Leon wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
...
Yes, I'm not clear on how you think the court should
deal with an honest person who refuses to take
a religious oath before giving his testimony.

Please tell us.

Like ANY ONE else, he gets tossed in jail for contempt.


Wrongo. Courts allow a person to solemnly affirm (NOT swear) he will
tell the truth, with no ties to religious belief.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leon"

Let me explain where I was coming from. I do believe that the Bible
should be involved in the oath process, no exceptions.

Why?

The bible is a printed book. Putting your hand on it is no different that
swearing on last month's issue of Popular Woodworking (keeping on topic).



I'm an attorney, and so have been in court many times. I have NEVER
seen a judge require a witness to put his/her hand on a Bible (except in
the movies, but that's not an accurate portrayal of real life).

I personally am a Christian and believe in the Bible. James 5:12 says,
"swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any
other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall
into condemnation." I believe in that, and so when asked,I will
solemnly affirm that I will tell the truth under penalty of perjury.
But I will not swear an oath, because the Bible itself condemns it.

"Swingman" wrote in message
news
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote \

If you believe in the words of the bible, you don't need it to swear to
and actually tell the truth. If you don't believe in the words of the
bible, laws at they are written, and have already committed a crime,
putting your hand on a book is not going to increase your morals and make
you be honest. The bible is a symbol, not a truth machine.

IIRC, that is indeed why the word "affirmation" was added to the phrase
"oath or affirmation", to insure the secular nature of the process.



"Solemnly swear or affirm" is the phrase.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Swingman" wrote:

Au contraire ... it was the other way around. Not too worry, though ..
you're going to have to take it back from Mexico real soon now.

My former barber (30 year Air Force) was fond of saying, "What they lost
with the sword, they are taking back with the pecker."

Of course, that seemed to fit in with Orange County, birthplace of the John
Birch Society.


Not the Birch John Society? (getting back on topic, the Birch John
Society stands foursquare for the preservation of wood privies.)

Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 6:37am (EST-3) (D'ohBoy) doth
query:
Can you 'splain that to me so you don't sound like a racist idiot?

I haven't been reading the thread, just figured I'dcheck why
someone is slurring Leon. Simple enough, Muslim is a religion, not a
race. Cancel Leon as idiot of the day.



JOAT
10 Out Of 10 Terrorists Prefer Hillary For President - Bumper Sticker

I do not have a problem with a woman president - except for Hillary.

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:18:52 -0600, Leon wrote:


"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
news


So you would prefer to be judged by wishey washey types, those that cannot
decide one way or the other if they believe in a God or not? I guess it you
murdered some one they may find that it is OK.

It's not "wishy-washy" to realize that you cannot prove a negative. Or, in
the case of religion and politics, a positive either. That's why they
call it a belief, not a fact.

I suspect most religions arose from the innate reluctance of our species
to say "I don't know".

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:29:15 -0800, Charlie Self wrote:

I used to laugh--'60s--at the college loan applications that provided
a list of Communist organizations and then required the signer to
affirm that he/she had never belonged to any of these, nor had any
intent to overthrow the government of the U.S. I guess they rooted out
thousands of spies that way. Sure they did. I tried to explain to one
oath-giver that the undercover "intelligence" types would be the first
to sign without a pause, but she couldn't understand that.

I was once asked if I believed in the violent overthrow of the government.
I replied that of course I did, how did the questioner think our country
got started. I got my security clearance :-).

"George" wrote in message
. net...

"Swingman" wrote in message


IIRC, that is indeed why the word "affirmation" was added to the phrase
"oath or affirmation", to insure the secular nature of the process.



"Solemnly swear or affirm" is the phrase.

Not in the context I used it as a "process", which I clearly stated in the
above. Go back and read your Constitution:

"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following
Oath or Affirmation".

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

"Just Curious" wrote in message
. ..
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leon"

Let me explain where I was coming from. I do believe that the Bible
should be involved in the oath process, no exceptions.

Why?

The bible is a printed book. Putting your hand on it is no different
that swearing on last month's issue of Popular Woodworking (keeping on
topic).


I'm an attorney, and so have been in court many times. I have NEVER seen
a judge require a witness to put his/her hand on a Bible (except in the
movies, but that's not an accurate portrayal of real life).

I personally am a Christian and believe in the Bible. James 5:12 says,
"swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other
oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into
condemnation." I believe in that, and so when asked,I will solemnly
affirm that I will tell the truth under penalty of perjury. But I will not
swear an oath, because the Bible itself condemns it.

I am not going to disagree with any thing you have said here but would like
to point out that the word "swear" has several meanings. Some of those
meanings are positive and some are negative. The English version of the
Bible is an interpreted version of the originals. When translated
phrases/words were not always done so to capture the intent of the message.
Thou shall not kill is a common example. Words do not always have the same
meaning when translated. Like most any other language including English the
word can have a totally different meaning when used with other words. He
commonly "leaves" early, He raked the "leaves".
The passage you quoted above IMHO indicates that if you are not true to your
self/ believe what you say, others will recognize this and you will face
those consequences.


