"Kenneth" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:31:57 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

Hi Leon,

Perhaps you can help me to understand more about your views.

In one of your posts in this thread, you wrote:

It is no longer acceptable for judges to
have the 10 commandments displayed in their court rooms or the Bible
displayed in from of the court house.

but at another point you wrote:

I don't believe in certain groups of people having special privileges

Are you of the opinion that the 10 commandments should be
displayed in the courts? If so, does that not imply "certain
groups of people having special privileges?"


Only to a fool. Those are the source of our common law and culture.

"Hate crime" penalties and "affirmative action" programs don't imply, they
codify special consideration.

On Feb 22, 6:37 pm, "Leon" wrote:
"Kenneth" wrote in message

...



On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:31:57 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

Hi Leon,

Perhaps you can help me to understand more about your views.

In one of your posts in this thread, you wrote:

It is no longer acceptable for judges to
have the 10 commandments displayed in their court rooms or the Bible
displayed in from of the court house.

but at another point you wrote:

I don't believe in certain groups of people having special privileges

Are you of the opinion that the 10 commandments should be
displayed in the courts? If so, does that not imply "certain
groups of people having special privileges?"

I "am not" of the opinion that the 10 commandments must be displayed in the
courts. I do however believe that the judge, government official or not,
should be allowed to conduct his court room and have in his court room what
he chooses to have. Personally I prefer that they be displayed but I
certainly am against some one wanting them taken down for his day in court.
That person can choose to ignore them if he finds them offensive.

Hold on a second there.

When the POTUS swears on the Bible that he will uphold his
office...yadda, yadda...

The I think that everybody on down from him has to do the same.

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:31:51 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

"Under God" is not part of the Pledge of Allegiance. It was 'added'
by
a well-intentioned but ill-considered act of Congress in the 1950's.

Thats crap. The Under God IS a part of the pledge, not all the time but has
been for a very long time. If you want to argue, just say so.




Howdy,

Perhaps I misunderstand just what your "Thats [sic] crap"
refers to, but the phrase "under God" was added June 14,
1954.

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:54:48 -0600, "Swingman"
wrote:

"Kenneth" wrote

Are you of the opinion that the 10 commandments should be
displayed in the courts? If so, does that not imply "certain
groups of people having special privileges?"

Perhaps you should first educate us as to how the simple display of the
moral imperatives of a society inarguably based on Judeo Christian
values/principles conveys "special privileges" onto any group of people?

Howdy,

'Happy to...

It advantages that group that supports, or believes in,
those particular principles. (But, I truly suspect you knew
that g.)

The simple intuitive test would be to ask yourself how you
would feel were you to enter a court that displayed some
other set of "moral imperatives." Might you feel in any way
disadvantaged, or diminished? To whatever degree you might,
one could suggest that your privileges had been diminished.

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...

Hold on a second there.

When the POTUS swears on the Bible that he will uphold his
office...yadda, yadda...

The I think that everybody on down from him has to do the same..


Let me explain where I was coming from. I do believe that the Bible should
be involved in the oath process, no exceptions. The judge that I was
talking about had the 10 commandments displayed openly in the walls of the
court room. Some people wanted those removed. I say too bad.

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
On Feb 22, 5:54 pm, "Swingman" wrote:
"Kenneth" wrote

Are you of the opinion that the 10 commandments should be
displayed in the courts? If so, does that not imply "certain
groups of people having special privileges?"

Perhaps you should first educate us as to how the simple display of the
moral imperatives of a society inarguably based on Judeo Christian
values/principles conveys "special privileges" onto any group of people?


I know more than one Jew who finds the term "Judeo Christian" to
be offensive, regarding it as yet another attempt by Christians
to blame Judaism for their own shortcomings.

I'm quite aware of those who oppose the term because they feel it was
conceived to celebrate commonality instead of differences ... but there's
never been any shortage of jackasses more than willing to slobber in the
public trough.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Kenneth" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:31:51 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

"Under God" is not part of the Pledge of Allegiance. It was 'added'
by
a well-intentioned but ill-considered act of Congress in the 1950's.

Thats crap. The Under God IS a part of the pledge, not all the time but
has
been for a very long time. If you want to argue, just say so.




