK TSK 4 U
on 7/23/2007
Oh Freedom Loving Liberalllllllllllll............. Then Jesus cried out, "He who believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me (God). And he who sees me sees him who sent me (God). I have come as light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. He who rejects me has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day. For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father has given me commandment what to speak, and I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, I say as the Father has bidden me."""…………………. And that is about what it is. Jesus ended all arguments. He was there in the beginning, and he will be there at your end. Jesus luvs ya baby.
Written by Slamming the FLL
on 7/23/2007
<<< “And I am the J.C. you wrote about that confounds the rest, but thanks for the understanding, realization, and your confession. Moron.” >>> Dear Moron, good to see you come clean about your impersonation of J.C. In any event, as you can readily divine from my post, I am always careful to never associate J.C. with the primordial slime of the Christian Religious Right.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/23/2007
Pardon me sir, but do you have any grey poop on? Hey Freedomlovingliberal, repeat after me, (No not to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me God line) "I would rather have a bottle in front o'me than have a prefrontal labotomy.
Written by Bozo
on 7/23/2007
Wut an idiot! >>>>>I’d rather defend true American values and our secular system of justice, which was always intended to be religiously neutral<<<<<< Hey Freedomlovingliberal, religiously neutral? Yeah, that's what swearing on the Bible before testifying is all about. Idiot
Written by Kant beeleeve me eyes
on 7/23/2007
Ahhhh,,,,, There you go again FLL. Hmmmm, ehh, wuts up Dock? Maybe, we should put Bug's Bunnies picture there to please the Christian side, and the Devil side in us all? Yawnnnnnnnn,,,,,, You keyboard pounding pontificator fixated on its own naked haberdashery you....
Written by yungndum
on 7/23/2007
But I luvs ya anyways................... Just don't get any spew on me while I work for a better Louisiana.........
Written by Slamming the FLL
on 7/23/2007
Oh, and by the way.....God, Guts and Guns are what caused this magnificant country into manifestation. Back in those times your ancestors were probably rummaging around in the gutters for old rotten potatos back in Europe and crying for deliverance by God.
Written by Slamming the FLL
on 7/23/2007
Like I said before, way way way before, and an accurate observation also, as it still holds true when regarding you. Your statement and attitude of Justice is "Just us". I am pretty sure you are merely a confused fascist. Oh, and P.S. thanks for your earler compliments........ Moron.
Written by Slamming the FLL
on 7/23/2007
Slamming FLL?? You wish! You just can’t seem to get your mind around the First Amendment or its intentions. At the same time, you clearly misunderstand the teachings of J.C. – in fact, your “God, Guts and Guns” mantra makes you sound every bit as insane as the jihadists. Your postings take the form of evangelical sermons ‘testifying’ that Christianity is the only true faith and the only path to God. Hey, good luck with that, but you really need to learn to respect the fact that other people don’t share your faith. The clear intention of the Establishment Clause is that the state must not play favorites with religion, no matter what faith the majority practices. As for your claim that “the only reason the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution were ever envisioned, let alone acted upon was because there were Christian Men under obedience to God that were empowered and supported to commit such a series of acts” – I refer to an earlier posting by Richard P. who put paid to that myth fairly succinctly: <<< “The founding fathers of this country were mostly Deists, who, for once in all history, got it right in keeping religion out of government, probably with a keen awareness of how monumentally screwed up Europe had been for centuries. So now, instead of understanding and appreciating the founders' wisdom, we'd rather go back to the old European approach, i.e. about the same thing as the modern-day Taliban et al. approach? The founders also got it right in setting up a republic where the rights of each individual are respected instead of a direct democracy with a majority imposing its will on all. Would one rather have majority ‘mob rule’? Take a good look at how things are working out with some of these middle east nations.” >>> I must say, Tsky, you sound eerily like a Taliban zealot when you say that … “a focal point that represents something higher than mere laws written by mortal man within that [JUSTICE] institution is a good thing” and that “we pray for [CHRISTIAN] faith based disbursement in our justice system, we pray to God for truth, wisdom, justice, inspiration, and guidance as it [JUSTICE] is being conducted.” That is so shockingly antithetical to the First Amendment it’s unbelievable. To hell with your religious state mentality and your aspirations for a faith based justice system. I’d rather defend true American values and our secular system of justice, which was always intended to be religiously neutral.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/23/2007
P.S..... And I am the J.C. you wrote about that confounds the rest, but thanks for the understanding, realization, and your confession. Moron.................................
Written by Slamming the FLL
on 7/23/2007
In the beginning there was the Declaration of independence, and it was good……… "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness……………… The wisdom and the prudence held and practiced amongst our founding fathers as they penned this upon paper realized that only through God, Guts and Guns this could, or would be an understanding held securely by the population that beheld it's revelation……………………………………. And to cause this contemplative reasoning into a firm understanding by the many they penned the following…………..
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security……………… The rest is history, and years later the constitution was written…………. And it is also enforceable through the God, Guts, and Guns when the courts fail us… Nevertheless, many even of the authorities did believe in him, but they did not confess it, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God…………..Then Jesus cried out, "He who believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me (God). And he who sees me sees him who sent me (God). I have come as light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. He who rejects me has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day. For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father has given me commandment what to speak, and I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, I say as the Father has bidden me."""…………………. And herein lies the crux of the matter………………………………. "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit"……………………………….And so the 'liberal' would try to present itself as someone who supports Law, Law, Law, rights, rights, rights while it quietly tries to debase the masses and deprive them of their sensible position. The picture on the wall is merely a contemplative benchmark for the believer and the non believer alike. The picture is not even an accurate rendering of Christ, and Christ is not a religion, Christ is a faith, and the faith is rooted in God just as hopefully our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution is. And with that we pray for the same kind of faith based disbursement in our justice system, we pray to God for truth, wisdom, justice, inspiration, and GUIDANCE as it is being conducted. So yes, man being man, and eternally weak and easily tempted I would think that a focal point that represents something higher than mere laws written by mortal man within that institution is a good thing considering that peoples lives often hang in the balance in that setting. Live by the law, die by the law. And understanding this, and understanding that the only reason the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution were ever envisioned, let alone acted upon was because there were Christian Men under obedience to God that were empowered and supported to commit such a series of acts, I say the picture stays, "Grand fathered" in so to speak as it does represent the will of the people who are the majority in the United States of America. And I am glad you respect the Christian faith, and I understand you do not share it, well, therein is where your neurosis lays. Christ was no pacifist, so for your little "Nobody with half a clue would mistake you for someone who understands the teachings of J.C." Understand this "Every one then who hears those words of his and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And every one who hears these words of his and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it".
Written by Slamming the FLL
on 7/23/2007
Well, with the exception of J.C. (whose wisdom will always confound the rest of you), you have all passed your illiteracy test with flying colors. Extra points have been awarded for bitter partisan rancor, childish personal abuse and trollish total irrelevance regarding the subject of the discussion. You heroes must be a great inspiration to your pals on the political right. Smell you later …
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/23/2007
My oh my, you are a creepy sort of little fellow aren't you.
Written by Fo da FLL
on 7/22/2007
Ah yes, everything is black and white, even cop cars.... We should have more of those. "Stronger Police For A Stronger Police State" -A. Diddiler
Written by Da Refereeeeeee Wheee!!!!!!!
on 7/22/2007
Hey! Did someone mention my name on this thread? Pardon me sir, but do you have any grey poop on?
Written by Bozo
on 7/22/2007
Boooowaaahhahahahahahahhaha!!!! Where is your God now Christian? We ARE in control............
Written by We love your freedom,,,,,, Morons
on 7/22/2007
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That is prohibited outright in the First Amendment, COMMA AND ALL.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Freedomlovingluberal, someone wrote to you on this subject before: >>>>>>>You have no freedoms, only privledges<<<<<<<<, And those are being taken from us one by one. Make way for the new order of things. Rock the vote!!!!!!!!! Find a benchmark to measure our polositicians by.
Written by No TSK TSK TSK 4 U
on 7/22/2007
Hey, Freedom Loving Liberal, thank you for your vote of respect, I needed that. Wouldn't want to think I was hanging around for nothing.
Written by J.C.
on 7/22/2007
Hey everybody!!!!! I'm a freedom loving liberal!!!!!!! Vote for me and you won't have to look at Mary and Joseph with Jesus in the Manger at Christmas time anymore!!!!! In fact, I'll even ban Christmas for you so you won't have to listen to any 'Heaven forbid' Christmas Carols anymore!!!!!!! Yippy!!! Let freedom ring, and in the court room let Satanism be the thing!!!!!!
Written by Yancy Pelosi
on 7/22/2007
Yeah doc, you sound like a dillusional illusional lalapalosional.
Written by yungndum
on 7/22/2007
Foolish Looving Liberal; Oh wahhhhhhh,,,,,, THE discussion board had been dormant for 2 days and you were gone for 5? Gee, how did it ever go on without you and your paranoid rants? T.S. I know another word that starts with 'F'..... Fascist.
Written by Da Refereeeeeee Wheee!!!!!!!
on 7/22/2007
Yeah, I seonded the moytion........ What an ultra maroon, what uh mirageeeeee...... Heh! Heh!
Written by No TSK TSK TSK 4 U
on 7/22/2007
Hmmmm, ehh, wuts up Dock? Maybe, we should put Bug's Bunnies picture there to please the Christian side, and the Devil side in us all? Yawnnnnnnnn,,,,,, You keyboard pounding pontificator fixated on its own naked haberdashery you....
Written by yungndum on 7/20/2007
Written by
on 7/22/2007
And Ole Jarhead … you keep banging on about the comma in the First Amendment which separates the Establishment Clause from the Free Exercise Clause, as if it adds weight to your position. The First Amendment clearly means that the state is prohibited from establishing a national religion, favoring one religion over others and stopping people from freely exercising their religion. Yet you can’t seriously believe that any individual freedom is absolute – it always needs to be balanced against the freedoms and rights of others. No group should be allowed to use the state to elevate their faith above others and then claim that they’re just “exercising their religion”. That is prohibited outright in the First Amendment, COMMA AND ALL.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/22/2007
To the Bozo known as Tsk … if anyone has been frothing meaningless malice on this discussion thread, it is you. And how absurd to begin yet another hypocritical diatribe by insulting the discussion board (which had been dormant for two days – I’ve been away for five), while jumping right back in to revive it! Especially since you don’t have the mental equipment to deal with the slightest difference of opinion without becoming a red-faced, wild-eyed, fist-pounding bully in a self-styled pulpit. As I have said many times, I respect the Christian faith, but I don’t share it. The justice system belongs to all Americans and should never elevate, or be seen to elevate, one religion and its followers above others. And Bozo T, you’re wasting your time giving all these angry, thumping, hate-fuelled sermons that invoke the name of Jesus Christ. Nobody with half a clue would mistake you for someone who understands the teachings of J.C. Your xenophobic rants are about as convincing as they are coherent.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/22/2007
This I know to be fact and it is the only fact that is apparent not only to Louisiana, but the rest of the nation as well. Louisiana as a State needs significant improvements. I cannot speak for politicians, because that’s all they are, politicians. But I can speak for an individual that I know has integrity and also has the way. Within a few short months he could employ over 400 people. Within a years time that number will escalate to well beyond that. He could also put many dozens of people in business for their selves. He has a plan to solve the construction problem in the 9th ward, and his works would not ever be flooded, even if the rest of the city gets it again because of inept Corp of Engineers supervision. He can make many prudent private investors additional incomes. He can even make common individuals wealthy and enabled to provide for their future security and retirement. He can provide safety and security for Louisiana, New Orleans, from a number of nature generated travesties. And he can even protect and restore the marshlands. He has ideas that will increase the fisheries industry significantly as well; He has a plan to save taxpayers multiple billions upon billions of dollars for years to come. The benefits of him, and the contributions that can made are too numerous to list on this thread. In short, it is poetry in motion, if the people want that, progress, real measurable progress. His name is William H. Smith and his website is www.strongconctrete.com in short you should be talking to your elected officials that are now in office about him. Understand for the most part they are simply smack people waiting for the end of their terms, and any candidate running for office should be asked if they are studied in www.strongconcrete.com If they are not, or want to shoot it down, it simply means they are self serving, or are in service to someone else that only wants to grind the state into deeper oppression and lack. The future, and the vote is up to you. More of the same in the upcoming elections? Or do you want change that evens things out and improves our lot as a collective citizenry?
Written by A concerned Louisianian
on 7/21/2007
Hmmmm, maybe, we should put Bug's Bunnies picture there to please the Christian side, and the Devil side in us all?
Written by yungndum
on 7/20/2007
Yeah and toilet paper counts too. And that's all the Constitution amounts to any more these days, toilet paper. So both ya'll spew on. Dumb liberals.
Written by Rumplestiltskin
on 7/20/2007
The Comma DOES Count! as does the semicolon. the semicolon says that there is more to follow allong the same lines without stopping GIVING EQUAL IMPORTANCE to that before and AFTER THE SEMICOLON!
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/19/2007
I don't think that's why that picture is there, I think it is there just to make Satinists feel bad. And as an outstanding Satinist living in this great state, and contributing all I can be it in the form of vote, or crookery or out right deceit that I can, I find my constitutional rights are out and out being violated because of this visage and you should take it down right now!!!!!!!