I only recall seeing the Bible in court. That was not recently and perhaps
is not the rule today.

On Feb 24, 10:42*am, "Leon" wrote:

The English version of the
Bible is an interpreted version of the originals. *When translated
phrases/words were not always done so to capture the intent of the message..

At the wedding in Canaan (Luke 3) water was changed into grape juice,
according to the Greek text.
Not wine.
That makes a big difference to those who take that as a nod from Jesus
that you can catch a buzz if you feel like it.

There is a whole lot of creative interpretation of things written in
the Bible.
Then there are those who live by the Bible using it as guide, and then
there are those legalistic sunsabitches who use it as weapon.

I knew kids from my school who we NOT allowed to go swimming on
Sunday.

Yup, they were not allowed to float in God's warm water and glory,
bathe in the sunshine and find rest in that non-activity.

To paraphrase Carlin: "there are still people doing time for that
Friday/bologna rap."

I digress and don't get me started....

r

Robatoy wrote:

On Feb 24, 10:42Â*am, "Leon" wrote:

The English version of the
Bible is an interpreted version of the originals. Â*When translated
phrases/words were not always done so to capture the intent of the
message.

At the wedding in Canaan (Luke 3) water was changed into grape juice,
according to the Greek text.
Not wine.
That makes a big difference to those who take that as a nod from Jesus
that you can catch a buzz if you feel like it.


Not sure where you got that information, but coming from a denomination
that diligently researches and uses the original languages (all of our
ministers must be able to read the scriptures from the original Greek,
Hebrew, or Aramaic in the proper historical meanings those words had at the
time they were written), I can tell you that is the first I have ever heard
of that interpretation. It further does not fit with the rest of the
context of the account where the master of the wedding makes the comment
about how the best wine was usually served first, then after the guests had
drunk too much, the lower quality wine brought out. Try
substituting "grape juice" in that sentence and you don't get the same
effect. Also doesn't work for the account of "new wine in new wineskins,
and old wine in old wineskins" comment that occurs elsewhere in the
gospels. Further, it doesn't work in the historical context; there was no
way at that time for grape juice to have been kept unfermented for any
period of time.

On the flip side, this was not an approval of drunkenness as the
admonitions against that are found throughout scripture.



There is a whole lot of creative interpretation of things written in
the Bible.

That there is.


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

On Feb 24, 3:40*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 24, 10:42*am, "Leon" wrote:

The English version of the
Bible is an interpreted version of the originals. *When translated
phrases/words were not always done so to capture the intent of the
message.

At the wedding in Canaan (Luke 3) water was changed into grape juice,
according to the Greek text.
Not wine.
That makes a big difference to those who take that as a nod from Jesus
that you can catch a buzz if you feel like it.

* Not sure where you got that information, but coming from a denomination
that diligently researches and uses the original languages (all of our
ministers must be able to read the scriptures from the original Greek,
Hebrew, or Aramaic in the proper historical meanings those words had at the
time they were written), I can tell you that is the first I have ever heard
of that interpretation. *It further does not fit with the rest of the
context of the account where the master of the wedding makes the comment
about how the best wine was usually served first, then after the guests had
drunk too much, the lower quality wine brought out. *Try
substituting "grape juice" in that sentence and you don't get the same
effect. *Also doesn't work for the account of "new wine in new wineskins,
and old wine in old wineskins" comment that occurs elsewhere in the
gospels. *Further, it doesn't work in the historical context; there was no
way at that time for grape juice to have been kept unfermented for any
period of time.

* On the flip side, this was not an approval of drunkenness as the
admonitions against that are found throughout scripture. *

There is a whole lot of creative interpretation of things written in
the Bible.

* That there is.



The 'word' is oinos and can mean wine or grape juice. Fact.

The context, however, makes it clear that it probably was, in fact,
wine.... the fermented stuff that made the guests, after having drunk
freely, intoxicated.

My point was that some people wag their fingers and proclaim, NO NO NO
that wasn't booze, it was grape juice. Therefore NO amount of alcohol
is allowed.
And others use it as an excuse to get intoxicated, because it is
acceptable.

I wonder how peyote, pot, opium (all natural) rank on the 'cannot-do'
scale.

Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 24, 10:42 am, "Leon" wrote:


The English version of the
Bible is an interpreted version of the originals. When translated
phrases/words were not always done so to capture the intent of the message..


At the wedding in Canaan (Luke 3) water was changed into grape juice,
according to the Greek text.
Not wine.
That makes a big difference to those who take that as a nod from Jesus
that you can catch a buzz if you feel like it.


snip

The wedding at Cana where Jesus changed water into wine is John 2:1
through 2:9. The Strong's Concordance list the original Greek word as:



G3631
οἶνος
oinos
oy'-nos
A primary word (or perhaps of Hebrew origin [H3196]); €œwine€� (literally
or figuratively):€”wine.