Howdy,

Perhaps I misunderstand just what your "Thats [sic] crap"
refers to, but the phrase "under God" was added June 14,
1954.


So you agree, it being added indicates that it is a part of the pledge.

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:37:03 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"Kenneth" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:31:57 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

Hi Leon,

Perhaps you can help me to understand more about your views.

In one of your posts in this thread, you wrote:

It is no longer acceptable for judges to
have the 10 commandments displayed in their court rooms or the Bible
displayed in from of the court house.

but at another point you wrote:

I don't believe in certain groups of people having special privileges

Are you of the opinion that the 10 commandments should be
displayed in the courts? If so, does that not imply "certain
groups of people having special privileges?"

I "am not" of the opinion that the 10 commandments must be displayed in the
courts. I do however believe that the judge, government official or not,
should be allowed to conduct his court room and have in his court room what
he chooses to have. Personally I prefer that they be displayed but I
certainly am against some one wanting them taken down for his day in court.
That person can choose to ignore them if he finds them offensive.


Hi again,

Let me start by saying I very much appreciate your response
to me question, but it does raise another:

How might it feel for you if you were called into court as a
witness, or perhaps even charged with a crime (just for the
sake of my example g) and on entering the courtroom behind
the judge you saw hanging on the wall some set of moral
principles completely different from those with which you
grew up?

Would you feel it appropriate were I to say to you at that
point "You can ignore them if you find them offensive."?

Thanks again,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

On Feb 22, 6:31 pm, "Leon" wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in ...


...


I certainly hope that in Houston as elsewhere, no one is required
to take a religious oath prior to testimony, or for any other reason.

You mean I swear to tell the truth and the whole truth, so Help me God? Is
there any court room in the US that does not require that?


I have sat on juries in Ohio and Maryland. Neither required a
religious
oath. Any requirement that a person make a statement implying
religious belief is a clear blatant violation of the First Amendment.



Disallowing the use of religious icons to decorate a public building,
is
hardly tatamount to removing God from the building. Unless my
childhood religious education was very much in error, no earthly
power can remove God from anywhere. ISTM that if someone who
insists on conspicuous displays of their religious icons by their
government is a person who is without faith.

A constant reminder of God is no harm to anyone not is it a sign of lack of
faith.

Why does a person who has faith need a constant reminder?
and why does a person who has faith need to canstantly remind
other people?

A conspicous display of their religious icon by anyone, is not a sign of a
person who is with out faith. If you believe that, explain that to any
priest. It matters not, where the display is.


We simply disagree.


...
"Under God" is not part of the Pledge of Allegiance. It was 'added'
by a well-intentioned but ill-considered act of Congress in the 1950's.

Thats crap. The Under God IS a part of the pledge, not all the time but has
been for a very long time. If you want to argue, just say so.

The Congress didn't write the Pledge of Allegiance so it is no more
appropriate for the Congress to edit it than it is for the Congress
to
edit anyone else's writings.

What purpose is served by adding divisive language to the Pledge?

--

FF

"Kenneth" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:54:48 -0600, "Swingman"
wrote:

"Kenneth" wrote

Are you of the opinion that the 10 commandments should be
displayed in the courts? If so, does that not imply "certain
groups of people having special privileges?"

Perhaps you should first educate us as to how the simple display of the
moral imperatives of a society inarguably based on Judeo Christian
values/principles conveys "special privileges" onto any group of people?

Howdy,

'Happy to...

It advantages that group that supports, or believes in,
those particular principles. (But, I truly suspect you knew
that g.)

The simple intuitive test would be to ask yourself how you
would feel were you to enter a court that displayed some
other set of "moral imperatives." Might you feel in any way
disadvantaged, or diminished? To whatever degree you might,
one could suggest that your privileges had been diminished.

"Advantages", "privileges diminished"? ... in what way, specifically?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:06:50 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"Kenneth" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:31:51 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

"Under God" is not part of the Pledge of Allegiance. It was 'added'
by
a well-intentioned but ill-considered act of Congress in the 1950's.

Thats crap. The Under God IS a part of the pledge, not all the time but
has
been for a very long time. If you want to argue, just say so.