Written by Freedom loving lover
on 7/19/2007
Oh liberal me a home, where the buffalo roam, and the deer and the antelope play. Where seldom is herd and discouraging word, and the skies are sunny all dayyyyyyyyy..... HOme hoMe on the range..................................
Written by PHSHTTHTHSHTSHTHS
on 7/19/2007
Yeah, but he's still a liberal..................
Written by PHSHTTHTHSHTSHTHS
on 7/19/2007
And neither does a semi-colon. Speaking of colons.....
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Written by It isn't the comma that counts
on 7/19/2007
Oh you liberal you, are you for reels?
Written by
on 7/19/2007
Yep they should allow it to stay, and I agree with Mystery man that the Senators should too. You see here is the problem, (I know those that post here have seen this already but bear with me) LIBERALS like to quote the Constitution saying "The Government shall not establish a religion" They FORGET however what a comma is for and they stop reading (I have no clue as to why Liberals have problems going past commas) the rest of that statement says, "...or the free exercise thereof." I believe that the picture is nothing more than the free exercise thereof and thus it should be allowed to stay!
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/19/2007
The mystery man is right on target. O.J. glad to see you don't think I'm funny. Never wanted to leave a humourous impression. GBY.
Written by TSK TSK TSK
on 7/18/2007
Yeah I'm a Liberal, YOUR REAL FUNNY!....... NOT!
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/18/2007
Jesus should have his picture hanging not only in the court room but in all of our Senators and Congressman's office. You can see what happens when we forget.
Written by mystery man
on 7/18/2007
Ahh, you new age former Marines. Kind of hits me right in the heart. I have a step son that had the same kind of thinking. Nothing like the Old Corp. But I guess we have to stand down in some point in History. Pity, and the world was starting to go so nicely. Keep the Teufel Hunden motivation, it brings back fond memories. Like I said, you are a Liberal. Peace out Hombre
Written by TSK, TSK, TSK
on 7/18/2007
Nothing Former about me bud I will ALWAYS be a MARINE! I don't know what your reading to think I am a LIBERAL could you enlighten me? I have no CLUE what your reading to get that! And you know, its "There are no EX Marines only Former active duty Marines" So in a way your right but like I said I will ALWAYS be a Marine! So Semper Fi Mac!
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/18/2007
And being as you are interested in nomenclatures, or monikers, or class distinctions, the phrase is; "There are no ex-Marines, only Former-Marines". Semper Fi and peace out Hombre
Written by TSK, TSK, TSK
on 7/18/2007
Please get your position and priorities straight. You are a liberal. Period. Semper Fi.
Written by TSK, TSK, TSK
on 7/18/2007
TSK, TSK TSK, See there your WRONG Buddy, I AM NOT A LIBERAL! I SUPPORT the picture being there! (read posts prior to the ones on Islam) You didn't read all the posts you jumped in in the MIDDLE of a conversation and YOU GOT IT WRONG! Now since your my Christian Brother I want you to know I forgive you!
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/18/2007
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>WOW Tsk no one ever called you a liar....<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I did 15 active two inactive thats why I say 94 Sorry I wasn't specific enough for you! Ohh and if your an former active duty Marine you know there is NO SUCH thing as a FORMER MARINE, ONCE a MARINE, ALWAYS A MARINE... You know that.... Now you said "A Marine never forgets its tours of Duty..." I am NOT AN IT you make it sound like I am a jeep or a truck or a DOG! You don't have to take me seriously, the VA does when they treat me. As to sights sounds and actions some will haunt me the rest of my life, and since you allude to being a combat Vet you know what I mean. Really is that all you had to critize was the dates GEEZ!
Written by Ole Jarhead on 7/16/2007
To Tsk Tsk Tsk..WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I did my time in the Corps, (15 years) and the Moniker fits me oh so well, why don't you pick a moniker that is a little less condesending? Just a thought from an Ole Jarhead.
Written by Ole Jarhead on 7/16/2007
What an insufferable load of wank. And how revolting to see an intolerant, hate-fuelled malcontent like yourself even invoke the name of Jesus. All these tirades prove is your lack of respect for anyone but yourself and people who share your beliefs – and that you’re a bitterly partisan, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>compulsive liar<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< who levels over the top allegations against liberals. You’d be out of your depth in a rain puddle. Try to remember to take your meds tomorrow. You are a crashing bore and an unworthy adversary.
Written by freedomlovingliberal on 7/15/2007
Yes the liberal spin. They constantly change the story and try to upgrade their image in an effort to appear to be valid. You meant, you meant, you meant. I know what you mean.
Written by TSK, TSK, TSK
on 7/18/2007
Oh, and my public apology, I am the third bozo posting. Does that make this a managetwa?
Written by BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
on 7/18/2007
How did I know this thread was still >>>>>>>buzzing around<<<<<<<<<????? Well, because that is the predictability of man. I even knew there would only be two bozos pasting. So now it appears that this thread is really some sort of retarded information/disinformation sanction. FLL, O.J. I am sure by now you are crosseyed and frothing at the mouth reading the screen because you are incapable of completing your mission. You are a couple of insipid, bungling fools sitting behind the keyboards. There is only Christ in the end. Know Christ, Know Freedom, No Christ No Freedom. The picture stays. As I wrote before, and I will spell it out again, Americans have no real freedoms anymore aside from the freedom to hire an attorney if one can afford one. Americans only have a few privledges, and Americans as a whole are only allowed to do a few things as long as something bigger doesn't get its nose bent out of shape and take an action that is professed to be illegal according to "LAW" against that which it holds in disdain because the "State" doesn't like it, or wants what that American has as it "swats" it. Beware of the false prophets. I am pretty well sure I just encountered two more of them. They bare their fangs, and lose their anonimity when put to the test. I believe I have a pretty good idea what these 2 azz clowns really are. It is a shame that the next elections are only going to bring in more of the same in kind, and we will have more of the same in kind on our tax supported payroll systems as well. Satan is the great deceiver, until exposed to the light. I had thought this thread would have been gone by now, but it just keeps going, and going and going. Sort of like the energizer bunny. I will keep the veiled threat of the "Mud Flap swatting" in mind. I survived the last one you orchastrated bozos attempted a couple of years ago. So for other folks that have dropped in to look at this string of cluttered posts, just know that Christ is there for you even if you are not there all the time for him. It is gauranteed. Peace out Hombres
Written by TSK, TSK, TSK
on 7/18/2007
WOW Tsk no one ever called you a liar.... I did 15 active two inactive thats why I say 94 Sorry I wasn't specific enough for you! Ohh and if your an former active duty Marine you know there is NO SUCH thing as a FORMER MARINE, ONCE a MARINE, ALWAYS A MARINE... You know that.... Now you said "A Marine never forgets its tours of Duty..." I am NOT AN IT you make it sound like I am a jeep or a truck or a DOG! You don't have to take me seriously, the VA does when they treat me. As to sights sounds and actions some will haunt me the rest of my life, and since you allude to being a combat Vet you know what I mean. Really is that all you had to critize was the dates GEEZ!
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/16/2007
Tsk, I can’t help but wonder where your new found freedom will take you – clearly a place more liberating than the USA. Your ancestors would indeed be proud to hear you whining away like an ingrate that there is no freedom in America. Talk about being in way over your head. You can’t seem to handle any modicum of difference with dignity, or think your way out of a paper bag – let alone the little mud puddle you call Louisiana. When you do finally take your tantrum on the road, just watch the mud flaps don’t swat you on the way out.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/16/2007
FLL, way over your head now. In a moment or two you are probably going to dragging those poor Jews into this spew. It isn't about land, it's about control. Power, money, praise, control. Period. And no, the Caths, and Prots are not all that prone. You are way over your head, my ancestors fought in the War of the Roses. We know why Irish men fight. So please, leave that discussion alone. In fact, my ancestors were at the forefront in the founding of this nation and providing the Constitution of the United States. One was a member of the Immortal 11. Don't even presume to tell me about history. It is in your face and being lived right now. Good night America
Written by TSK, TSK, TSK
on 7/16/2007
And O.J. I hate to point out that you sir, must then be a liar. '77 - 94' is 17 years, not the 15 you orgionally specified as your time served in an earlier post. A Marine never forgets its tours of duty, the dates, the sights, the sounds, the actions. Makes it hard to take seriously your claim of being a former Marine. Sorry.
Written by TSK, TSK, TSK
on 7/16/2007
O.K. Freedom Loving Liberal. The facts are, I already have.... And it is timeless. But there is no Quid Pro Quo........ I gave it to them for free, and I did the same for Communists, Buddhists, Taoists, people in Hong Kong, people in Bolivia, people all around the world. Doesn't matter what color they are or what brand of underware they have or don't have on. Instead of sitting around talking, I was doing. And I did, and I accomplished. I made one mistake though, I didn't grovel at the feet of the Grand Poohbah. And now I face an oppressive regime here on Home Turf. No more. I believe in freedom, and as I stated, there is no freedom in America. It is gone. It is all but dissapeared. The politicians, be they liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, nudie or moonie, or just inwardly perverted are all of the same cut in fiber. Envious, and greedy, and willing to screw their constituants. I am reluctant, but satisfied to say that shortly my time is at an end here in Louisiana and I go on to someplace else. Enjoy this mudpuddle while you can.
Written by TSK, TSK, TSK
on 7/16/2007
Hey Tsk Tsk Tsk, when did you serve? I was in the Corps from 77-94. I am really NOT so wet behind the ears. WOW! lots of irrelevant dogma being thrown around from both sides, This is fun to watch.
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/16/2007
And Tsk – you keep complaining about how boring it is for you to take one Islamophobic dump after another on this thread. I couldn’t agree more. Don’t sit around talking about it. Do something about it.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/16/2007
Tsk – I’m hardly a novice on Irish politics and history. The point of my analogy was that The Troubles wasn’t about Catholics and Protestants fighting for religious goals, or that these two groups were inherently prone to engage in bloody conflict with each other. Having said that, religion was used on both sides to justify atrocities. YES, the conflict was about land ownership and oppression. In the same vein, Islamic terrorists are waging what they label ‘jihad’ against the West based on (real or perceived) injustices relating to land ownership, displacement and oppression of Muslim populations. It has nothing to do with religion, no matter how much they try to hide behind religion. Their claim that their atrocities are justified in the Quran is rejected outright by the overwhelming majority of Muslims, who have lived alongside us peacefully for generations. Above all, it just doesn’t make sense to allow ourselves to be goaded into treating Islam and all Muslims with contempt because of a bunch of murderous fanatics.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/16/2007
An exerpt from one of your posts>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Have the guts to stand up to terrorists and tell them they’re full of crap when they claim their politically motivated violence is justified by religion. Stop giving the jihadist terrorist fanatics what they want from you – hatred and war against Islam and all Muslims.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< And herin shows that you do not understand the dynamics of what is going on. Hatred and war is what their religion is all about. Now you are getting into doctrine and dogma. Anything can be a religion. Sponge Bob Square pants can be a religion. Religion is that which someone does religiously. and fighting and killing and terrorising is what some of those wackos do. Just like there were a bunch of "Muslims" involved in the LA Riots a few decades ago, or took to the streets because Rodney King was beaten. We are fighting terrorists. Simple as that, they hide behind Islam, and they want that Nation to be. Yes, we are going to Iran, yes we are going to end up turning that entire region of the globe into a glass parking lot. Those peacful peace loving Muslims over there had better belly up and start doing the right thing and that is bring peace to their own sector of the globe if that is what they really want. I could care less about their little Quran. It is a farce and it is merely another set of writers presentation of writings that were already presented to them thousands of years before. I am not impressed. But the sight of Christ in living form would impress me. As far as having the guts to stand up to terrorists, I'm ready right now. Get me a plane ticket, a couple of select weapons and I will go clean house.
This tread is boring............. The mind police are probably knocking on my door right now ready to take me away. Welcome to Orwells jungle. It has only just begun.
Written by TSK, TSK, TSK
on 7/16/2007
Oh, and the IRA? You are on my home ground now. It had nothing to do with killing infidel protestants. It was land ownership and oppression. That was the root, and the potato famine merely drove that point home. You really need to study a little more than you write.
Written by TSK, TSK, TSK
on 7/16/2007
More of the same. Look, I have read the Quran. I understand the reason why it was written, I understand what the Fundamentalists are trying to achieve, I am simply saying this, I could care less about Muslims, the nation of Islam (And there my friend is the crux of the matter, "Nation") and I am not interested in teaching people about what a wonderful loving peaceful people they are, be they phillipeno, or Iraqi, or from Borneo or anywhere else. I understand their religion comprises approximately 1/6th of the worlds population. 1000 years ago illiteracy comprised approximately 95% of the worlds population. I do not even think you understand what Jihad is.
