jimshiz

What is the difference between "Freedom OF religion" and "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof [religion]..."? I did not say that "introducing for consideration in Congress a bill respecting the establishment of a religious basis as the ultimate foundation of the US Justice system" didn't violate the Constitution. I just asked someone why Delay was an "idiot".

The 6th Amendment says "impartial jury"; I would hope that would imply "fair". But, as I said before, the Constitution does NOT enumerate the rights that "We The People" have; it enumerates the rights we allow our government to have. I NEVER said "the God of Christianity" !!! I never promoted the use of "religious tests". I never said that the Constitution "endorses Christianity".

Here is a "satisfactory" answer: The word "separation" appears NO where in the Constitution. If you are referring to the 1st Amendment, it says in part "Freedom OF religion", NOT "Freedom FROM religion". The Declaration of Independence is also one of our "founding documents" and it makes it pretty clear why we thought human beings should not be treated the way the king was treating us: "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,..."

"Nature's God" - the Creator! For me, at a minimum, Jesus, God, and Allah are all the "same" God.

The Constitution lays out what "We The People" will allow our government to be involved in. Everything else is given to us from God and the government needs to stay out of it. The Bill of Rights is unfortunately used in the way that Hamilton or Madison (I forget which) was afraid it would be used. The Constitution does NOT enumerate the rights that we DO have, it enumerates the "rights" that we allow the government to have.

God IS the highest authority in the justice system. Our entire system is based on God's law. I do not know the context of "the Supreme Court has no right to issue findings on the law" - on its face, I'd say that does not make sense because it is the Supreme Court's job to make sure our laws do not violate our Constitution. I will say that the Supreme Court should not really make international law or laws of other countries the basis for their decisions on our own laws; but I'm not sure if this was the context at all.

What did Frist and Delay ever say or do that make them "idiots"?

When did the head of the RNC ever "slander" an entire group of people?

If only the teachers could have put that little brat over their knee and gave her the good spanking that she deserved...when I was a kid, that is what would have happened and there never would have been a need to call in the cops. We reap what we sow.

Well, according to the Bible, it IS a sin! But, it is not the only sin enumerated in 1 Corinthians 6 for example. BUT, maybe more importantly, this text points out that we should leave up to the "godly" to do the judging. 1 Corinthians 6 1If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? 2Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church![a] 5I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6But instead, one brother goes to law against another–and this in front of unbelievers! 7The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers. 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 12“Everything is permissible for me”–but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me”–but I will not be mastered by anything. 13“Food for the stomach and the stomach for food”–but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit. 18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. SO, immoral heterosexuals, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, greedy, drunkards, slanderers, & swindlers ALL are just as "guilty" in committing their "sin" as practicing homosexuals.

Sports Illustrated has a survey on "gays in sports" where their own published results have the exact same question listed twice with conflicting percentages for each: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/maga...nded/index.html Let's see how this board weighs in on this question alone.

I never read the memo nor did I have to listen to what Republican Senators and Congressmen were saying to form my own opinion about the whole case.

NOBODY said that the government was being required to pay for anything here. But, even if they are, you should NEVER decide a moral issue based on monetary cost.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43688

http://www.bushin30years.org/vote/?id=5324...a_pr7Ho28hZJ8XQ

I don't know if it is actually true, but it made sense to me that the actual translation of the commandment in question is NOT "Thou shall not kill"; but rather "Thou shall not murder". It makes sense to me because even God allowed for wars. And I don't view capital punishment as murder even though someone is being killed. And killing in self-defense is probably OK even though it is not ideal. Now, I'm not saying that I agree with the Dr. killers, but I'll bet some of them argue that they are doing it in "self defense"; ie. defense of the innocent baby rather than defense of themselves.

When we don't have all the information, can't KNOW for SURE, then err on the side of protecting OUR Country. Clinton, Kerry, Schummer, Kennedy, Albright, Gore, etc. have ALL said during the Clinton regime that Hussein was a threat and needed to be dealt with and they even dealt with him in 1998 without a wimper from those who continue to this day to cry about GWB saying what he was going to do, getting Congress approval to do it, and then he did it! "Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." "Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities." "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." "If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

http://www.protestwarrior.com/ I love 'em...

Before 1963, cremation was not allowed. Before 1997, the service was supposed to be done with the body present before cremation. http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/...7/Editorial.asp

Do you realize that the Constitution really only enumerates the "rights" that the people allow the federal government to have? It was in no way ever meant to enumerate the rights that people have. One of the arguments against including the Bill of Rights in the Constitution was that people would mistakenly believe that people's rights were meant to be enumerated as they are in the Bill of Rights. If the Constitution does not prevent it, then it is federally legal; no matter what it is. The 10th amendment makes the point that all other laws are up to states as long as they don't violate the Constitution.

I only created the poll because Bishop Hedd linked to a stupid article that showed a majority of Americans did not think "it was worth it"... I know that it was worth it; and I understand that others will need to wait 20 years to see that it was worth it; but they'll also try to point out that it was John Kerry's good idea the whole time. Here's that other stupid thread: http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=20806

Amendment XIV 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.

Why is it "brave" to be for raising taxes but it is not "brave" to be for cutting spending?

Try telling the parents of kids who have been killed over there that their sons are dying for no discernable reason.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...t_id=1000844124 Asked if the war was worth it, considering all the costs and benefits to the United States, 53% said no and 45% said yes. How will this rate here on PPP?