Howdy,

Perhaps I misunderstand just what your "Thats [sic] crap"
refers to, but the phrase "under God" was added June 14,
1954.


So you agree, it being added indicates that it is a part of the pledge.


Hi again,

'Sorry, I was not playing word games...

Of course it is part of the pledge "now", but the clear
intent of the original post about it was that the phrase was
not part of the pledge originally.

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

"Kenneth" wrote in message
...

'Happy to...

It advantages that group that supports, or believes in,
those particular principles. (But, I truly suspect you knew
that g.)

That advantaged group would be a vast majority of the people in the United
States. Disputing that is in fact an attempt to twist and manipulate.

The simple intuitive test would be to ask yourself how you
would feel were you to enter a court that displayed some
other set of "moral imperatives."

That would be just fine with me. As long as the imperatives were of Good
morals.

Might you feel in any way
disadvantaged, or diminished?

Only if I was an idiot.


To whatever degree you might,
one could suggest that your privileges had been diminished.

If I in fact felt that my privilidges had been diminished, it would be
because of my own doing. If I had a problem with that, I could certainly go
to another country and see how those courts would fit my wants.
No one that has not broken any laws is forced to stay in the United States
and be governed by its age old ways that worked pretty darn well unill some
people started twisting and manipulation the laws.

If the Congress didn't like the pledge, they should have written their
own and not messed with someone else's composition. Can you
imagine an act of Congress making a change to one of the ten
commandments?

Are you kidding? They're too busy violating them.

B.

On Feb 22, 6:43 pm, Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 22, 6:37 pm, "Leon" wrote:

...

Personally I prefer that they be displayed but I
certainly am against some one wanting them taken down for his day in court.
That person can choose to ignore them if he finds them offensive.

Hold on a second there.

When the POTUS swears on the Bible that he will uphold his
office...yadda, yadda...

The I think that everybody on down from him has to do the same.

IIUC, you are saying that if a President choses to put his hand
on a bible when he takes his oath of office the rest of us should
be required to do the same when we testify in court?

Why shouldn't we have the same freedom when we take
an oath that the President has when he takes the oath of
office?

--

FF

"Kenneth" wrote in message
...



Hi again,

'Sorry, I was not playing word games...

Nor was I.


Of course it is part of the pledge "now", but the clear
intent of the original post about it was that the phrase was
not part of the pledge originally.

IIRC "I" made the original post about the Pledge of Allegence being attacked
because God was mentioned in it. Further response to my post disputed that
God was part of the pledge.



If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:30:27 -0800, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

If the Congress didn't like the pledge, they should have written their
own and not messed with someone else's composition. Can you
imagine an act of Congress making a change to one of the ten
commandments?

ROFL! Actually, I can imagine them doing just that :-).

Didn't a state legislator once try to change the value of Pi ?

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:43:25 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:



Hold on a second there.

When the POTUS swears on the Bible that he will uphold his
office...yadda, yadda...

The I think that everybody on down from him has to do the same.



He puts his hand on the Bible and swears to uphold the Constitution.

Not the other way around.

(we hope - although some, of late, appear to have this confused)




Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:54:48 -0600, Swingman wrote:


--- inarguably based on Judeo Christian values/principles ---

Yeah, right.

Kenneth wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:54:48 -0600, "Swingman"
wrote:

"Kenneth" wrote

Are you of the opinion that the 10 commandments should be
displayed in the courts? If so, does that not imply "certain
groups of people having special privileges?"
Perhaps you should first educate us as to how the simple display of the
moral imperatives of a society inarguably based on Judeo Christian
values/principles conveys "special privileges" onto any group of people?

Howdy,

'Happy to...

It advantages that group that supports, or believes in,
those particular principles. (But, I truly suspect you knew
that g.)

Well, since those moral imperatives are displayed all over the Supreme
Court building (and on most federal buildings in Washington, D.C.) in
stone and in fact are the underpinnings of our legal system, it
advantages all Americans.


The simple intuitive test would be to ask yourself how you
would feel were you to enter a court that displayed some
other set of "moral imperatives." Might you feel in any way
disadvantaged, or diminished? To whatever degree you might,
one could suggest that your privileges had been diminished.