I understand what the interpretation is, and no, it is not what the terrorists are doing. They are following an extreme doctrine. But, doctrine is as doctrine does. And all I have to say is that for 1/6th of the world to be following someones heat induced visions simply shows they are infirm in contenance. What do we get from Islam? Nothing. What is inspired by Islam aside from nifty looking friezes and portions of the alphabet and of course let us not forget 0 or we wouldn't have been able to get to the stages of the rudimentary binary code, Nothing!!!!! Christianity? The basis for which all truth flows and good things happen. ISLAM = mud and oppression with an elite few governing over the devout sheep, and Christianity = Render unto Ceaser what is Cesars, and pick up your cross and follow me. The only thing missing in the Quaran is a cross they can hang around on. They hijacked Christ and put him in their book of LAW so to not insult the sensibilities of the masses. The included Noah (non of my business) Abraham, Moses, Jesus and a couple of other fairy tale figures for good measure when the Micky Mouse club known as Islam was brought into Fruition. Look I love Muslims, and I love Walt Disney, but Mickey Mouse is not the giver of law, and the law of Islam is not one I am interested in. Christ is in America, and America is in Christ. There is no wacko Muhammed running the show. We don't need Muslims here, we don't need to import penguins from Antartica, or Yugos from Chezcheslovokia. We need to focus on the Strengths of America, not pursue the weaknesses that affect us, and rock on. What is it with you and the Muslims? Maybe you can have a Jerry Lewis Muslemathon? Why don't you focus on the Dali Lama or something, or some Shinto priest. What is up with all that? How about poor Eskimos in Anchorage? Christ stays. In our hearts, in our minds, and in our souls, and a visual reminder of a representation of him when I am weak is a welcome sight. Far more stimulating than watch some disillusioned woman wandering around in a Burka or whatever they call that retarded garb.
Written by TSK, TSK< TSK
on 7/16/2007
Tsk Tsk Tsk … this is not about loving Muslims, although J.C. would certainly compel you to do exactly that. You seem to be suffering from the delusion that jihadist terrorist fanatics are the authorities on Islam. You don’t even realize that you’re handing them a major victory by parroting their claim that Islam justifies their atrocities. Meanwhile, you ignore the nearly 100% of Muslims who tell you that that’s patently untrue. Did you also dozily go along with the IRA’s terrorist bombings on the basis that they were model Catholics fighting against the infidel Protestants in Northern Ireland and England? Have the guts to stand up to terrorists and tell them they’re full of crap when they claim their politically motivated violence is justified by religion. Stop giving the jihadist terrorist fanatics what they want from you – hatred and war against Islam and all Muslims.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/16/2007
This is where is starts getting retarded. Am I happy to be in Iraq? Nope. OJ is sort of wet behind the ears, but I appreciate his input. I put my time in and was out while he was still watching Mr. Roger's neighborhood with his grammer school pals. We knew then what was going to be, so '92 didn't surprise me. In fact, Iraq was part of our understood Mantra. And neither does this thing going on now. Push for a fight, there is going to be one, one way or another, and it happened. Bush, Sadamm? Iraq, Iran? Hey, it is all simply signs of the times. This is all manuverings. That is all it is. And it was all predestined. Clear back in the 60's. The democrat leadership insured it. From FDR on.......... Sure they had ideals that were good, and aspirations that went bad. Now we eat the bitter ashes. Any one religion? There are lots of religions yes. But there is only one truth. That is the truth of Jesus Christ. You don't even have to be a Christian to see the wisdom and the beauty of his being and his teachings. They are simply outstanding. And no, I am not going to stand there waving a bible when I have some ill minded person trying to take my life from me. Even Jesus wandered around with an armed group. You either believe or you don't. There is no halfway, no midway, no part way. Make a mistake, pray for forgiveness. I suppose the real question would be "Is what I say or do for good, or for bad?" Name calling? So what? Sticks and Stones.... Big Deal.......... Instead getting insulted, be contemplative and ask your self, is there a basis for the moniker attached? Is it good? Is it bad? No we are not Star Trek, there is no Spock, and you will find that even Dr. Phil is ugly inside also. We are all ugly, we are all human, we are all prone to mistakes. How do we fix them? State the problem freely, without fear, help your brother, instead of squashing him or her under your foot like a little bug. This is way off topic, and I feel that the content is becomming meidocre at best because really, does any one truly care? I don't think so, I think they just want to sit around and froth at the keyboards and pontificate and elevate theirself, and their own agenda. So, whatever. But I like the idea of a representation of Christ being prominently displayed. Just like I like seeing my countries flag, and I like to see smiling black faces, and well fed Iraqis bending down on their carpets in their own land. And if you don't like christ, show some respect and ignore it, just like I will ignore your lack of understanding and Say "God Bless you". Even if you work for the state.
Written by TSK, TSK,TSK
on 7/16/2007
Shadow, reading your thoughts on Christianity, I’m both touched and troubled. I think it’s at best naïve and at worst intolerant of you to look down your nose at allegedly weak-minded people of other faiths and nationalities. It does not matter that Christians are the majority here. The US does not have an official religion, and that’s why one religion should never be elevated above others in any court of law, no matter how highly we (yes, WE) regard J.C. and Christianity. And did I hear you say, ‘God help us when liberals start dictating law’? Well now, I wish He’d been around when we were being led by conservatives into the black hole that is the war in Iraq, using forged and false evidence, no less. ‘Enough to drive a Saint to Drink’? Have some O.J., Shadow. I don’t mind.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/16/2007
In other words, I am not concerned with making peace with the world, or policing the world, or anything else. Mess with the U.S. and you mess with us. We need to get back to a basic mindset. That which is good, efficient, and proper you advocate, that which is errant or wrong, you endure, but it doesn't mean you have to continue on with headstrong ways that cause nothing but ruination. And you don't have to cave in to nonsense either. If you love Muslims, power to you. I love alligators, doesn't mean I want one in my lap, or that I want a kiss from one. I hold them at arms length. Why, because of the basic drive that compells them. Free yourselves, because our wacky politicians, our little liberal special interests non-profit scam shaminism groups, and a who lot of other pitiful souls don't seem to be able to. Only Christ stands between the Accused and the Judge. So, for back on topic, Christians are the majority in America. I am not interested in his picture comming down from any location. And I am not interested in importing a mass of useless malcontents to tip the scales in another direction either. And this is getting boring.
Written by TSK, TSK, TSK
on 7/16/2007
WOAH!! I AM NOT A LIBERAL BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION!!! (Just ask F.L.L.) Instead of reading one post, that had to do with hate mongering you should read all my posts BEFORE comming to a conclusion about my political leanings! YOU made an assumption.. and we know that that leads to. If you read my PREVIOUS posts about this subject you will find that I find NO REASON to take the picture down, get all your facts straight BEFORE you ASSUME to judge me as as far as you addressing inspecting and dismissing me, since you did it without all the facts I find your address, inspection and dismissal to be lacking, therefore I am DONE talking to you, GOOD DAY!
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/16/2007
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything. I know, because in moments of confusion I have on more than one or two occaisons. No I am not hard, nor am I hard up, I am simply focused. What ever happened to Randolph Scott? He is about as liberal as anything there is I would care to be influenced by. Keep christs picture where it is, and send your kids to church, and get yourself to church. As long as the church is based on Christ.
Written by Tsk tsk tsk.
on 7/16/2007
NOW F.L.L. what have we talked about... don't call people names, Having been in the Kuwait, Saudi, S. Iraq, Qautar, Israel, Egypt, and Lebanon (1983, for the Barracks bombing tsk tsk tsk)I know that not ALL Muslims are terrorists, like not all Christians are nut jobs F.L.L.
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/16/2007
Because if a Lib can't get the vote democratically, it will steal the vote by arrainging the demographics, or importing some ballot box stuffers.
Written by I vote yes for Christ.
on 7/16/2007
Instead of hiding behind your pompous piety.
Written by Oh, and you know who... Come out of the shadows
on 7/16/2007
Praddle on, your freudian slip gave you away several posts ago. Things are more direct and dire than I thought. Yes, let the picture of Jesus Christ stand in the court room. For the spirit of christ is the only thing that stands between the accused, and the judge. If liberals had their way, all people would be disarmed, put on meds, and slapped in a cave. We Christians spent to much time in caves. The light of Christ set us free, and we helped cause a Renessance to happen even after those horrible dark ages when little dictators decided they were the law. God help us when liberals start dictating law. And they will. Thank you for proving my point O.J. and fll. As for the ACLU. It is an outdated cause that at first served a noble purpose, but like the liberals, it has lost focus, and lost its way. America Rocks! And so does Jesus Christ. And no, I am not some 'Born Again' whatever label you want to put on me. You labled yourself a liberal, I respect it, and addressed it because I understand your nuances. Liked the parking quip. Christ had his hand on my heart before I was even born. Christ has been there even as I stumbled and bumbled about trying to abide all the 'LAWS' And now LAW is being used against us. Give a Lib and inch and it will take your smile. Bitterly partisan? No, I am a partisan patriot. I love my country, I love my neighbors, I love Jesus Christ. And I do not need a Muslim or a Moonie or a State employee to tell me what it is I should or shouldn't like what I should do, or shouldn't do because it offends them. Fact is, Christians are the majority. And a few whining libs that what to import weak minded people from other lands to change our views or values is just about more than any sane man can stand. It is enought to drive a Saint to Drink. O.J., FLL. You stand inspected, addressed, and dismissed, so get on topic if you do not mind.
Written by
on 7/16/2007
To Tsk Tsk Tsk..WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I did my time in the Corps, (15 years) and the Moniker fits me oh so well, why don't you pick a moniker that is a little less condesending? Just a thought from an Ole Jarhead.
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/16/2007
What an insufferable load of wank. And how revolting to see an intolerant, hate-fuelled malcontent like yourself even invoke the name of Jesus. All these tirades prove is your lack of respect for anyone but yourself and people who share your beliefs – and that you’re a bitterly partisan, compulsive liar who levels over the top allegations against liberals. You’d be out of your depth in a rain puddle. Try to remember to take your meds tomorrow. You are a crashing bore and an unworthy adversary.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/15/2007
No parking traumas experienced here. No changing of the subject on my part either, because the answer remains the same. Everyone knows that a belief system is the basic corner stone for any civilized group of people. I don't care if you believe in Islam, shaminism, mormonism, moronism, or even nepotism. It is neither here nor there to me. Although I am pretty sure that I do not want to be around you very often if you are. I have no phobia of Islamists. I understand that they are simply, and I stress the word 'simply' misaligned with what American Society and aspirations are. We don't need them, we don't need truck loads of illegal immigrants, we don't need liberals taking away our guns, our voting privledges, our tax dollars, our childrens rights to a good eductation, on and on and on. Including our pictures of jesus even though we don't know what he looks like because all the picture, or the cross is, is symbolism. But in a court of law, it is comforting to know that at least someone somewhere in that building has the idea of mercy and compassion in the institution before judgement is passed. In short, I don't even think this is an article about the Jesus picture. I think it is really about a crummy little group of malcontents called the ACLU (Against Christian's Living Usefully) This is another group that is not needed in America. Much like Muslims, they are misguided. And I don't need any Satan worshippers controlling the house, Actually, this is just a dead subject. Liberals hate Jesus, they hate liberty and justice, they have their heads up their arses in general. So, have a good week. When this whole thing goes down, and you are begging for crumbs from the conservative who has reserves, do your ignorant self a favor, and do not mention being liberal. It will help you in the long run.
Written by The shadow knows
on 7/15/2007
Shadow – I’m terribly sorry to hear of your recent parking traumas. Tell me, was the No Parking sign written in one of those foreign languages (maybe an evil Islamic code) that you couldn’t understand? I really have no use for a slop bucket full of Islamophobic spew, so I’ll just wish you and your friends well and hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend pass from the born-again loony asylum.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/14/2007
I agree with the shadow. Maybe the freedom loving liberal does need some focus, or something to focus on, or a hobby or something. Maybe the freedom loving liberal could do something positive like look at someone that is out there doing some good. The volunteers that look to build and improve, not waste and stagnate and cause ridiculous dissention and strife and separations. Maybe the liberal is incapable of clinging to a rock. It is not easy to do so for the weak and infirm. We all have our moments of disillusionment. Some need to start with milk before they can get to the meat. And some don't like milk. Maybe the liberal needs to start with some strongconcrete. Where on the internet can a liberal learn about being strongconcrete? Seek and ye shall find. Knock and the door will be answered.
Written by The Wanderer
on 7/14/2007
Ahhh,,,, the liberal....... Thinking hard on what you wrote, and how the picture of Christ makes you feel uncomfortable, next it will probably be the flag of the State of Louisiana, and then it will be the flag of the United States of America. We already know that liberals have pretty much rooted out prayer in school, the pledge of Allegiance, the wearing of a cross around ones neck or a lapel pin on a shirt. I think liberals actually want the country to be thrown down the drain. Only the peace of mind that comes from Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost stands between the majority, and certain insanity. As we sit in the court house and watch the bovine scatology yes, we need something that keeps things in perspective. This nation was founded by Christians, and it is a Christian nation. If liberals don't like it, the can beam theirselves up to the dark side of the moon. In fact, I think "Liberal" is a misnomour. Most liberals are not liberals, they are really merely bothersome malcontents that will happily stand on a soap box spewing opinion, but when it comes down to it, won't lay anything on the line, and surely will not sacrafice or fight for it. Are you going to fight to have Christs picture removed from the court house? I thought not. An Islamist sure will if it is surrounded by enough of its own, and in the absence of a meaningful population value, or a group of unfocused, biased oprah winfrey wannabees that will scream to high heaven to forward their subsurface goals, it will strap a bomb around a baby in a baby carriage and take as many with it as it can. So FLL, and OJ. Your kind stands addressed, and corrected. Dismissed.
