Alabama Supreme Court Justice
duke
A former top aid to Roy Moore, in a Republican primary and without any judicial
experience, knocked off a sitting justice who voted to remove the marker.
The beginning of a new political movement to recon with - the desires of the people of
God? Many say yes.
And it's not local to Alabama. And it's constitutional.
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
John M Price PhD
: Gone. Like "Roy's Rock"
: A former top aid to Roy Moore, in a Republican primary and without any judicial
: experience, knocked off a sitting justice who voted to remove the marker.
: The beginning of a new political movement to recon with - the desires of the people of
: God? Many say yes.
: And it's not local to Alabama. And it's constitutional.
No one ever lost money unserestimating the intelligence of the American
people. Of course you are that phrase's poster boy.
BTW the People cannot make laws which are unconstitutional. They will be
repealed at their first test.
(c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved.
Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior
written consent of the author with the express and only exception of
followup postings limited to and within usenet.
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
I would defend the liberty of consenting adult creationists to practice
whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own
homes, but it is necessary to protect the young and innocent.
- Arthur C. Clarke
duke
>: And it's not local to Alabama. And it's constitutional.
>No one ever lost money unserestimating the intelligence of the American
>people. Of course you are that phrase's poster boy.
Why, thank you jp.
>BTW the People cannot make laws which are unconstitutional. They will be
>repealed at their first test.
Yet laws that were considered unconstitutional before can now be judged constitutional.
But, not the point.
Stand in the way of God, and the religious constituency can vote you out.
And that is good.
What we need now is to restrict movement that is deemed atheistic. You know, if religious
desire is unconstitutional, then atheistic view can be also.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|Gone. Like "Roy's Rock"
>:|
>:|A former top aid to Roy Moore, in a Republican primary and without any judicial
>:|experience, knocked off a sitting justice who voted to remove the marker.
>:|
>:|The beginning of a new political movement to recon with - the desires of the people of
>:|God? Many say yes.
>:|
>:|And it's not local to Alabama. And it's constitutional.
Do you have a cite for this by any chance?
Graham Kennedy
> Gone. Like "Roy's Rock"
>
> A former top aid to Roy Moore, in a Republican primary and without any judicial
> experience, knocked off a sitting justice who voted to remove the marker.
>
> The beginning of a new political movement to recon with - the desires of the people of
> God? Many say yes.
>
> And it's not local to Alabama. And it's constitutional.
It raises and interesting question to be sure : what do you
do if the people elect judges and politicians who simply
ignore the law and vote whatever is popular?
I wonder how far it could go. Creationism in school science
lessons? Religious tests for office? Burning witches at the
stake?
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
Daniel Kolle
hard and said:
>Gone. Like "Roy's Rock"
>
>A former top aid to Roy Moore, in a Republican primary and without any judicial
>experience, knocked off a sitting justice who voted to remove the marker.
God forbid someone follow the law, duke.
>The beginning of a new political movement to recon with - the desires of the people of
>God? Many say yes.
>
>And it's not local to Alabama. And it's constitutional.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, and Krzysztof Penderecki are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
Douglas Berry
scaled the mighty crag called alt.atheism on Sun, 13 Jun 2004 14:35:01
-0500 and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
>On 13 Jun 2004 17:00:52 GMT, John M Price PhD <jmp...@calweb.com> wrote:
>
>>: And it's not local to Alabama. And it's constitutional.
>
>>No one ever lost money unserestimating the intelligence of the American
>>people. Of course you are that phrase's poster boy.
>
>Why, thank you jp.
It was an insult, or do you consider being called stupid a compliment?
>>BTW the People cannot make laws which are unconstitutional. They will be
>>repealed at their first test.
>
>Yet laws that were considered unconstitutional before can now be judged constitutional.
Cases? Can you cite such things?
>But, not the point.
>
>Stand in the way of God, and the religious constituency can vote you out.
Do that, and the American people will rise up. Thats what we did to
the last government that claimed to be vetted by God. Remember George
III, King by the Grace of God?
Didn't help him much.. he went insane and lost the Americas.
>And that is good.
Go visit Saudi Arabia and tell me the joys of theocracy.
>What we need now is to restrict movement that is deemed atheistic. You know, if religious
>desire is unconstitutional, then atheistic view can be also.
"Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion."