I might feel I wasn't in the United States, and if that was the case I
might have no privileges at all.

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
...


I have sat on juries in Ohio and Maryland. Neither required a
religious
oath.

That's sad and further evidence of morals going down the tubes. I have been
in Texas court rooms on numerous occasions and the oath required So help me
God.


Any requirement that a person make a statement implying
religious belief is a clear blatant violation of the First Amendment.

If that person objects, he can simply say in him mind, I take all that back.
He can deal with that when his time comes. If he does not believe in those
set of beliefs or morals, they should not matter to him. It should only
bother him and his God if he is being deceitful or dishonest. You see, God
is not easily fooled and knows whether you are being honest or not.



Disallowing the use of religious icons to decorate a public building,
is
hardly tatamount to removing God from the building. Unless my
childhood religious education was very much in error, no earthly
power can remove God from anywhere. ISTM that if someone who
insists on conspicuous displays of their religious icons by their
government is a person who is without faith.

A constant reminder of God is no harm to anyone not is it a sign of lack
of
faith.

Why does a person who has faith need a constant reminder?
and why does a person who has faith need to canstantly remind
other people?

I don't know about you but I and many others are still only human and have
many faults. We all need constant reminders so that the constant presence
of evil does not dominate.
Who? reminds others?


A conspicous display of their religious icon by anyone, is not a sign of
a
person who is with out faith. If you believe that, explain that to any
priest. It matters not, where the display is.


We simply disagree.

No kidding.


"Under God" is not part of the Pledge of Allegiance. It was 'added'
by a well-intentioned but ill-considered act of Congress in the
1950's.

Thats crap. The Under God IS a part of the pledge, not all the time but
has
been for a very long time. If you want to argue, just say so.

The Congress didn't write the Pledge of Allegiance so it is no more
appropriate for the Congress to edit it than it is for the Congress
to
edit anyone else's writings.

What purpose is served by adding divisive language to the Pledge?

I cannot explain that to you. Most prefer it and are conforted by it. I
would much rather feel that this nation is monitored by God than not. Maybe
you feel that you don't need or feel his presence if you have to ask that
question.

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:18:38 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

Hi Leon,

Please see my comments inline below...


"Kenneth" wrote in message
.. .

'Happy to...

It advantages that group that supports, or believes in,
those particular principles. (But, I truly suspect you knew
that g.)

That advantaged group would be a vast majority of the people in the United
States. Disputing that is in fact an attempt to twist and manipulate.

As before, you are completely correct. What we are exploring
here has to do with protection for the rights of the
minority.



The simple intuitive test would be to ask yourself how you
would feel were you to enter a court that displayed some
other set of "moral imperatives."

That would be just fine with me. As long as the imperatives were of Good
morals.

Do you mean "good" in the opinion of the judge in my
example, or in your own opinion?


Might you feel in any way
disadvantaged, or diminished?

Only if I was an idiot.


To whatever degree you might,
one could suggest that your privileges had been diminished.

If I in fact felt that my privilidges had been diminished, it would be
because of my own doing. If I had a problem with that, I could certainly go
to another country and see how those courts would fit my wants.

This last one leaves me a bit confused.

If you were charged with a crime, and felt that your
privileges had been diminished would you be leaving for that
other country before or after your trial?

No one that has not broken any laws is forced to stay in the United States
and be governed by its age old ways that worked pretty darn well unill some
people started twisting and manipulation the laws.


Are you really suggesting that all the people charged with
crimes are guilty? If that were true, we could save a
fortune g.

Also, when you say that things "worked pretty darn well" I
would have to ask "For whom?"

Anyone with even a superficial knowledge of our nation's
history knows that while those "old ways" worked "pretty
darn well" for some of our people, it worked very poorly for
many others.

As before, I thank you for your response,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:18:38 +0000, Leon wrote:


That advantaged group would be a vast majority of the people in the United
States. Disputing that is in fact an attempt to twist and manipulate.

The Constitution was written to protect the minority from the majority.
Failure to do so is mob rule.

That would be just fine with me. As long as the imperatives were of Good
morals.


And of course YOU would be the judge of that.