Written by The shadow knows far more than you think
on 7/14/2007
Ahh the hypocrisy of the liberal rings out yet one more time. Freedom? You have none. You only have privledges. You cannot even park your car on a street that your tax dollars paid for without it being towed for failure to pump even more money into a parking machine. Then you get to pay $100 because your vehicle was towed, then you get to give the court another $100 for the ticket. In fact, you do not even have the right to vote. It is a privledge. You have no rights, and you have no freedoms, and the few privledges you do have will be gone when the Islamics take the house. So spew on you fool. Non-Christians feel like outsiders in their own justice system? "Their OWN justice system?" There is the schism of things. That is what a liberal is. As long as it appeals to their sensitivity everything is o.k. But go against it, and then they throw justice in a person's face. What justice? Show me examples of Justice. For the liberal it is "Just us" as long as taxes can be squeezed and rent collected they are fine, but any freedom to excell and become more than one truely is, you will find a liberal there to stomp its heart out. Our laws were based in part on the 10 commandments. Like it or not, that is not Christian territory, it is rooted in Hebrew law of past. And for the most part, the basic template is o.k. with me. Wide is the gates to hell, and numerous are the fools that are lined up to pass through them. Live by the law, die by the law. Your inexperience in the facts of life will be the millstone around your neck. Praise Allah, now off with every infidels head!!!!!!!!!!
Written by Freedom ain't free
on 7/14/2007
Ahh the hypocrisy of the liberal rings out yet one more time. Freedom? You have none. You only have privledges. You cannot even park your car on a street that your tax dollars paid for without it being towed for failure to pump even more money into a parking machine. Then you get to pay $100 because your vehicle was towed, then you get to give the court another $100 for the ticket. In fact, you do not even have the right to vote. It is a privledge. You have no rights, and you have no freedoms, and the few privledges you do have will be gone when the Islamics take the house. So spew on you fool. Non-Christians feel like outsiders in their own justice system? "Their OWN justice system?" There is the schism of things. That is what a liberal is. As long as it appeals to their sensitivity everything is o.k. But go against it, and then they throw justice in a person's face. What justice? Show me examples of Justice. For the liberal it is "Just us" as long as taxes can be squeezed and rent collected they are fine, but any freedom to excell and become more than one truely is, you will find a liberal there to stomp its heart out. Our laws were based in part on the 10 commandments. Like it or not, that is not Christian territory, it is rooted in Hebrew law of past. And for the most part, the basic template is o.k. with me. Wide is the gates to hell, and numerous are the fools that are lined up to pass through them. Live by the law, die by the law. Your inexperience in the facts of life will be the millstone around your neck. Praise Allah, now off with every infidels head!!!!!!!!!!
Written by
on 7/14/2007
Oh, how we suffer the incessant rants and sermons of the Shadowy Presence who Knows and Understands so little! Yes, Shadow, I happily espouse my moniker, my many freedoms and my own faith, thank you very much. For all your long-winded preach-fests, you have offered no cogent or convincing argument to justify hanging a picture of Jesus Christ in the courthouse in Slidell. As I have stated many times, this image appeals to Christians while making non-Christians feel like outsiders in their own justice system. The court is not Christian territory; it serves all Americans and must be religiously neutral.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/13/2007
Hey, Ole Jarhead. You made my day, Man! We don’t always find ourselves on the same page, but it is quite a revelation to find that we agree that Islamophobia provides a major concession to terrorists. These fanatics really have the upper hand over the average Western schmo who can’t be arsed to challenge idiots who use religion to justify mass murder. Ignorance plays into some ghastly and bloody hands indeed.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/13/2007
And of course there is the 'Jarred Head'.... Semper Fi, you are you and not like I, and since the Halls of Montezuma I have understood why. Why don't you pick a new moniker, yours does not fit you well.
Written by TSK TSK TSK
on 7/13/2007
Oh how we suffer the poor misinformed and misanthropic masses that drown us!!!! "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
I will revert back to the origional topic "Jesus Picture". I think it is good that picture hangs there in stark testimony to the stark "testimoney" that is going on in the room it hangs. Remember, it was in a "court of sorts" that Jesus was condemed to crucification.
For FLL, espouse your moniker all you want, the facts of the matter are that you have no freedom aside one. That is the freedom to hire an attorney to plead your case in court if you have the funds to pay it with.
And for the most part, on this 'blog' page or whatever it is, it seems to me that most of the contributors rant on and on and on about it being a 'Catholic' presentation, or they allude to some type of Baptist sensibilities being assaulted or whatever. There in lays the schizm I see present in the masses. There can only be Christians. Not Baptists, not Jehovah Witnesses, not Catholics, not Moonies, etc., etc., etc. Why? Because Jesus was there at the beginning. Before recorded time, and he will be there in the end. And therin lays the problem, law. LAW LAW LAW LAW and it isn't even followed when it is put down, and money can buy all the LAW LAW LAW LAW if enough of it is given., Folks talk about God and I say they know not who he is for they do not even know his name. Not one person on earth knows the true name of God, therefore not one knows God, or the will of God. Including so called "prophets" from whatever "religion" they claim to come from. There is only one name, and one name only and he settled every dispute. That is Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the Saviour, and our Lord. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of his Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say 'Lord, Lord did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And even then Jesus will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.' And this is still not good enough, now freedom loving liberals want to import boat loads of Muslims? For what? What freedoms do they practice? Oh I forgot, the freedom to force subservancy upon women, and make them run around in hoods, and of course don't forget that when times get tough Allah says it is perfectly o.k. to cut off a head or a hand or two for some puny infraction of some kind of interpretation of some law that was written by a group of someones who happen to be in power. Yes that is exactly what we need in America. We don't have enough strife, dissention, corruption, dissillusion or any of the other ailments we are currently suffering from. Let's go recruit some more weirdos. I love Muslims, and I love them even more when they stay in their country, because I do not know of any improvements they have to offer on American Society in general. Of course the caneing technique is an interesting one, perhaps if a few of our elected officials and state employees were bent over a split rail fence and given a good 'caneing' or even canning we as a whole would be better off after they are put back into their place. So, speaking of places, yes the picture of Jesus is a good reminder for those that sit in that court, remember what happens when you lose sight of God. Muhammed was just a dillusional power hungry dictator wannabe. Walk down that dusty trail and eat the dust you shuffle up. "Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand, and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it."
Written by The Shadow Knows
on 7/13/2007
i never touch that woaman at school . that is my fault i was suspened at school because of my punishment for 12 months week day.
Written by Andre
on 7/12/2007
i never touch that woaman at school . that is my fault i was suspened at school because of my punishment for 12 months week day.
Written by Andre
on 7/12/2007
Written by Andre
on 7/12/2007
Well Freedom Loving Liberal is going to faint.. but I AGREE WITH HIM! Too many people try to paint Islam with a broad Bloody brush that they really don't deserve. The Islamist that say kill the Infidel are corrupting Islam, they know it and F.L.L. is right they want you to buy into it so when we strike them back they can say see they hate Islam, we don't we hate TERRORISTS! (by the way F.L.L. I am waiting for my appology!)
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/12/2007
And thousands upon thousands practiced Nazism peacefully, and thousands upon thousands practiced communisim peacefully, and thousands upon thousands practiced being an Aztec peacefully while their brothers and sisters had their hearts cut out on the alter, and thousands upon thousands practiced slavery peacefully, and on and on and on. ISLAM, Bedlam, is lame. I'd rather buy a rose from a bedsheet wearing Hari Kirshna at the airport, than get punched in the nose by a muslim that is hijacking the plane I'm on. Yes I can be very liberal. I would gladly dish out a liberal dose of owies on a Christian killing Muslum.
Written by Freedom loving liberal too.
on 7/12/2007
And their idea of self defense is observed as "to make sure that nothing but Islam is taught". To start with, Islam is not a religion, it is a cult based upon a reactionaries teachings. It is much like Charles Mansons group, the Moonies, Mao Tse Tongs "Red Book" Buddhists, Taosists, etc., etc. One cannot have a religion unless one has a living God to worship. There is only one living God, that is Jesus Christ. He ended all arguments when he died for our sins. One cannot know God without knowing Jesus because one cannot enter into heaven except through Jesus. Simple as that. Now as far as war goes, well, that is simply another God. Perhaps made out of wood, but a god nonetheless.
Much like our Constitution and form of Government, Christianity in its current form of practice is not perfect. And then again neither are people. There is only and was only one perfect person, that was Christ. You can take it from there and argue it all you want, but he rose from the dead and it is only his spirit that stands between ours and hell. I would suggest you read a little deeper into what things really are. And stand strong for America, and your neighbor. Do not interpret disgust or mistrust of Islam as a disgust for middle eastern people. Hate the sin, not the sinner.
Written by The shadow knows
on 7/12/2007
Yoody Doody … There is no such thing as “The Islamic Credo” to “Kill the Infidel”. The only aggression justified in the Quran is in self-defense. Islamophobes like yourself, and the jihadist terrorist fanatics, are absolute masters at misinterpreting the Quran. And guess what? That’s exactly what they want you to do. They love it. They want you to buy into their desecration of Islam, and they want you to declare war on Islam and Muslims en masse. You are being led by the nose-ring to judge an entire religion based on the politically motivated violence of a few. Don’t forget, hundreds of millions of Muslims have practiced their faith with peace and tolerance for generations and continue to do so. Why ignore them and buy into the twisted message of the fanatics?
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/12/2007
Whatever, But just remember, The Islamic Credo is "Kill the Infidel" A little more study on your part and you would probably have a better grasp on the realities of things.
Written by Yoody Doody Dooo
on 7/11/2007
(Um... if the janitor is reading this right now, would you mind erasing my posts?)
I'm a little unclear how you came up with the Yank(ee) Doody Doo moniker, old fellow? Do you drive all the way to New York to buy those drugs? There's no need, actually, you can get all the amphetamines you want right there in Texas where you are. Now that lil' george is (not using,) there's a greater supply for the rest of you fellows.
Written by The Viking
on 7/10/2007
I agree, probably the wrongest thing is even thinking about Islamists, or Muslims, or Terrorist threats or whatever their latest moniker is in the first place. But the subject did come up, and I realize for the most part, even selfprofessed world travelers don't have the slightest clue as to what things really amount to. The origional doo-dad to be commented on was on Jesus in Court. Ehhhh,,,,,, Not much on the Jesus figure except in certain places. For the most part it is sufficiant for an empty cross to be presented. Anyways, as far as the Muslim is concerned from my point of view on should be very very very very discriminate in deciding what is wanted and what is not wanted in this country. #1 Rule of thumb for the Islamist? Three little, but very explicit words........KILL THE INFIDEL...... There you have it. Could care less about "getting down" studying their history because as far as I am concerned it is pretty much a waste of time. Especially since we are going to end up nuking them sooner or later anyways. So rock on Jar head.... Stay strong or get strong.........
Written by Yoody Doody Doooo
on 7/10/2007
If southerners really want Jesus back in the courtroom... the schools... the government... the bathrooms... they need to get him to put some clothes on! Jesus! Who wants to be arraigned in a room with a half-naked guy lookin' down on you like you used the last roll of toilet paper? Especially if it was a half-naked guy they arrested you with in the first place!
I mean, how about Senator Vitter (for Christ's sake?) Can you imagine this poor, humble Lou-s-ee-anna gentleman having to sit there in court at his divorce hearing under the baleful eyes of a naked, white, male bondage victim while he's sentenced to 3 days in a soup kitchen for lying with his mouth open??? Why... it's un-A-MER-EE-CAN I tell ya!
Also, how can Jesus be in two places at once??? If he's in court with Lousisiana Senator Vitter stage-managing the convoluted custody hearing, how can he be in the west wing of the White House whispering instuctions for killing "terrorists" (and everybody else) into lil' george's ear? Oh yeah! He's their God, isn't he!!! Well...then.. here's a question: if he's their god why doesn't he hang his own damn naked picture in court and leave the rest of us alone.
Written by The Viking
on 7/10/2007
WOW there is sooo much wrong in that post I don't know where to begin!
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/9/2007
I am too lazy to research it on the internet, but if memory serves me correct, Muhammed was the son of a rich Caliph over there in the Mid East, I think Bagdad. "If the mountain will not come to muhammed, then muhammed shall go to the mountain". And so to seek support for his heatwave induced visions he traveled I guess to Medina or something like that. His big rant was the immorality of the people at the time. Included in the list of prophets he wanted to advocate was of course Abraham, and Moses, and pretty much anyone else in the ancient biblical text, or the old Testament. But of course he wasn't jewish, he was something else, so, 600 and some years after Christ was crucified, (And he also believes Christ was a prophet and takes the jewish persuiasion of Christ not being god or the messiah) He decided to get some fame his self. He wanted his own bible, they were sort of all the rage at the time, and mostly written in Greek or Aramaic, and I guess he was a little jealous of that because the Mid East was such an advanced a cultivated society with their mud walls and such. He didn't have to work for a living because he already had plenty of camels, and goats, and pigs, etc., etc. I guess spoiled little rich kids get bored in the desert. Sort of like Osama Bin Laden (wonder why he hasn't written his own little mosaic Koran? It is interesting to note that Christ said "Beware of false prophets" and of course you can dwelve on the Revelations aspect of things but the Roman empire was crumbling at the time of Muhamed, no realistic civilization of any kind of technological, or republican status existed, and it was chaos. It is an odd coincidence too that 666 is a stated number in the book of revelations, and actually 600 or 666 years after christs passing is when Muhammed wandered out of the desert and into the printed textbook or sheep scroll scene of things? A lot of interesting things to take note of if you like to wander in your thoughts. Anyways, Muslims as a whole are pretty much a sham religion pretty much closely akin to the same kind of baseless rants like Hari Kirshna's or the Moonies, or even Charles Manson's group. It is also interesting to note that the thought of one God or montheism is credited to the Torah and the Jews and Adam and blah, blah, blah. Which was a long time before the Koran. The Koran is simply a collection of whatevers that was written several thousand years after the Torah which of course is also the old testament for Christians. Actually the Jews are not the inventors of this ideology as it relates to religion. Montheism was first invented and practiced in Egypt. I forget the name of the Pharoh, it was Anukemphooiainnuetwatever something or other like that. I think it was around 1500 B.C. or something like that. The jews or the Hebrews as they were known then were pretty much doing low wage labor and pretty much were owned by Egypt. It is odd to note that the rise of the Jewish nation didn't happen for a long time. I scarecly believe any one is left that understands the origions of the star of David or how its design was contrived or why. I do, I am probably one of the few here on earth that has this knowledge and understanding. Its design was sort of an ego thing on their part. Sort of like all these Illegal Mexican immigrants and their new found comfort in the knowledge that the richest man in the world isn't Bill gates. Well take care Jarhead, it is always sort of interesting reading your writting. To bad there isn't much focus on things that are important in the world anymore. Muslims are hardly important. But people are. So stay strong................................ or get strong....