You can be as religious as you like, moron. You want to believe that
a being that created the entire unvierse cares about you touching
yourself, fine with me. But our founding fathers knew that idiots
like you would, given the chancem destroy America in favor of a
dictatorship. So they made it clear that religious freedom was the
rule, and made sure that you could not apply religious tests for
governmental office.
As much as you obviously hate America, and everything it stands for,
I'm suprised you still live here.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
duke
>> The beginning of a new political movement to recon with - the desires of the people of
>> God? Many say yes.
>> And it's not local to Alabama. And it's constitutional.
>It raises and interesting question to be sure : what do you
>do if the people elect judges and politicians who simply
>ignore the law and vote whatever is popular?
They're doing it now with abortions. They're doing it now by prohibiting the free
exercise of religious belief.
Why should you worry?
>I wonder how far it could go. Creationism in school science
>lessons? Religious tests for office? Burning witches at the
>stake?
That's gone too far to the right side of center, just like we are too far over on the left
side now.
duke
>>>No one ever lost money unserestimating the intelligence of the American
>>>people. Of course you are that phrase's poster boy.
>>Why, thank you jp.
>It was an insult, or do you consider being called stupid a compliment?
Aw dougie. All Americans are allowed to vote if they are on the voter roles.
Even you.
.
>>>BTW the People cannot make laws which are unconstitutional. They will be
>>>repealed at their first test.
>>Yet laws that were considered unconstitutional before can now be judged constitutional.
>Cases? Can you cite such things?
End to abortion.
>>But, not the point.
>>Stand in the way of God, and the religious constituency can vote you out.
>Do that, and the American people will rise up.
We ARE the American people.
> Thats what we did to
>the last government that claimed to be vetted by God. Remember George
>III, King by the Grace of God?
No one wants a king. But we do want a moral-based society, and we lack that now.
>Didn't help him much.. he went insane and lost the Americas.
>>And that is good.
>Go visit Saudi Arabia and tell me the joys of theocracy.
I plan on staying here and bring morality back.
>>What we need now is to restrict movement that is deemed atheistic. You know, if religious
>>desire is unconstitutional, then atheistic view can be also.
>"Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion."
"nor hindering the free practice either." My, how you forget the other half.
>You can be as religious as you like, moron.
You can be as atheistic as you like, moron, but don't unfairly get in my way.
>As much as you obviously hate America, and everything it stands for,
>I'm suprised you still live here.
Oh, we're in the process of moving it back towards a moral country.
duke
Today's Sunday newspaper.
duke
>>Gone. Like "Roy's Rock"
>>A former top aid to Roy Moore, in a Republican primary and without any judicial
>>experience, knocked off a sitting justice who voted to remove the marker.
>God forbid someone follow the law, duke.
What he did was perfectly legal - got the dude voted out.
>>The beginning of a new political movement to recon with - the desires of the people of
>>God? Many say yes.
>>And it's not local to Alabama. And it's constitutional.
Bob LeChevalier
Old news. Moore's candidate Parker defeated incumbent Jean Brown in
the Jun 1 Republican primary, 51% to 49%. Two or three other
candidates backed by Moore lost but were not running against
incumbents.
http://www.nbc13.com/news/3405375/detail.html
http://www.madisoncountyrecord.com/articles/2004/06/10/opinion/oped2.txt
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1086254165219440.xml
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWS/StoryAlabamamoore603w.htm
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Douglas Berry
-0500 and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
>On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:59:36 GMT, Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
>>It was an insult, or do you consider being called stupid a compliment?
>
>Aw dougie. All Americans are allowed to vote if they are on the voter roles.
>
>Even you.
That was a bit of a non sequitur...
.
>>Cases? Can you cite such things?
>
>End to abortion.
Three words is not a cite.
>>Do that, and the American people will rise up.
>
>We ARE the American people.
No, actually, the majority of Americans don't want a theocracy.
>> Thats what we did to
>>the last government that claimed to be vetted by God. Remember George
>>III, King by the Grace of God?
>
>No one wants a king. But we do want a moral-based society, and we lack that now.
As long as you get to define the morals, right?
Tell me, in this "moral society" what becomes of a gay man's rights
under the Constitution?
>>Go visit Saudi Arabia and tell me the joys of theocracy.
>
>I plan on staying here and bring morality back.