No one that has not broken any laws is forced to stay in the United States
and be governed by its age old ways that worked pretty darn well unill some
people started twisting and manipulation the laws.

Leon, you're a lost cause. You just used a long-winded sentence to say
"Love it or leave it".

Age old ways? OK, you got me - I hadn't realized till now that you were
trolling :-).

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:42:54 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

You see, God
is not easily fooled and knows whether you are being honest or not.

Hi Leon,

Assuming that you are correct, why would it be important
that such oaths are spoken?

Thanks,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:33:11 -0800, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

Didn't a state legislator once try to change the value of Pi ?

Hi Larry,

Yes, more than once, and if only those laws had passed
buying tires for a bandsaw would be a heck of a lot easier!
(and with that, we are back on topic...)
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:38:15 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

The simple intuitive test would be to ask yourself how you
would feel were you to enter a court that displayed some
other set of "moral imperatives." Might you feel in any way
disadvantaged, or diminished? To whatever degree you might,
one could suggest that your privileges had been diminished.

I might feel I wasn't in the United States, and if that was the case I
might have no privileges at all.

Hi Doug,

When you say "if that was the case" do you mean if you were
in another country, or do you mean if you had that feeling
of being "diminished?"

Thanks,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

"Kenneth" wrote in message
...
Hi again,

Let me start by saying I very much appreciate your response
to me question, but it does raise another:

How might it feel for you if you were called into court as a
witness, or perhaps even charged with a crime (just for the
sake of my example g) and on entering the courtroom behind
the judge you saw hanging on the wall some set of moral
principles completely different from those with which you
grew up?

Again, If those Moral Principals were GOOD I would have no problem at all.
If I were in a court room in Iran, I would not have much say in the matter.
Either place, I can choose to ignore them or not.


Would you feel it appropriate were I to say to you at that
point "You can ignore them if you find them offensive."?

I am not going to answer that simply because the whole reason for those
moral princpals is to remind that person or people that he or they should be
truthful and honest. Although those moral principals are displayed, the
person in question can either accept them or ignore them. It is a daily
occourance that those moral principals are in fact ignored. If you are a
good person the effect of those principals should have a positive out come.

In article
,
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

This Administration begs the question: WWJT?


I'm not familiar with that acronym.

Who Would Jesus Torture?
--
This Administration begs the question: WWJT?

_____
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company

Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

In article
,
" wrote:

That one particular leader made it clear: if we don't have enough
pride in or appreciate enough to protect what we have as a nation and
as a culture, then we don't deserve to have it.

What he doesn't seem to understand is that a portion of the pride and
appreciation of our nation and culture is the freedom of speech he feels
he is using to his advantage at our expense. He also seems to lack the
ability to see beyond his own actions to those of others. Once he has
broadcast his message others are likewise free to rebut and disagree.

Just because he can say it publicly and be protected in that action, he
has no further control over the public response.

Ah, but that is where they are further using our society against us. Try
refuting what they say if you are on a college campus where they have been
allowed to make their statements. You, like Leon, will be accused of
bigotry, racism, and hate speech. If you are a student, you will be
invited to a re-education camp (oops, I mean sensitivity training); if you
refuse, you will be expelled for creating an atmosphere of hate.
Unfortunately, these groups choose the forums in which they express their
hatred publicly, then use the rules of that forum to suppress any backlash
or refuting commentary.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

In article ,
"Leon" wrote:

Any requirement that a person make a statement implying
religious belief is a clear blatant violation of the First Amendment.

If that person objects, he can simply say in him mind, I take all that back.
He can deal with that when his time comes. If he does not believe in those
set of beliefs or morals, they should not matter to him. It should only
bother him and his God if he is being deceitful or dishonest. You see, God
is not easily fooled and knows whether you are being honest or not.

So you would encourage a witness to lie to the court while taking the
oath if he doesn't believe in God but trust that he would tell the truth
under questioning?
--
This Administration begs the question: WWJT?

_____
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Feb 21, 9:34 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 21, 10:13 am, "Tom Bunetta" wrote:
"D'ohBoy" wrote in message


...

On Feb 20, 4:12 pm, "Leon" wrote:
Sickening how the Muslims are slowly using our laws against us to
take over
the world.