Written by Yoody doody doooo
on 7/9/2007
Sorry i just re-read my post and I made an error.. if YOU KNOW nothing about a religion (not no) Ohh and also Mohammed is the prophet thus HE KNEW that if someone copied his image that a group would subvert the true religion and worship him unstead of Allah, he said many times "I am but the Prophet of Allah Worship him not me" It is men that subvert religion into what they belive it should be or SHOULD NOT BE!
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/8/2007
Sorry i just re-read my post and I made an error.. if YOU KNOW nothing about a religion (not no) Ohh and also Mohammed is the prophet thus HE KNEW that if someone copied his image that a group would subvert the true religion and worship him unstead of Allah, he said many times "I am but the Prophet of Allah Worship him not me" It is men that subvert religion into what they belive it should be or SHOULD NOT BE!
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/8/2007
OK ONCE AGAIN I have to teach you LIBERALS (who think you KNOW EVERYTHING.. BUT DON"T) that Mohammed was not, nor EVER WILL BE the one Muslims Venerate/worship! When Mohammed was alive he made it a point to NEVER EVER let anyone record what he looked like. I In my world Travels have seen the period paintings done of Mohammed and his generals meeting, and others
and GUESS WHAT? In these paintings the face hands and even the feet of Mohammed are not there! his robes are there,as are
the general outline of his body, BUT NOT PHYSICAL features. Mohammed didn't want his image to be used in the worship of Allah. Quick Arabic lesson for you, Allah is actually two words Al- meaning the and Lah-which stands for God (Big G here Folks) So Allah means literally The God. When Mohammed lived the society in which he grew up in, was Polythesistic (Many Gods)When Mohammed had his revelation in the desert, he came to believe that there was only ONE God and he was was Allah. So for anyone to say that ohh what if there was a picture of Mohammaed? IF there was it wouldn't be Muslims asking for it to be put up there! In fact, put one up tell the Muslims you have a picture of Mohammed, see how long before you have a riot on your hands. If you no NOTHING about a religion you shouldn't talk about it REALLY!
Written by Old Jarhead
on 7/8/2007
Yes, there's a frieze of Moses in the U.S. Supreme Court courtroom but there are also other figures depicted in the context of their importance as lawgivers including Hammurabi, Muhammed, Confucius, Augustus and several more.
If there were a depiction of Muhammed in Slidell would the multitudes be in force clamoring against removing it?
Written by Richard P.
on 7/7/2007
Here we are with the Christianists whining incessantly about being persecuted even though Christians of one stripe or another are a majority of all citizens in this country while in another hemisphere the Islamist leaders keep exhorting their followers to commit acts such as suicide bombings as a counter to a perceived attack on Islam from the Christian West. The founding fathers of this country were mostly Deists, who, for once in all history, got it right in keeping religion out of government, probably with a keen awareness of how monumentally screwed up Europe had been for centuries. So now, instead of understanding and appreciating the founders' wisdom, we'd rather go back to the old European approach, i.e. about the same thing as the modern-day Taliban et al. approach? The founders also got it right in setting up a republic where the rights of each individual are respected instead of a direct democracy with a majority imposing its will on all. Would one rather have majority "mob rule?" Again, take a good look at how things are working out with some of these middle east nations.
Written by Richard P.
on 7/7/2007
(1)Did any of you know that there is a frieze of Moses on the wall behind the bench of the Supreme Court? This has been present since the building was first opened. The Supreme Court apparently sees nothing amis about this arrangement. Do you suggest the Court address itself? (2)Congress starts every session with a prayer. True, they sometimes rotate the denomination of the prayer leader. Congress employs (pays a salary to) a Congressional chaplain. Do you suggest challenging Congress? (3) Actually, the first ammendment says "CONGRESS may make no law constituting an establishment of a stste religion." There is no mention of smaller jurisdictions.(4)It looks to me like the ACLU (at least the Louisiana chapter) prefers to pick on smaller communities with lesser resources, i.e., it is nothing but a bully.
Written by John F
on 7/6/2007
comments on other postings Liberal not here I NEVER said you didn't treat me with respect, (a condesending attitude but NOT disrespect) I haven't called anyone names and if I did what did I call you Whinning? well I call that as I see it. Liberal? you are what you are what names have I called and NO I didn't shout insults or name calling Your friend Anthony has called me a racist European a few times, and stupid to boot not to mention IGNORANT. Now give examples where I called someone names you can't because I don't I am VERY careful not to. the fabrication is YOURS not MINE!
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/5/2007
Jarhead, you have indeed been treated with respect by the other contributors here, myself included. I’ve searched the entire buzzboard and at no time have you been called “stupid”, “racist”, “ignorant”, “loser”, “right-wing fanatic” or “robot”. Those are all fabrications on your part. In this discussion, you are the stand-out who seems incapable of having a difference of opinion without resorting to SHOUTING, insults and name calling – then you have the hide to claim “the other side did it first”. Not good enough. It’s important to handle differences with dignity. In fact, we don’t expect to agree. We come here to have a robust, challenging, informative exchange of ideas. It is not currency for dialogue to howl people down just for being liberals.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/5/2007
Ohh not to mention Loser and right wing fanatic, robot and other even nastier things I won't repeat. me lift up my game, I think you need to look in the mirror!
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/5/2007
Tee Dub as stated in the Constitution, The Government will not establish a religion (TRUE) NOR will it prohibit the free exercise I view this as free excercise you don't.Liberal when I "scream" it is usually one word (sometimes a sentence but only for EMPHASIS! I have NEVER! EVER written an entire post in all caps. You view this one way I view it as free expression thereof you don't. AND No I don't PERSONALIZE my attacks I think your mistaking me for someone else I have always been respectfull here I will tell you when I think your WRONG BUT I have always been respectful. As far as partisan well we are all partisan so that dog don't hunt. And as far as being treated respectfully I remind you that I have been called STUPID RACIST and IGNORANT by posters of your side of political spectrum, so don't you DARE claim that I have been treated with respect, because SIR YOU ARE WRONG!
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/5/2007
Jarhead, you’re frothing at the mouth over a comma that you only think gives you something to hide behind. The freedom of religion enshrined in the First Amendment – yes, including “the free exercise thereof” – applies to individuals in society and not the state. It is patently obvious that the state must remain neutral and not endorse any one religion. At the same time, there is no such thing as absolute freedom for individual members of society. Freedom of speech, for example, must always be balanced against the need to protect people from defamation, or the need to protect our national security. So the fact that you have a freedom doesn’t allow you to do any damn thing you want in the name of that freedom. In this case, Christians are clearly favored, and non-Christians are clearly alienated, by the picture of Jesus hanging in the Slidell courthouse. The picture also includes the words, “To know peace, obey these laws" – that is, the laws of one stream of Christian doctrine. So the ACLU is right to bring the lawsuit, and I couldn’t help laughing out loud when I heard that the judge has decided to have a Christian organisation defend the court’s hanging of the portrait in the lobby. Finally, Jarhead, it’s a little bit rich of you to complain that you find my tone condescending, when you habitually SCREAM your opinions in ALL CAPS on this discussion board … as if that’s going to convince anyone. When you don’t get your way, you become even more abusive and tend to personalise and partisanise your attacks. I remind you that you have been treated with the utmost respect on this and other buzzboards and it is high time you lifted your game.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/5/2007
Ole Jarhead, can we at least agree that there is no State Religion in the United States? Will you give me that much? The first ten words are there; I know what a comma is, and the first ten words make it clear that unlike, say, Britain, we do not have a State Religion here in the US. Period. (Or Comma, if you insist!)
Written by Tee Dub
on 7/5/2007
There you go again! THERE IS A COMMA AFTER THE 1ST TEN WORDS NOT A PERIOD(what is it with you LIBS and Grammar) There ARE MORE than TEN WORDS in the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE You guys keep forgetting .."...Or the free Exercise thereof:" And your Wrong the SCOTUS has allowed such displays and NOT considered them UNCONSTITUTIONAL! This display has been there over 10 years during which time no one complained. 10 YEARS!! This is nothing more that what those last 5 WORDS of the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE say. I have a feeling this will go to SCOTUS so we will see what happens. Richard Or Constitution Knocked DOWN walls and here are you LIBS building them back up again!
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/5/2007
Every day the U.S. seems to be moving closer to being a "Christianist" reflection of exactly that which we like to characterize as being totally opposed, e.g. the Taliban or Islamist Iran.
Whether it's Christian or Jewish or Islamic or whatever the whole point is that it's simply wrong to incorporate, even in a seemingly less offensive manner, any element of religion into government or else there's the slippery slope of an official state religion. Whether it's spelled out specifically in the Constitution or there has got to be a wall of separation between church and state, period.
Christianist, Islamist, the difference is only in the name.
Written by Richard P.
on 7/4/2007
Ole Jarhead, I don't think the issue is not being offensive to people. I absolutely agree with you that that (the right to not be offended) is a right we do not have! Too many people are offended far too easily, to my way of thinking! No, I think the problem is more basic than that. The first ten words of the Establishment Clause state that we do not have a State Religion (or, presumably, State Religions) in this country. Therefore, to place religious items in the courthouse representative of one, or only a few of those religions, implies the State's endorsement of that sole religion (or those few "sanctioned" religions), which is unconstitutional.
Written by Tee Dub
on 7/3/2007
So for the sake of simplicity you would ban all. Why because having one offends someone? Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right NOT to be offended? Guess what IT DOESN'T! But I do see your point Tee Dub I just don't agree with it. I am glad we have exposed the lie about the separation of Church and state that was a EXCELLENT debate!
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/3/2007
Ole Jarhead, bear with me for a moment. Even if we accept for the moment your premise that one could display pictures/sacred objects, etc., from other religions in the courthouse alongside the portrait of Christ, it is completely impractical. To be fair, one could not exclude any religion practiced on US (or at the very least, Louisiana) soil - my goodness - can you imagine what the courthouse would be like? I mean a cross/picture of Christ, a Star of David, and a Crescent/Star are no big deal, but when you start adding in Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, all of the myriad of Native American religions, Shintoism, Rastafarianism, LDS (which I consider a religion separate from Christianity, much like Christianity is separate from Judaism), Baha'i, Confucianism, Scientology, Zoroastrianism, Unitarianism, Wicca, and the list goes on and on... it simply creates an impossible situation. The simplest (and fairest) solution, therefore, is to keep any religious object out of the courtroom, so as not to give even the appearance of favoritism toward one (or two, or even three).
Written by Tee Dub
on 7/3/2007
The LETTER was his OPINION AFTER the CONSTITUTION was written the idea of the separation was brought up during the Constitutional Convention but it was voted down by nearly all the other DELEGATES! So since it is NOT in the CONSTITUTION it is DOES NOT EXIST. WOW Wikapedia is the liberal Bible! REMINDER like your opinion on separation/ Wikapedia is the OPINION of people some agree others don't I DON'T!! I will say this AGAIN IT IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION IT IS NOT EVEN IMPLIED IN THE CONSTITUTION THEREFORE IT IS AN AFTER THE FACT OPINION THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE THE WEIGHT OF LAW!!!
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/3/2007
WILL YOU LISTEN!! THERE IS NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN THE CONSTITUTION! THEREFORE YOUR PREMISE IS FALSE! PERIOD!!!
Now, You didn't read my post liberal, I am willing to include others as well and I believe that other Christians would as well. It is your OPINION that its supposed to religiously neutral, well you and the ACLU. As far as what you say about Freedom FROM religion WRONG See you LIBERALS have a PROBLEM WITH GRAMMAR! you think that commas are periods read the WHOLE 1st AMENDMENT Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; this does not say FREEDOM FROM RELIGION AT ALL! It is not your right to have any religious emblem you see removed because it bothers you. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to be insulted by others practicing or displaying THEIR RELIGION! The CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY states or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Therefore you are tramping on my free exercise of MY religion and that IS WRONG!