I've seen a theocracy in action. Over my dead body will you do it
here. I took an oath to defend this nation against all enemies,
foreign and domestic. People like you, who despise the freedoms of
all Americans so openly, are enemies of the Constitution.
>>"Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion."
>
>"nor hindering the free practice either." My, how you forget the other half.
Actually, it's "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Not only
do I remember it, but I know it better than you.
>>You can be as religious as you like, moron.
>
>You can be as atheistic as you like, moron, but don't unfairly get in my way.
Have I stopped you from reading your Bible? Applying it in your daily
life? Attending the church of your choice as often as you like? Have
I stopped you from saying grace over your McFood at lunch?
In what way have atheists affected your free exercise of religion?
Don't like abortions? Don't get one.
Don't like gay marriages? Don't get married to a member of the same
sex.
In other words, you have all the freedom to practice your faith.. and
the rest of us have every right to live our lives.
and you *hate* that.
>>As much as you obviously hate America, and everything it stands for,
>>I'm suprised you still live here.
>
>Oh, we're in the process of moving it back towards a moral country.
Yup. Legal gay marriages are the first step to a truly ethical state
with equal rights for all.
DianaC
"Graham Kennedy" <gra...@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:108714078...@dyke.uk.clara.net...
> duke wrote:
>
> > Gone. Like "Roy's Rock"
> >
> > A former top aid to Roy Moore, in a Republican primary and without any
judicial
> > experience, knocked off a sitting justice who voted to remove the
marker.
> >
> > The beginning of a new political movement to recon with - the desires of
the people of
> > God? Many say yes.
> >
> > And it's not local to Alabama. And it's constitutional.
>
> It raises and interesting question to be sure : what do you
> do if the people elect judges and politicians who simply
> ignore the law and vote whatever is popular?
>
> I wonder how far it could go. Creationism in school science
> lessons? Religious tests for office? Burning witches at the
> stake?
Or perhaps...the PC rewriting of school textbooks to fit the current liberal
viewpoint?
But wait; that's perfectly acceptable, but an honest election isn't, if the
results don't meet with your approval?
DianaC
"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:odopc092eao1drim6...@4ax.com...
<snip all the way to this>
> >
> >Oh, we're in the process of moving it back towards a moral country.
>
> Yup. Legal gay marriages are the first step to a truly ethical state
> with equal rights for all.
A point: When the government defines what marriage is, religions who
disagree with that definition get clobbered.
Look at what happened to the Mormons. We practiced polygamy and it worked
just fine...until we got kicked out of one state, and then another, and
finally completely out of the country. Not content with THAT, Buchanan, in
what everybody ELSE called 'Buchanan's Folly' and we called 'Johnson's Army"
sent one HALF of the United States Armed Forces after us, escorting a
replacement governor. See, we had elected Brigham Young, and the United
States (a country we no longer even LIVED in) didn't like our choice. So
they decided to fix it.
They not only decided that thier definition of marriage should be imposed
upon a religion that had a different viewpoint, they enforced it with prison
time. They enforced it by making Utah give concessions that no OTHER state
had to give in order to join the union; it is only in Utah that polygamy is
against the state constitution, not just against the law.
Utah ALSO was forced to take the vote away from the women in order to join
the US..but that's beside this point...
If the US government decides, in its definition of 'marriage' that gay
couples qualify, do you think for one second that churches who do not accept
such marriages won't get sued...and forced to recognize them? Do NOT say 'of
course not'.....not to me. Not to the descendent of a man who spent time in
prison because the government redefined 'marriage'.
Here is what needs to be done, but will not. It won't be done because it's
just too easy and solves the whole mess for everybody;
Have the government get out of the 'marriage' definition altogether. Have
the government endorse 'civil unions' for everybody, gays, heterosexuals,
whatever; they pick the contracts, they sign 'em, the government recognizes
them and gives them the rights such contracts entitle them to; survivorship,
insurance, tax benefits, the whole shebang......
And let the couple and their belief system call it 'marriage' if they want
to, or not if they don't.
Then nobody can sue because homosexual couples can't get married in a
Catholic cathedral or LDS Temple....but that couple, in their OWN belief
system, are married...and legally entitled to the rights being married gives
'em.
I know, I'm spitting against the wind....