Can you 'splain that to me so you don't sound like a racist idiot?

D'ohBoy

He didn't come across that way to me.
Tom

Neither did Leon come across to me that way.

And if he sounded like a racist to someone, maybe that someone should
try to hear what is being said, not what that someone wants to hear.

Some people hear...but they don't listen.

r

There is a segment of society, that whenever it hears words of
criticism
directed at any protected block of society, will immediately
scream "racism" or "bigotry".

Yes. They are idiots.

Just like there is a segment of society, that whenever
one of its members is President, and it hears of word
of criticism directed at him, will immediately scream
"liberal", or "traitor".


From what I've seen, there aren't very many of those people around; at
least with the not viewpoint that your comment insinuates regarding any
criticism of the president. Try looking at the backlash his support for
illegal aliens produced -- it wasn't coming from the left.

Now, maybe those people who are making the comments you reference aren't
making them because someone is speaking against the president, but because
of the correlated implied criticism of the country itself. Maybe it isn't
the criticism of the president but the viewpoint being expressed.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:57:04 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


Hi Leon,

Would you feel it appropriate were I to say to you at that
point "You can ignore them if you find them offensive."?

I am not going to answer that simply because the whole reason for those
moral princpals is to remind that person or people that he or they should be
truthful and honest.

Well, I do regret that you will not answer my question, but
I do thank you for your reactions to this point.

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

"Kenneth" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:42:54 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

You see, God
is not easily fooled and knows whether you are being honest or not.

Hi Leon,

Assuming that you are correct, why would it be important
that such oaths are spoken?

It is a reminder that your God is aware of what you are saying. You need
to be honest and truthful with your answers.

"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Leon" wrote:

Any requirement that a person make a statement implying
religious belief is a clear blatant violation of the First Amendment.

If that person objects, he can simply say in him mind, I take all that
back.
He can deal with that when his time comes. If he does not believe in
those
set of beliefs or morals, they should not matter to him. It should only
bother him and his God if he is being deceitful or dishonest. You see,
God
is not easily fooled and knows whether you are being honest or not.

So you would encourage a witness to lie to the court while taking the
oath if he doesn't believe in God but trust that he would tell the truth
under questioning?


No, As long as he only mentally retracts the oath and from that point on
tells the truth. The Oath does not make you tell the truth. Those with any
Good morals should not object, recant or have a problem with sticking with
the oath. Those that "feel" that they have a legitimate reason to mentally
retract the oath and continue to lie from that point on purger themselves.
The oath is just the person giving his word to tell the truth and makes his
testimony "1" step closer to being believed by a jury that has faith in God.

"Kenneth" wrote in message
...

That advantaged group would be a vast majority of the people in the United
States. Disputing that is in fact an attempt to twist and manipulate.

As before, you are completely correct. What we are exploring
here has to do with protection for the rights of the
minority.


In this case keeping a list of Moral Rules in the courts does in fact intend
to protect the minorities rights.






The simple intuitive test would be to ask yourself how you
would feel were you to enter a court that displayed some
other set of "moral imperatives."

That would be just fine with me. As long as the imperatives were of Good
morals.

Do you mean "good" in the opinion of the judge in my
example, or in your own opinion?

Good as defined by your creator.




Might you feel in any way
disadvantaged, or diminished?

Only if I was an idiot.


To whatever degree you might,
one could suggest that your privileges had been diminished.

If I in fact felt that my privilidges had been diminished, it would be
because of my own doing. If I had a problem with that, I could certainly
go
to another country and see how those courts would fit my wants.

This last one leaves me a bit confused.

If you were charged with a crime, and felt that your
privileges had been diminished would you be leaving for that
other country before or after your trial?

Until I see a large decay in the morals in court system I would stay.



No one that has not broken any laws is forced to stay in the United States
and be governed by its age old ways that worked pretty darn well unill
some
people started twisting and manipulation the laws.


Are you really suggesting that all the people charged with
crimes are guilty? If that were true, we could save a
fortune g.

No.


Also, when you say that things "worked pretty darn well" I
would have to ask "For whom?"

The citizens as a whole.



Anyone with even a superficial knowledge of our nation's
history knows that while those "old ways" worked "pretty
darn well" for some of our people, it worked very poorly for
many others.