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/3/2007
Jarhead, the separation of church and state is indeed a political and legal reality in the United States, and so it should be. I don’t think I could explain this any more succinctly than the entry in Wikipedia which reads: “The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …’ The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to a 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The phrase itself does not appear in the Constitution, but it has been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/3/2007
So the 14th amendment DOES NOT Grant a separation of Church and state it only says that states cannot abridge the priviledges and immunities as citizens nor can any state deny life liberty or property without due process of the law. As to your prayer example, talk about WEAK! (Not to mention that your showing your IGNORANCE) Saying what you said about Muslims shows you know very little about them, they just don't do prayer that way. As far as you getting out on I-10, YOU CAN but if you get hit by car and DIE you it will be considered to be your fault and you might even be sighted with a violation for causing an accident. Christians don't pray that way, and as far as I know Jews don't pray that way either. As far as my argument about "picture or rendering" I was making a point obvious lost on you, that its just a interpetation GEEZ! Now your Ignorance is really showing... do you know NOTHING about Muslims? You really shouldn't use them as examples if you no nothing about them! NO Muslim at all PERIOD would EVER want a picture of Mohammed on the wall Mohammed himself would not allow his image to be drawn. he knew that if it should happen, that some of his followers would corrupt the religion and worship him the prophet, not Allah who is God. There are period paintings of Mohammed meeting with other grreat leaders of the day, the other leaders are shown yet NONE show the face, hands or even the feet of Mohammed. Now I am glad you admit that the separation of church and state is NOT in the constitution, and was an opinion. What you fail to see (or state) is WHY. When the idea came up in the constitutional convention the idea was shouted down but nearly every other Delegate there. So it was a MINORITY opinion, (Franklin brought it up in the CC) so when comming up for debate the idea was cast aside, it might have been his opinion that it should have been there but remember others had an opinion that blacks shouldn't be counted as people when it came to repersentation and that MINORITY opinon failed as well.He states this after the fact and therefore it makes the opinion MOOT.
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/3/2007
Jarhead, when only one religion is represented on the wall of a courthouse, that is a case of elevating that religion above all others, in an institution that is absolutely meant to be religiously neutral. America has no official religion, and freedom of religion very obviously also means freedom from religion. Do you seriously believe that Americans are required to be religious? Or that we are required to accept the exaltation of Christianity in the halls of justice, which should be free of religious bias? It is equally absurd to suggest turning a courthouse into some kind of shrine that displays images or symbols of all the religions practiced by Americans. The presence of religious imagery and symbols in the court reflects religious bias, and that is clearly not what our founders intended. Freedom of religion means that you don’t get persecuted for practicing your religion. No one needs to fly their religious flag in a courthouse in order to practice their religion. Moreover, it harms other groups by presenting them with a jarring image that makes them feel like outsiders in their own justice system. Plain and simple.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/3/2007
Jarhead: Do you really think that a muslim could walk into the courthouse and say 'I want a picture of Mohammed placed up there, right next to Jesus' and it would happen? Keep dreaming. The truth of the matter is that the Court in slidel is elevating CHristianity above all others and that is wrong. Nobody is suggesting that prayer, or shows of religion, can ONLY happen in a place of worship. We are just saying that they CANNOT take place in a courthouse in order for the courthouse to treat EVERY CITIZEN equitably. And yes, the letter to the Danbury Baptists was an opinion however, considering that he was there during the founding of our country, I think he would be one of the people we should look to when determining the meaning of what was written in our founding documents. You may very well want to include all religious beliefs, but the majority of the people would raise hell if someone tried to put a picture of Mohammed right next to Jesus. When it all comes down to it, this shouldnt EVEN BE AN ISSUE. This should not even be something that is discussed as a 1st amendment issue. It should be discussed as a "what is the best thing to do" issue. It is BEST for the court to take a neutral stance on religion and show NO favoritism for any one religion in particular. It doesn't HAVE to be about laws, or the ACLU, or anything other than ALL PEOPLE should be able to walk into that courtroom and feel like they will be treated equally as any other person. Currenltly, if I walked into that court, I would not be able to feel like that. I would feel that the judge would view me as being less of a citizen and somehow flawed because I am not "following those laws" (as the wording states). Now, normally I have a thick skin. I really dont care what most people think about me. But when it comes to me getting a fair trial, i would feel at somewhat of a disadvantage because the judge feels it is important to use his JOB to promote his religion instead of using his job to promote JUSTICE.
Written by Dan
on 7/3/2007
The 14th Amendment states:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Now if your talking about "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." YOUR WRONG! the state is not abridging your right to your religion. It is your BELIEF that it is an establishment of religion it is my BELIEF that it is Free Practice thereof. now would I be ok with the Star of David on the wall next to the Cross ABSOLUTELY! and the Muslim Cresent SURE!!! YOU want to EXCLUDE religion! I want to invite all of them to join in.
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/3/2007
And now for Dan, Shalom my friend, hope you are well. Jefferson wrote a LETTER, which is his OPINION/BELIEF. That in itself doesn't mean anything other than later he felt there should be a wall of separation, him wanting/thinking there should be doesn't make it law. Period. Its not there therefore since it isn't there it does not exist.
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/3/2007
First to Freedom loving Liberal.. No one religion is lifted higher than another if other religions wanted to I bet they could also display a symbol of say equal size/shape. I have never heard one of these cases that wasn't an attack on religion that it can be no where but houses of worship, that in itself violates the 1st amendment. Who says that a court house has to be a secular? Yes I know that all Americans are served by our justice system, where in the Constitution does it say that courthouses are to be secular? Guess you have a problem with the Supreme Court Building then because they openly display what could be considered "Christian" religious symbols. I really don't like your condesending tone "try to understand".. I do understand stop being so SNARKY! No one is claiming territory, like I said I haven't heard one NOT ONE Christian say they wouldn't want other emblems/symbols there too. You want religion shoved into the dark corners of American culture where you can make fun of them as "RIGHT WING ZEALOTS" and Kooks. that IS a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/3/2007
Jarhead: Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists used the phrase "wall of separation between church and state". I think Thomas Jefferson is qualified to tell us what the Establishment clause does, don't you? If you would do some research you would see that because of the 14th amendment (and subsequent SCOTUS rulings) that the 1st amendment also applies to the states as well. Now, as to whether erecting a picture (painting, rendering, whatever) is "establishing" a religion, it absolutely works to elevate Christianity above other religions in the eyes of the court. That much is clear. And if you think that the court should be making a statement about which religion is correct then you have a twisted view of the court. The court should be neutral on the topic of religion, not elevating one belief over another. On the free excersize topic, if a muslim is in the middle of a trial and is getting cross examined and he all of a sudden pulls out a blanket and starts praying to mecca, this would be ok with you because apparently to you people can pray wherever/whenever they want with absolutely no restriction. According to your logic I can stop my car in the middle of I-10, get out, and start praying because the 1st amendment protects me. Right?
And if you are going to back your argument with the difference between a "rendering" and a "picture", i feel sorry for your argument because that is quite week.
Written by Dan
on 7/3/2007
Jarhead … the Establishment Clause quite obviously reflects the degree of religious persecution that our founders were fleeing in Europe. They did their best to ensure freedom of religion for individual members of society while preventing the State from favoring one religion over others. They knew too well that that leads to the dominance of one religious group over others. So try to understand that the justice system is not ‘Christian territory’ and was never meant to be – it belongs to, and serves, all Americans. There is something wrong when one religious group needs to claim territory such as a courthouse, which is supposed to be a secular, religiously neutral venue. Maybe these people need to get to church more often. Certainly the rest of us should not be expected to tolerate blatantly territorial behavior which abuses freedoms that the rest of us manage to exercise with substantially more consideration for others.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/2/2007
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." READ past the comma LIBS you cannot prohibit the free exercise thereof. It doesn't say where the FREE Exercise takes place but that it is FREE!!!!!!!!!!
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/2/2007
Well last time I read the Constitution there was nothing in it about the "separation of Church and state" other than the establishment clause in amendment one. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." As I see it the display of a "rendering" (There are no pictures of Jesus) of a biblical figure does not go as far as "making a law respecting an establishment of religion" As the court is not "making a law it doesn't violate the Constitution.
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/2/2007
Jesus was a Jew, right? Ergo this is a zionist plot. Louisiana, White supremacists & all good ol' boys should resist all attempts to separate Church from State. Yee har!
Written by Larry
on 7/2/2007
Regardless of (or in addition to) the issue of Freedom of Religion, what goes hand-in-hand with the argument against having any religious images on government buildings is that we also have separation of Church and State.
Separation means just that: separation. It is not too hard a concept to grasp...unless one is just not that bright to begin with.
Religion (any religion) - and its symbols - belong in houses of worship.
Government (any branches of it - Federal, State and Local) - and its symbols - belong in government buildings.
Let me say it one more time: separation of Church and State means just that SEPARATION!
Written by Chris
on 7/2/2007
Jarhead: The constitution protects the people from Government establishing religion. That is the freedom from religion that most discuss when they bring up the buzz words "freedom from religion". And in this case you have government elevating Christianity as being higher than any other religion. The ONLY reason to put a picture of Jesus up is to promote that particular religious belief. Those who do not understand why that picture should not be hung in a courtroom need to go back and learn some more civics lessons.
Written by Dan
on 7/2/2007
Ole Jarhead, I know you're responding to "f.l.l." but let me just state that removing the portrait of Jesus from the courthouse is not preventing anyone from practicing his or her religion. Nor is it interfering with anyone's religion. A courthouse is not a place of worship. It is a place where people of all faiths (or none at all, like Karl Rove) should be equal in the eyes of the law.
Written by Tee Dub
on 7/2/2007
WOAH!!! There is nothing in the 1st amendment that says freedom FROM religion!! That is a BLATANT LIE. The 1st Amendment means that you have a choice to choose the religion that you want (even if that is none at all) WHAT IT DOES NOT SAY is that you (ANYONE) has the right to keep others from having their religion. IF your whole FREEDOM FROM RELIGION is the basis of your LIBERAL idea on religion than you need to re-examine the 1st amendment. Because you are WRONG!
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 7/2/2007
John: The picture of Jesus, as well as pictures from other religions, should not be there at all. Our judicial system is only ruled by the laws of the United States. Justice is something that everyone should be able to seek, not just christians. Wanting the picture removed is not "anti-christian". I want christians to be able to practice their religion. Removing the image of Jesus from a courthouse is not prohibiting people from practicing their religion. Keeping the picture their says "we only respect the Christian religions, and all the others are not as important in the eyes of this court".
Written by Dan
on 7/1/2007
Tom, no one is saying that Judeo-Christian principles did not play an important role in the history of our country, or in Western societies in general, or that the Christian religion doesn't play an important role in American society today. To say so would be pure folly. However, as "freedomlovingliberal" has stated time and again, you cannot advance the cause of one religion at the expense of others in the American justice system. It's clearly a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. I also don't understand where you're coming from with your attacks on the ACLU - no one would dream of changing the names of Corpus Christi, TX or Los Angeles, CA, or St. Louis, MO, or San Francisco, CA, St. Augustine, FL, or St. Martinville, LA... the list goes on and on. This is a non-issue smokescreen that you're sending up. Those names have historical significance, and will not be changed for obvious reasons. No one would even want to change them - where do you get this ridiculous notion? In any case, it is a completely separate non-issue than the very real issue of a Slidell courthouse with one picture of Christ and the words "To know peace, obey these laws" underneath it. And I guess you don't take the time to read the other posts, or you just choose to ignore them, but not all of the founding fathers were Christians! This is a blatant falsehood that is being perpetuated by the religious right. Perhaps the most noteworthy example, as I discussed in an earlier post, is the Deist Thomas Jefferson, who wrote his own version of the New Testament that removed all references to Christ's divinity, his performing of miracles, etc., which he (Jefferson) deemed "silly". You can't be much more of a founding father than Jefferson, and yet, to call him a Christian is a serious stretch of that definition.
Written by Tee Dub
on 7/1/2007
Tom, it is simply not true that the United States was founded on Christian principles. Take for example one of the cornerstones of our justice system, the Bill of Rights, which was inspired by the Enlightenment ideals set out by John Locke including (among other principles) the protection of property and the concept that individuals are free and equal. It is pure folly to claim that Christian principles provided the basis for our freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, freedom of the press, freedom to peaceably assemble, freedom to petition the government, right to keep and bear arms, protection from quartering troops, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, protection from self-incrimination, protection from our private property being seized for public use (without just compensation), right to trial by jury, protection from excessive bail and protection from cruel and unusual punishment. I don’t think anyone on this discussion thread has tried to re-write history apart from yourself, Tom.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/1/2007
What the ACLU seems to forget, basically for fund raising purposes, is that this nation was founded on Christian principles. The good people who would like to re-write our history will never get it. Can we go back in time and change the name of Corpus Cristi, Texas (the body of Christ) or maybe change Los Angeles, California (the City of Angels). Los Angeles got it's name before the constitution so I guess it can't be unconstitutional. I think the ACLU won't go to Corpus Cristi and try their game, they might get told to go to Hell. Every one of the founding fathers was a Christian and if you read their writing you can see the importance they felt their faith played in their lives. One thing is certain, the farther we get from God our lives do not get better.