Fred Stone
news:bQ5zc.18411$tA6....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net:
>
> "Graham Kennedy" <gra...@ditl.org> wrote in message
> news:108714078...@dyke.uk.clara.net...
>> duke wrote:
>>
>> > Gone. Like "Roy's Rock"
>> >
>> > A former top aid to Roy Moore, in a Republican primary and without
>> > any judicial experience, knocked off a sitting justice who voted to
>> > remove the marker.
>> >
>> > The beginning of a new political movement to recon with - the
>> > desires of the people of God? Many say yes.
>> >
>> > And it's not local to Alabama. And it's constitutional.
>>
>> It raises and interesting question to be sure : what do you
>> do if the people elect judges and politicians who simply
>> ignore the law and vote whatever is popular?
>>
>> I wonder how far it could go. Creationism in school science
>> lessons? Religious tests for office? Burning witches at the
>> stake?
>
> Or perhaps...the PC rewriting of school textbooks to fit the current
> liberal viewpoint?
>
Oh, heck, they've been doing THAT forever. There was a good book on the
subject out a few years ago, something like "Lies My Teacher Told Me:
Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong". It's all about how
much American History is sanitized for high school classes.
> But wait; that's perfectly acceptable, but an honest election isn't,
> if the results don't meet with your approval?
>
There can only be one valid interpretation of the Constitution and that
is the one liberals support.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
DianaC
"Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9507D826F...@207.69.154.201...<snip to>
> There can only be one valid interpretation of the Constitution and that
> is the one liberals support.
Fred, I LIKE you.
But no. The only valid interpretation of the Constitution is the one
conservatives support. The liberals don't support the constitution.
They are out to CHANGE it.
Uncle Dollar Bill
<dian...@verizon.net> wrote:
So liberals are the ones proposing amendments to ban gay marriage?
Liberals are the ones proposing changes that would congress power to
ignore the Supreme Court when they don't like their rulings? Wow,
learn something new every day...
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
DianaC
"Uncle Dollar Bill" <UncleDo...@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message <snip
to>
> >
> >They are out to CHANGE it.
>
> So liberals are the ones proposing amendments to ban gay marriage?
> Liberals are the ones proposing changes that would congress power to
> ignore the Supreme Court when they don't like their rulings? Wow,
> learn something new every day...
The difference, Fred, is this: Conserviatives go about amending the
constitution doing it the way provided for IN the constitution.
Liberals do it by fiat; they just get the Supreme Court to reinterpret it.
So let's see....
Conservatives propose amendments and want to let the folks vote...
Liberals are scared silly that the majority might not agree with them so
they sneak their changes in the back way.
I can tell you which avenue *I* prefer....
And if and when an amendment to ban gay marriage comes to a vote, I will
vote AGAINST it.
Oh, and congress is SUPPOSED to 'ignore the Supreme Court when they don't
like their rulings". That's called 'checks and balances".
The congress passes legislation, the court rules on it's constitutionality,
congress changes the legislation so that it abides by the constitution OR
changes the constitution..(which ain't all that easy to do, by the way)
I don't know about you, but I do., not. want a Supreme Court that can not be
challenged any more than I want a congress that doesn't have the court to
watch over IT.
Douglas Berry
scaled the mighty crag called alt.atheism on Sun, 13 Jun 2004 23:55:51
GMT and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
>"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
>news:odopc092eao1drim6...@4ax.com...
><snip all the way to this>
>
>> >
>> >Oh, we're in the process of moving it back towards a moral country.
>>
>> Yup. Legal gay marriages are the first step to a truly ethical state
>> with equal rights for all.
>
>A point: When the government defines what marriage is, religions who
>disagree with that definition get clobbered.
>
>Look at what happened to the Mormons. We practiced polygamy and it worked
>just fine...until we got kicked out of one state, and then another, and
>finally completely out of the country. Not content with THAT, Buchanan, in
>what everybody ELSE called 'Buchanan's Folly' and we called 'Johnson's Army"
>sent one HALF of the United States Armed Forces after us, escorting a
>replacement governor. See, we had elected Brigham Young, and the United
>States (a country we no longer even LIVED in) didn't like our choice. So
>they decided to fix it.
That was wrong, as wrong as what we did to the First Nations. I'm
polyamorous myself.