Totally agree, but then its not all about me, "Me" being any person in
general. The "old ways" is a system that worked much more often than not.
Life is not perfect. Life is not fair. What we learn from these facts
helps us.


As before, I thank you for your response,

Your are welcome, however I feel that either you agree with my comments or
you are troubled with your own thoughts on the matter. My answers are my
feelings and I am in total comfort with them. I hope that you find comfort
in yours.

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:18:38 +0000, Leon wrote:


That advantaged group would be a vast majority of the people in the
United
States. Disputing that is in fact an attempt to twist and manipulate.

The Constitution was written to protect the minority from the majority.
Failure to do so is mob rule.

That would be just fine with me. As long as the imperatives were of Good
morals.


And of course YOU would be the judge of that.

No, God is the judge of that.


No one that has not broken any laws is forced to stay in the United
States
and be governed by its age old ways that worked pretty darn well unill
some
people started twisting and manipulation the laws.

Leon, you're a lost cause. You just used a long-winded sentence to say
"Love it or leave it".

Yeah.


Age old ways? OK, you got me - I hadn't realized till now that you were
trolling :-).

Well not really. ;~)

Fly-by-Night CC wrote:
In article ,
"Leon" wrote:

Well, this thread's Subject line has
been pretty well hashed out and left
behind. I'm always amazed at how far a
thread can go from its original subject
line.

Just as a reminder, I'd like to point
out that "Leon's Racism" hasn't been
proven - at least not to me, and I
suspect not to very many other than the
person who changed the original subject
line. But it persists.

Naw, I'm not gonna get into this either.
I'm havin too much fun reading it.


--

Tanus

www.home.mycybernet.net/~waugh/shop/

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
...
On Feb 22, 6:43 pm, Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 22, 6:37 pm, "Leon" wrote:

...

Personally I prefer that they be displayed but I
certainly am against some one wanting them taken down for his day in
court.
That person can choose to ignore them if he finds them offensive.

Hold on a second there.

When the POTUS swears on the Bible that he will uphold his
office...yadda, yadda...

The I think that everybody on down from him has to do the same.

IIUC, you are saying that if a President choses to put his hand
on a bible when he takes his oath of office the rest of us should
be required to do the same when we testify in court?

No, he did not say that, You just said that. Reread the sentence he typed
and leave out YOUR "in other words", interpretation.

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 02:25:47 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

Also, when you say that things "worked pretty darn well" I
would have to ask "For whom?"

The citizens as a whole.

Hi Leon,

But what happened to the concern for the rights of the
minority?

There are many people in the United States who feel that
they have been harmed profoundly by that notion of "the
whole."


As before, I thank you for your response,

Your are welcome, however I feel that either you agree with my
comments or you are troubled with your own thoughts on the matter.

My family has gone to sleep and I am clicking away here
quietly, but I laughed out loud when I read your last
comment above.

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

On Feb 22, 9:07 pm, "Leon" wrote:
"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message

news

...

So you would encourage a witness to lie to the court while taking the
oath if he doesn't believe in God but trust that he would tell the truth
under questioning?

No, As long as he only mentally retracts the oath and from that point on
tells the truth. The Oath does not make you tell the truth. Those with any
Good morals should not object, recant or have a problem with sticking with
the oath. Those that "feel" that they have a legitimate reason to mentally
retract the oath and continue to lie from that point on purger themselves.
The oath is just the person giving his word to tell the truth and makes his
testimony "1" step closer to being believed by a jury that has faith in God.

How about someone who believes they have a religious obligation
to refuse to swear a religious oath, but a mental moral obligation to
tell the truth?

--

FF

"Kenneth" wrote in message
...

A reminder to whom?

You answere that below.


God, as you have said, already knows.

So it would appear that the only (relevant) person left
would be the person about to offer testimony. And that
person's moral standing surely would not be altered by the
necessity to speak an oath that they either already believe
to be of great importance, or see as nonsense.

Absolutely correct, but that persons moral standing "could" be altered by
the necessity to speak an oath that they either believe to be of great
importance. Or not. If he is truthful he may sleep better tonight.
The oath is for the person taking the oath.