Written by Tom
on 7/1/2007
John F … I am indeed objecting to ANY religious images being displayed in a courthouse. There is no basis to your accusation that I want to use the court to “act out my anti-Christianism”. I notice you haven’t accused Christians of using the court to “act out their Christian faith”. The laws administered in our justice system are secular civil laws and criminal codes – not the law according to Christian doctrine, or Halakha (Jewish religious law), or Sharia (Islamic religious law), etc … In response to your statement that “There should be several pictures or none” – I can’t see that it would be appropriate, workable or worthwhile to make the courthouse some kind of shrine to every religion practiced by Americans. The single picture of Jesus hanging on the courthouse wall in Slidell, which is the subject of this discussion, clearly appeals to Christians while alienating non-Christians.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 7/1/2007
Thanks Freedom:
Forgive the lask of focus in my post. What I want to ascertain is whether your objection is to a picture of Jesus being there alone, or is it to His being there at all (i.e. you would also object to Abraham?) If the former, we can agree that rule of law comes from many sources, not only religion. Therefore, perhaps that should be invoked by multiple pictures representing some of the multiple sources -- and we have a potential solution to this impasse. There should be several pictures or none. If the latter is your attitude, then I think the court has no oblication to allow you a palate to act out your anti-Christianism any more than it should allow me to object to a picture of Abraham or Moses and the basis that they were Arabs or Jews.
Written by John F
on 7/1/2007
John F … I’m not convinced that you have presented a clear premise. Firstly, let me clarify that the issue here isn’t at all about “judging any [religious] group by the goofiest examples who claim that name”. And in response to another thread in your posting, you haven’t justified favoring the hanging of a picture of Jesus in a courthouse over any other religious figure or monarch. Religious images and symbols belong in houses of worship, religious schools, private homes etc. The justice system is not ‘Christian territory’ – it serves all Americans. The whole point of this discussion is that pictures of Jesus do not fill everyone with a “higher sense of purpose” and in fact serve to alienate non-Christians. This is a serious matter when we are talking about a courthouse where all Americans must be treated as equals, and must be seen to be treated as equals.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 6/30/2007
Whoa, everybody! Dan: Thanks at last for grasping a basic truth. There are people of good will who wish to support and protect each other, especially the weak. Some of these call themselves Muslims, Jews, Baptists, Christians, Buddists, Wiccans, Deists, Atheists, and even Chalmatians. Is it fair to judge any group by the goofiest examples who claim that name?Anyone want to claim all Germans are like Hitler? Anyone want to claim all Louisianians are like Earl Long or Lee Harvey Oswald? Don't deny the fair, open-minded, respectful strains of religion just because not every member of that faith follows those strains as much as we would like.
Peoples don't bind together except out of a sense of higher purpose. That purpose may be as mundane as mutual defense (against nutria or hurricanes or Huns). They may also aim at the higher needs of Man. Everything one does in "public space" is influenced by your sense of what that higher purpose is. Sometimes that sense of purpose is contained within a religion; sometimes not. The picture in question is meant to invoke that sense of higher purpose within the courtroom.
Is there another figure that would serve that purpose and excite less objection than a Turkish painting of Jesus? Out of curiosity, would anyone here object to a picture of Abraham of Ur? Would you prefer a picture of Hammurabi (who lived about 250 years after Abraham)? How about a picture of Ur Nammu, King of Ur, wirter of the earliest known Codex (circa 2050 BC)?
The debate here is mostly a historical one. Could our system of government have formed in a context other than a Christian one? Constitutional republics developed originally in Christian countries, but was their Christianity the cause, or a historical accident? I think very few people, if any, are capable of answering that question. I wonder what it means that so many are so willing to take such vigorous sides in this discussion.
Written by John F
on 6/29/2007
Err Dan we didn't because Christians wouldn't vote for his racist butt!
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 6/29/2007
Au contraire, cher - how about we ask you how taking it down affects your life one way or another?
Written by Tee Dub
on 6/29/2007
I have read almost everything that has been buzz'ed back on this article and would have to ask those who agree with the ACLU. How much does this image hanging in the court affect your life one way or the other?
PHE
Written by PHE
on 6/29/2007
JT: NO, my comment was not a slam against Christianity. It was a slam against people who claim to be Christians and act in the name of Christianity who try and ruin it for all the good Christians.
Written by Dan
on 6/29/2007
if we are going to discuss something let's do it right -- besides, i may be wrong in my analysis -- i am off for a few minutes -- i'll add more of my nonsense later
Written by jt
on 6/29/2007
jt … Well, it would appear that you have narrowed down the image’s relevance to a single group of Christians – Catholics only. All the more reason to take it down, I’d say.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 6/29/2007
ok but we can't use the so called christian right -- there are many christians who recognize this picture but don't believe it to be an accurate depiction
Written by jt
on 6/29/2007
Catholic in the broadest sense, yes, but not Roman Catholic. It's actually a Russian Orthodox image.
Written by Tee Dub
on 6/29/2007
regardless, it is still a catholic depiction of the image of Jesus
Written by jt
on 6/29/2007
All right, thanks for your clarification, jt - so here's a question to put out there - are there any Baptists or Assembly of God, or non-denominational Protestants, Pentecostals, etc., out there on this thread - are y'all opposed to the picture of Christ on the courthouse wall? Because I find it hard to believe that there were only Catholics out there in front of the Slidell courthouse showing support for keeping the Christ picture there.
Written by Tee Dub
on 6/29/2007
the relevance is it's not about being a christian, it's about being a catholic
Written by jt
on 6/29/2007
and baptists believe catholics worship false idols and therefore going to hell
Written by jt
on 6/29/2007
they know catholics view that as a picture of Jesus but they don't - they believe in Jesus but see the picture as false worship - so that picture is from a catholics perspective
Written by jt
on 6/29/2007
Okay, jt, I'll bite - what is the relevance of this? My mum was raised Baptist, and her parents were Baptists, so this is not exactly news to me. Are you saying that Baptists would be opposed to the picture of Christ on the courthouse wall, because it would be not unlike an idol? Is that your point?
Written by Tee Dub
on 6/29/2007
watch these christian forums on tv and you won't see a picture of Jesus or a carved image of Him or any pictures or images of saints or Mary the Mother of Jesus
Written by jt
on 6/29/2007
Clarification - are you saying a Baptist who walks into that courthouse isn't going to know that that is a representation of Jesus on the wall?
Written by Tee Dub
on 6/29/2007
go find a catholic bible and then a king james version -- a cathoilc version does not have in their commandments the words -- thou shalt not worship any carved idols.... something like that
Written by jt
on 6/29/2007
a baptist would not see that as a picture of Jesus -- in a Catholic Church one would see a carved image of the Body of Christ, in a Baptist Church one would find a bare cross -- A Baptist views that as worship of a idol
Written by jt
on 6/29/2007
jt - this medium makes people sound angrier than they really are. You should know that. I still want to know what the "Catholic vs. Christian" thing is. Do tell!
Written by Tee Dub
on 6/29/2007
jt … There are no other religious images in that courthouse apart from a picture of Jesus. That is preferential treatment for Christians ipso facto. It makes them feel welcome while presenting others with a jarring image that makes them feel like outsiders. Any additional religious bias involved in individual court cases is a separate issue, but would clearly compound the obvious and indefensible favoritism shown to Christians.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 6/29/2007
anger management is my suggestion
Written by jt
on 6/29/2007
jt, you have every right to believe whatever you want to believe - it's still a free country. That doesn't mean I can't give you sh*t about it (I still have that freedom), since you can also be wrong, and you clearly are in this case. And what gives with your cryptic Catholic vs. Christian comment? Finally, we failed to elect our candidate? Two comments - one, Al Gore would have been President had all the Florida votes been counted (which would have been the fairest thing to do). A Supreme Court that included folks nominated by Chimpy's Dad should not have stopped the vote count, or some justices should clearly have recused themselves. Maybe we can impeach them once we get a Democratic president? There's a thought. Second, Kerry was a bit of a putz, I admit, but consider this - in wartime, while raising the fear level to nearly unparalleled heights, Bush could still only muster 51% of the popular vote against a putz. So no, I am not too happy about the composition of the court, not in the least. Here's another sad thing, while the nation as a whole is slowly becoming more liberal, our Supreme Court is going to become more and more of an anachronism. And does Clarence Thomas actually have a brain in that thick skull of his, or is he some kind of silent robot?
Written by Tee Dub
on 6/29/2007
freedom, you on the other hand cast your view in a very polite fashion
Written by jt
on 6/29/2007
tee, i take that as a compliment coming from someone such as yourself -- but i won't resort to name calling -- contrary to your mode of thought, people are allowed to have opinions other than yours -- the constituion provides that for all -- also, it would be a sad day for you -- your group had your chance to keep control of the court, but falied to elect your choice of president - which means you have to live with their decisions -- in addition, i have not commented on how i feel about the picture -- you just assumed i have taken a particular stance simply because i have not jumped on your wagon -- but since you claim to be so smart, please refrain from using Christians in your view -- this is a Catholic issue
Written by jt
on 6/29/2007
jt, I think you're talking to me, not Dan - you are the worst offender of all! You have not produced a single coherent argument - you just offer up these ill-conceived little scenarios which are supposed to be informative, but only highlight just how uninformed and thick-headed you are. I'll answer your petty little question about the Supreme Court. Obviously, if the new "idiot right" court rules that this is okay, then we have to go along with it, as that is the law of the land. But if they do, that will be a sad day for our nation, and it will prove once and for all that all those idiotic Nader supporters were very wrong when they said that there were no differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties.
Written by Tee Dub
on 6/29/2007
dan, does your implication of zero sense include you telling everyone who doesn't think like you to begin to think like you -- we can be called dan's robots
Written by jt
on 6/29/2007
if that were the case, all the criminals would appear in court wearing a cross around their neck and proclaiming their love for Jesus
Written by jt
on 6/29/2007
freedom, are you saying that Catholics get prefrential treatment in this court
Written by jt
on 6/29/2007
so if the current justices rule that the picture can stay, will you be a freind of their decision
Written by jt
on 6/29/2007
I simply cannot believe that there are people out there who think the picture is okay. You must have zero sense of what this country stands for, and why it's been able to hold itself together for over 200 years despite the ethnic, racial, and religious differences present among its citizenry. When I first heard about the picture, I immediately thought it was wrong, but then, when I saw a photo of the picture, and that beneath it are the words "to know peace, obey these laws" I thought it was even worse - I mean who on Earth would think that this was the right thing to do, and put it up there in the first place? I can't believe it was there for ten years without complaint. I haven't seen a single compelling argument from the supporters on this thread, or the other, or in Jeff's weak essay on the issue. And I note that plenty of self-professed conservatives recognize that the picture is problematic - clearly this is a First Amendment issue, and if you're an American conservative, you should be first and foremost a friend of the First Amendment.
Written by Tee Dub
on 6/29/2007
jt … Sure, judges may be biased with or without the picture in the courthouse. What I think is so disturbing about displaying religious imagery in courthouses is that religious doctrine is – or should be – absolutely irrelevant to the administration of the law. Such images and symbols clearly serve to make one group feel at home while alienating others. Seeing a picture of Jesus instantly makes non-Christians feel like outsiders in a public building where justice is administered and everyone should be treated equally. The picture in question clearly sends the message that one religion is favored over all others. This is just more shameless political ‘marking of territory’ by the Christian Right, achieved in this case by politicizing the image of their Messiah, no less.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 6/29/2007
In addition, the Ten Commandments are different for Catholics and other 'Christians'. Catholics have pictures of Jesus and of Saints -- Baptists believe that is worshiping false idols. Therefore, that Commandment is added to their 10.
Written by jt
on 6/29/2007
at what point do the judges in slidell become biased? Is it the moment they see the picture as they enter the building? Or when they pass a church on the way to work? Or when they say prayer in the morning? Does anyone truly think that these judges snap in to their Christian beliefs only when they see the picture in the court, and then become non-believers after they leave the building?
Written by jt
on 6/29/2007
dan, is that a knock against Christianity?
Written by jt
on 6/29/2007
Jarhead: Er, we nearly elected a klansman as Governor who believes he is a Christian. Do I have to go on?
Written by Dan
on 6/29/2007
I distinctly recall being warned for the first seventeen years of my life that only good Catholics would make their way to heaven, and everyone else would go straight to hell. As a recovering Catholic, I believe the only way for a society to truly respect all religions is to avoid holding one above all the others. Yet the Christian Right seems determined to force their religion down everyone else’s throats using every political apparatus available to them in the United States. Religious images belong in places of worship (and yes, private religious schools), not in the halls of justice. Freedom of religion, and the very obviously implied freedom FROM religion, are cornerstones of our secular free democracy.
Written by freedomlovingliberal
on 6/29/2007
Ehhhh Dan tell me where in America have Jews "suffered" for Americans interpetation of the Bible?
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 6/28/2007
the make-up of the court is set -- whether one likes it or not --
Written by jt
on 6/28/2007
I expect that Alito will keep his word on the topic of Stare Decisis. Actually, I expect Alito to keep breaking his word on the topic of Stare Decisis since I see no evidence of his respecting previous court rulings in many of his rulings to date.
Written by Dan
on 6/28/2007
Everyone keep in mind that the Constitution is a living, breathing document. The most recent rulings on matters similar to these back in 2005 were 5-4 votes. The make-up of the court has since changed. If they find this matter constitutional, will you accept their decision?
Written by jt
on 6/28/2007
Jarhead: Of course adultary is a reason to ask for and receive a divorce. It is a violation of the marriage contract and if one party violates a provision in a contract that contract can be terminated. That doesn't mean that it is against the law. On the whole "entire bible" issue, I cannot help that some people translate the bible differently then you do. But it is a reallity that they do and that Jews have suffered for it for many years.