>They not only decided that thier definition of marriage should be imposed
>upon a religion that had a different viewpoint, they enforced it with prison
>time. They enforced it by making Utah give concessions that no OTHER state
>had to give in order to join the union; it is only in Utah that polygamy is
>against the state constitution, not just against the law.
I'd like to see Utah repeal that part of the Constitution. It can be
done by amendment, you know.
But until legal benefits are stripped from marriage entirely, the
state will be involved. The fact is there are two types of marriage
in the US: state and church. I'm concerned with the state marriage
debate. Churches can do whatever they want. If your beliefs hold
that blonds cannot marry redheads, then you cannot be forced to
perform that ceremony.. but the couple can go get married by the
county clerk (or go to Vegas and get married at 0330 by an Elvis
impersonator, if they like.)
>Utah ALSO was forced to take the vote away from the women in order to join
>the US..but that's beside this point...
>
>If the US government decides, in its definition of 'marriage' that gay
>couples qualify, do you think for one second that churches who do not accept
>such marriages won't get sued...and forced to recognize them? Do NOT say 'of
>course not'.....not to me. Not to the descendent of a man who spent time in
>prison because the government redefined 'marriage'.
They'd lose. Such suits have been filed in the recent past for
various reasons, and the decision is always that the church can decide
who they offer services to as a private institution.
>Here is what needs to be done, but will not. It won't be done because it's
>just too easy and solves the whole mess for everybody;
>
>Have the government get out of the 'marriage' definition altogether. Have
>the government endorse 'civil unions' for everybody, gays, heterosexuals,
>whatever; they pick the contracts, they sign 'em, the government recognizes
>them and gives them the rights such contracts entitle them to; survivorship,
>insurance, tax benefits, the whole shebang......
Alas, as logical as that might be, people are used to the term
marriage, so we're stuck with it.
>And let the couple and their belief system call it 'marriage' if they want
>to, or not if they don't.
>
>Then nobody can sue because homosexual couples can't get married in a
>Catholic cathedral or LDS Temple....but that couple, in their OWN belief
>system, are married...and legally entitled to the rights being married gives
>'em.
As I said, churches are free to offer services at their own
discretion. My wife and I couldn't have been married in a Catholic
Church for the basic reason that neither of us is Catholic! Nobody
has ever sucessfully forced a church to perform a service that
violated its beliefs. When I lived in Georgia, there was a minor
dust-up when a church refused to perform a marriage for an interracial
couple. Pastor thought that it violated the laws of God. Couple
tried to sue, they lost, and (I think) ended up getting married at the
Fort Benning chapel (He was a black soldier, she was a white local.)
Steve Knight
>What we need now is to restrict movement that is deemed atheistic. You know, if religious
>desire is unconstitutional, then atheistic view can be also.
Nothing like a constitutional Dark Age.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
Colin Day
> On 13 Jun 2004 17:00:52 GMT, John M Price PhD <jmp...@calweb.com> wrote:
>
>
>>: And it's not local to Alabama. And it's constitutional.
>
>
>>No one ever lost money unserestimating the intelligence of the American
>>people. Of course you are that phrase's poster boy.
>
>
> Why, thank you jp.
>
>
>>BTW the People cannot make laws which are unconstitutional. They will be
>>repealed at their first test.
>
>
> Yet laws that were considered unconstitutional before can now be judged constitutional.
>
> But, not the point.
>
> Stand in the way of God, and the religious constituency can vote you out.
But there is no god for us to stand in the way of.
Colin Day aa #1500
DianaC
"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
> GMT and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
>
> >conservatives support. The liberals don't support the constitution.
> >
> >They are out to CHANGE it.
>
> amendment banning gay marriage.
Read my response to "Uncle Dollar Bill" for the answer to this one.
<snip to end>
DianaC
"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
>
> I'd like to see Utah repeal that part of the Constitution. It can be
> done by amendment, you know.
It could....but under the circumstances, it won't. I can't imagine the
kerfufle THAT would cause at this point!
> But until legal benefits are stripped from marriage entirely, the
> state will be involved. The fact is there are two types of marriage
> in the US: state and church. I'm concerned with the state marriage
> debate. Churches can do whatever they want. If your beliefs hold
> that blonds cannot marry redheads, then you cannot be forced to
> perform that ceremony.. but the couple can go get married by the
> county clerk (or go to Vegas and get married at 0330 by an Elvis
> impersonator, if they like.)
But that's just it. It's not the legal benefits that bother me. It's the
fact that those legal benefits are tied to "MARRIAGE". As long as that is
so....
> >Utah ALSO was forced to take the vote away from the women in order to
join
> >the US..but that's beside this point...
> >
> >If the US government decides, in its definition of 'marriage' that gay
> >couples qualify, do you think for one second that churches who do not
accept
> >such marriages won't get sued...and forced to recognize them? Do NOT say
'of
> >course not'.....not to me. Not to the descendent of a man who spent time
in
> >prison because the government redefined 'marriage'.
>
> They'd lose. Such suits have been filed in the recent past for
> various reasons, and the decision is always that the church can decide
> who they offer services to as a private institution.
You will pardon me if I, who know of several lawsuits that went the OTHER
way, am a little sceptical of this?
Oh yeah???
Tell that to someone who is NOT a Mormon. I come by my paranoia
legitimately.
(grin) you know, "we're from the government, we are here to help you' is a
phrase that makes chalk/blackboard sounds...
DianaC
"Colin Day" <cd...@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:40CD0BD1...@sc.rr.com...
Perception is everything. Stand in the way of something people CALL God, and
the religious constituency can vote you out. Doesn't matter HOW loudly you
shout 'There is no God!".
A little reality would do you a world of good about now.
Carol Lee Smith
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 15:40:30 -0400, bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
> >>:|And it's not local to Alabama. And it's constitutional.
> >Do you have a cite for this by any chance?
> Today's Sunday newspaper.
Well, that's not much help.
Which Sunday newspaper? Podunk press?
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
-- Robert Anton Wilson
Enkidu
dian...@verizon.net says...
Not me. I'm about a liberal as anyone you've ever met. The
Constitution is the framework within which liberals and conservatives
used to work. It set the limits beyond which neither side in it's
moments of power could go. That has changed now. The NeoCons are
riding roughshod over the Constitution. They lock up American citizens
apprehended on American soil without charge, representation, the chance
to confront the evidence against them. They search private property,
they intercept private communications without every presenting their
justification for doing so before a judge.
--
Enkidu - AA# 2165
"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for
everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections
are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence
to religious principles"
James D. Watson
http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/1962/watson-bio.html
"The Astonishing Hypothesis is that `You,' your joys and
your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your
sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no
more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells
and their associated molecules."
Francis Crick
http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/1962/crick-bio.html
Rune Børsjø
>That's gone too far to the right side of center, just like we are too far over on the left
>side now.
You think the United States is too LIBERAL?
By the way, evolution vs. creation is by no means a "left vs right"
debate. It's one of intelligence, facts, enlightenment and
objectivity, over ignorance and bifrontal lobe epilepsy.
Rune Børsjø
wrote:
>But wait; that's perfectly acceptable, but an honest election isn't, if the
>results don't meet with your approval?
Certainly democracy must be respected, however, there should be some
minimum requirements to hold office - such as basic intelligence,
integrity and sanity.
A certain guy named Adolf was voted into office by a majority vote of
95.7% in 1934.
Are you really so eager to plunge your country back into the dark
ages?
Dracc...@netscape.net
> On 13 Jun 2004 17:00:52 GMT, John M Price PhD <jmp...@calweb.com> wrote:
>
> >: And it's not local to Alabama. And it's constitutional.
>
> >people. Of course you are that phrase's poster boy.
>
> Why, thank you jp.
>
> >BTW the People cannot make laws which are unconstitutional. They will be
> >repealed at their first test.
>
> Yet laws that were considered unconstitutional before can now be judged constitutional.
Yes and if they stanp on the civil rights of the people or are the
rights protected by the State or Federal Constitutions they will be
over turned on appeal again.
> But, not the point.
>
> Stand in the way of God, and the religious constituency can vote you out.
>
> And that is good.
Actually it is the best reason of all why Appeals and Supreme Court
Justices should not be elected people are sheep when it comed to this
they think the problem is that the postion of Judge must not be
partisan and never be about politics. It must be about peoples rights
and justice and the people deciding these things must be above
reproach in their unbiased and without preconcieved ideas about the
cases that come before them.
> What we need now is to restrict movement that is deemed atheistic. You know, if religious
> desire is unconstitutional, then atheistic view can be also.
>
>
>
>