Written by Dan
on 6/28/2007
This entire issue is getting way too much attention. People will always agree to disagree on lots of different matters. The ACLU will always disagree with anything that makes a little bit of sense, it's in their nature. I don't like the ACLU, don't support the ACLU, would like to see the ACLU destroyed in one way or another but that is not going to happen either. So, life goes on and people will continue to argue with each other and wars over religion, race, and politics will continue.
Paul E
Written by PHE
on 6/28/2007
Ohhh and Tee Dub I remember the old "Blue Laws' it wasn't friday to saturday it was sundown Saturday night to monday Morning the Blue laws were a way for Christians to "keep the Sabbath Holy" but shutting down all activity. I bought a new stove and do you know, that they now have Sabbat settings so you can set you stove only to warm on the sabbath and not cook?.. AMAZING
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 6/28/2007
Actually Adultery is against the law, in many states. While it is not prosecuted, it is in fact one of the legitimate reasons in the US to ask for, and recieve a divorce. Adultery might not carry the penalties it once did, But it is still on the books. To those that don't believe that Jews are special to God have forgotten to read their ENTIRE BIBLE! The Christian Bible, in its entirety contains many things that are in the both the Koran and the Tanach! (Anyone suprised?) Christians are told that they are to keep ALL of Gods word not just the new testament, so your dealing with ignorance there for that I am sorry. Tee Dub! You ole HOUND how are ya! well glad to hear you don't condone Adultery (especially if the wife is looking) and that you don't covet your Neighbors ass (donkey) or his wife's either. Look While some of these the orginal commandments are not laws they are the standard we follow. What do we do when someone is cursing and screaming Gods Name in Vain? we tend to shun them and treat them, as they should be treated, with distain. Having no other Gods, or idols (thats an argument all to its self in the Christian community) Honor your Mother and Father, while they may not be laws unto themselves, these are the tenents of what our countries laws are based on. Dan Having the "force of law is meaningless if it isn't enforced, which untill the recent activites of organizations like the ACLU, what we have to remember is that our founders more than anything didn't want to have a "Church of England" telling the people what to belive. You have the right to belive what you want. Its a "rendering" as there were no cameras back in the day... The "picture" itself is meaningless unless you give it meaning...... Shalom.
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 6/28/2007
Jarhead: There are only 3 laws in the 10 comandments that exist in modern american law. No murder, no theft, no bearing false witness. Adultery is no longer against the law. It is a violation of the marriage contract. Jews are required to follow all 613 laws listed in the Torah. Whether they follow them is between the particular Jew and God. And while I am glad to hear that you believe there is a special place in heaven for the Jews, many other Christians believe otherwise. They believe that Jews are going to hell because they dont accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. And many of those people, when they explain their religion, tell me that Jesus came to fulfill the law. And yes, treaties do not change existing law but they do have the FORCE of law (otherwise they would be meaningless because we would not be required to follow our own treaties).
Written by Dan
on 6/28/2007
Hey Ole Jarhead, you know I respect you, but I don't think adultery is against the law anymore, at least not in civilian court. NOT THAT I'M CONDONING IT, especially if my wife is reading this! There are prohibitions against murder in every society on the planet, so I don't think we should hand Moses the credit for that one, either. I also don't recall too many laws telling me I can't covet my neighbor's ass, or his wife (or his wife's...). And while I try my best to do it, I don't think there's a law on the books about honoring my father and mother. Blue laws are pretty much history these days, too, not to mention that if they were in force, they should start at sundown on Friday and end sundown Saturday. You get my point I think. Hope you're doing well.
Written by Tee Dub
on 6/28/2007
and No I do not prove your point, it was a point for those that read it in the MUSLIM world that the Uninted states was NOT a CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY like they are a MUSLIM THEOCRACY, and once again a treaty does not change existing US LAW with regard to laws on the books in the US so this treaty does NOT do anything in regard to US LAW just how we were PERCIEVED by the Muslim World of the Bey.
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 6/28/2007
Well Dan your wrong what I was talking about were the Christian Principles that When I said "Christian Nation" I did it in Paratheses in as what is percieved, or what others have said. read the post again it tsays that one should not dimiss the "CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES" (Quote) Ohh and by the way I am not letting you off on the law thing, Many of the laws ARE based on Jewish Law. (10 Commandments are the basis of many laws here in the US including laws against Murder and Adultery)And Dan, of those 613 laws in the Tanach, HOW MANY do Jews still follow? I don't see people being stoned to death it Tel-Aviv for working on Sabbat! or for adultery! Jeasus Christ came to fullfill a promise, not a law the promise of a Messiah, which is Promised in the OLD TESTAMENT, (Issiah)Those laws are in play for Christians and while we can eat pork and do things that you can't do,again its not like the Majority of the Jewish People follow all 613 of those laws, and its not like Christians hate you. I personally do not belive your going to hell, there is a special place for Jews with God, they are the apple of his eye and loved much by him. Even though they are a hard hearted and stiff necked people at times (how many times did Jews in the Tanach turn their face from God and Worship Baal?) God Loves you! Shalom
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 6/28/2007
Jarhead: The treaty of tripoli was negotiated under Washington. But look at your own logic. If a nation was state " "founded on" the Islamic religion [is] a "Mehomitan nation". ". So a state founded on the Christian religion would be a "Chrisitan nation". And since the treaty clearly states that our nation was not founded on the Christian religion it proves that we are not a christian nation. Thank you for proving my point.
Written by Dan
on 6/28/2007
'Cliffs Notes' Version of Patriot Warrior's Post (in case you don't want to read the whole thing):
1. People who think differently than I do must be angry, atheists, whackos, stupid, or all of the above. 2. Be afraid - be very, very, afraid. 3. New Orleans is a lost cause (you guess why, gentle reader).
Written by Tee Dub
on 6/28/2007
This subject, and many others like it seem to bring out strong emotions in people, both conservative and liberal. What is shocking in this case, is how much much hate, and anger is wrought by the "whacko left"! It is absolutely amazing! What do they have to fear? It seems that "they" feel threatened in some way, ie: that possibly there is a God after all, and they appear to be very confused about a lot of other things. When an atheist says - "this country is not a Christian majority", I have to question their intelligence, and motives. America is a strong Christian nation, like it or not. The vast majority of hispanics are - "CATHOLIC"! They are crossing over our borders each day in the hundreds and thousands. Catholics don't believe in "small families", and their populations will double, and triple, and quadruple over the next century. Wow, the ACLU will really have its' hands full!! If the "whacko left" feels threatened by a small painting of "Christ", what else do they feel threatened by? What "they" should really fear, is: "JIHAD". This nation shoud dispel its' petty differences and concentrate on the bigger "picture", no pun intended. Talk about "threats"! Americans are faced with more than just ideological differences such as the painting in Slidell. Speaking of "JIHAD", they are coming, and they will bring hell with them! We haven't experienced anything yet compared to what is coming! You ask, how do I know this? For one, I have worked in the "Intel Community", worldwide, and maintain close ties with friends still there. I am not given confidential information; however, just enought to realize, "that we are in serious trouble"! You might scoff at this, but I would suggest that you cut out this message, and place it on your refrigerator doors. Read it every day, and think seriously about it. You ask then, what can we do? Answer, stay the course of demonstrating that the USA is together in its' resistance to the threats of "JIHAD", and we will not compromise our will to resist their taking over the world, including this country. Playing politics with thus huge problem will only divide us even more, and will open the doors even wider to the - "coming threat"! We must come together, and defend this country at all costs. Unfortunately, there's not much that we can do to dramatically change the City of New Orleans, aka - "New Nigeria"! Only until "all" of the citizens of N.O decide they have had enough, then real progress, and hope for the future will be realized. If you continue to elect, and re-elect those who are totally incompetent and corrupt, then it will always be - "business as usual". Have a good day. PATRIOT WARRIOR.
Written by PATRIOT WARRIOR
on 6/28/2007
and by the way the article 11 you lovingly tout as your proof was not in the original Arabic version according to some experts
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 6/27/2007
Yes they support an OCCASIONAL conservative when they see it can get them plublicity or MONEY! Dan that treaty says it yes. But treaties with other nations DO NOT supercede EXISTING LAW AT ALL!!! They are agreements with FORIEGN NATIONS and have NO EFFECT OF LAWS OF THE US so your point while somewhat vaild is MOOT! By the way the Treaty was NOT NEGOTIATED by Washington by my Joel Barlow. The following is from the website tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html "A word to begin, for poor-reading skeptics: We do not argue that eliminating Article 11 is the same as proving that America was indeed "founded on the Christian religion" -- whatever that may mean. To what extent that may or may not be so is something we plan to look into in future essays. For the present, please note that:
The article as it stands merely says that the government of America is not founded on the Christian religion. This does not mean that the American social/political network was not founded with Christian principles of mind, or that the peoples of America were not Christian to some degree; it merely addresses the government of America. Why?
It may occur to critics that the phrase "founded on the Christian religion" would have a certain meaning to those whose state were "founded on" the Islamic religion -- a "Mehomitan nation". The essential message would be that America was not a Christian theocracy, or a state where the church had political power, as the religious authorities in Muslim nations had power -- which is something no one argues for America.
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 6/27/2007
I would just like to reiterate Dan's point - the United States of America is not a "Christian Nation" and despite persistent right-wing claims to the contrary, we were not founded as such. While the majority of Americans are Christian, the Founding Fathers included non-Christians, and having lived through (or having heard of from their parents) the religious persecution in Europe, they knew better than to have our nation be wedded to one particular faith. Our third President, and author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, was not a Christian, but could best be described as a Deist. He wrote his own version of the New Testament in which he removed all references to Christ's divinity, a notion he deemed "silly". The sad truth of the matter is that in today's political climate, Thomas Jefferson could not be elected President of the United States. One last thought - a lot of you right-wing types really have trouble with empathy - it seems to be a skill that many of you lack. I tried to make you experience some empathy with the "L. Ron Hubbard" test I gave in the last thread, in which I changed all the references to "Christ" in Jeff's article into "L. Ron Hubbard" and all the "Christianity" references to "Scientology" - and many of you still didn't seem to catch the point of the exercise. It's almost as if you cannot see the world through the perspective of someone from another religion. While it may sound ugly, you all are much more akin to the suicide bombers than we progressives are when it comes to that score. Fire away.
Written by Tee Dub
on 6/27/2007
JT: That is an oversimplification of my argument. Someone who feels it necessary to use his/her court as an instrument to promote religion would be someone who is less likely to view someone in a positive light who rejects christianity and is seeking justice in that courtroom. Let's say a christian was on trial in such a courtroom for theft. And lets say in the next case, a muslim is on trial for theft. Will the judge apply his bias that christianity is the right path in his verdicts? When there is a clear statement of what rules one has to obey and that statement is under a portrait of Jesus, I doubt that the muslim would get as fair of a trial as the christian would.
Written by Dan
on 6/27/2007
dan, please don't take offense, i am just enjoying a little discussion -- the court according to dan -- district atty opens with a first question -- mr. dan are you a christian? dan replies, no i am jewish -- district atty -- no further questions your honor -- the judge then rules - guilty - talk about swift justice -- is that how you get treated in court dan?
Written by jt
on 6/27/2007
JT: No. Most judges, christian or otherwise, would likely give me a fair ruling regardless of his or my faith. However, a judge who feels it a necessary part of his duties to promote the christian faith by placing a sign in the courtroom with a message telling people to "obey these laws" (and under Jesus, "these laws" to me say christianities laws) would not give me the confidence that I deserve as a person seeking justice that I, as a Jewish person, would get it since I do not follow the laws of Jesus Christ. To me, a judge who feels it necessary as part of his duties as a judge to promote his faith (whatever faith that might be) is an "activist judge".
Written by Dan
on 6/27/2007
Jarhead: Really? Well first of all we are not a "christian nation". The treaty of Tripoli (negotiated by Washington, signed by Adams and ratified by 2/3 of the Senate) clearly states such. Treaties have the effect of law. So if the treaty states that we are not founded on the Christian religion, then we are clearly not a chrisitan nation. Second: I dont see many christian nations banning pork, stopping people from driving on the Sabbath, and requiring circumcisions. CHristianity is a VASTLY different religion than Judsism. Why? Well it is said that Jesus christ came to fulfill the law. So those 613 comandments of the Tanach (what you call the Old Testament) are no longer in play for Christians. Christians follow a whole different playbook. Now, CATHOLICS believe that Jews are ok following Judaism because their covenant with god is eternal. However, many other Christian sects believe that Jews are going to hell because they refuse to accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. Nobody is suggesting that people get "nothing". You can promote your religion publicly all you want, just dont use the government to do it. `
Written by Dan
on 6/27/2007
so what you are saying is the judges in slidell are christians and would rule unfavorably upon you since you are Jewish
Written by jt
on 6/27/2007
JT: we are not talking about all judges and lawmakers. We are talking about the court in Slidell.
Written by dan
on 6/27/2007
Susan: The thing is that there is right and there is wrong. It is wrong of people to try and use government to promote their religious beliefs (even though they may very well have the best intentions for doing so). If the ACLU sues for legal costs, perhaps they are saying that if people didnt try and use government to promote religious agendas then they wouldnt have to pay the ACLU court costs since there would be no reason to sue. And the ACLU does get my respect because even though they disagree with people like Ollie North, Rush Limbaugh and others, they still come to their defense. Look at this case to see the proof. http://www.laaclu.org/News/2006/Crayton_102706.htm
To
Buzz Right Back on this article