The Hebrew [H3196] cross references to:

H3196×™Ö·×™Ö´
yayin
yah'-yin
From an unused root meaning to effervesce; wine (as fermented); by
implication intoxication:€”banqueting, wine, wine [-bibber].


It often debated but the with the custom of the time it is doubtful
unfermented grape juice was served at the wedding.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...


I wonder how peyote, pot, opium (all natural) rank on the 'cannot-do'
scale.

Far out and solid!

--
Dave in Houston

Robatoy wrote:

On Feb 24, 3:40Â*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 24, 10:42Â*am, "Leon" wrote:
.... snip
At the wedding in Canaan (Luke 3) water was changed into grape juice,
according to the Greek text.
Not wine.
That makes a big difference to those who take that as a nod from Jesus
that you can catch a buzz if you feel like it.

Not sure where you got that information, but coming from a denomination
that diligently researches and uses the original languages (all of our
ministers must be able to read the scriptures from the original Greek,
Hebrew, or Aramaic in the proper historical meanings those words had at
the time they were written), I can tell you that is the first I have ever
heard of that interpretation. Â*It further does not fit with the rest of
the context of the account where the master of the wedding makes the
comment about how the best wine was usually served first, then after the
guests had drunk too much, the lower quality wine brought out. Â*Try
substituting "grape juice" in that sentence and you don't get the same
effect. Â*Also doesn't work for the account of "new wine in new wineskins,
and old wine in old wineskins" comment that occurs elsewhere in the
gospels. Â*Further, it doesn't work in the historical context; there was
no way at that time for grape juice to have been kept unfermented for any
period of time.

On the flip side, this was not an approval of drunkenness as the
admonitions against that are found throughout scripture.

There is a whole lot of creative interpretation of things written in
the Bible.

That there is.



The 'word' is oinos and can mean wine or grape juice. Fact.


"fruit of the vine"

The context, however, makes it clear that it probably was, in fact,
wine.... the fermented stuff that made the guests, after having drunk
freely, intoxicated.

My point was that some people wag their fingers and proclaim, NO NO NO
that wasn't booze, it was grape juice. Therefore NO amount of alcohol
is allowed.

Kind of hard to make that argument based upon other passages, both Old and
New Testament.

And others use it as an excuse to get intoxicated, because it is
acceptable.


Again, same thing, there are numerous admonitions, both Old and New
Testament against drunkenness.


I wonder how peyote, pot, opium (all natural) rank on the 'cannot-do'
scale.

They would easily fit into the admonition regarding drunkenness, has
nothing to do with the "naturalness" of the substance but the use to which
it is put. After all, hemlock is natural as well, it's still not good for
one.



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

Leon wrote:
"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.


Does this mean atheists can lie in court? No, there are laws against
that. So why bother with the pretense of "God" being "aware" of what
you are saying.

Its funny that we can giggle at kids when they have to behave because
"Santa is watching" then we mimic that same behavior in our Courts.

:Flame suit on::

Andy
--
:: Clever Sig here ::

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 02:07:14 +0000, Leon wrote:

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.

I want a jury of my peers! All agnostics!

Too many religious people think it's their right to force their moral code
on others.

Larry, you are my new favorite poster!
Congratulations.

Andy

--
:: Clever Sig here ::

On Feb 28, 11:17*am, Andy H wrote:
Leon wrote:
"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.

Does this mean atheists can lie in court? No, there are laws against
that. *So why bother with the pretense of "God" being "aware" of what
you are saying.

Its funny that we can giggle at kids when they have to behave because
"Santa is watching" then we mimic that same behavior in our Courts.

:Flame suit on::


It's okay. It has all been said.


r

On Feb 21, 11:20 am, Chuck Taylor wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:37:50 -0800 (PST), "D'ohBoy"

wrote:
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?

Can you 'splain to me exactly when Islam became a race?

--
Chuck Taylorhttp://home.hiwaay.net/~taylorc/contact/


My apologies for my outrage at the gross bigotry present in Leon's
statement overwhelming my semantic gifts. But that doesn't change the
problems with his statement.

The basic thrust of my comment remains valid. Who is the us who owns
'our laws?' White male Protestant US citizens? Are Muslims not
Americans? Aren't all Americans subject to and the owners of American
law?

D'ohBoy

D'ohBoy wrote:

On Feb 21, 11:20 am, Chuck Taylor wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:37:50 -0800 (PST), "D'ohBoy"

wrote:
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?

Can you 'splain to me exactly when Islam became a race?

--
Chuck Taylorhttp://home.hiwaay.net/~taylorc/contact/


My apologies for my outrage at the gross bigotry present in Leon's
statement overwhelming my semantic gifts. But that doesn't change the
problems with his statement.


My apologies in advance for making you out to be a complete and total
idiot.

Since when is it gross bigotry to point out salient facts? The fact of
the matter is that radical islamic groups like CAIR are using US laws
against the citizens of this country to establish a foothold in US society
in which they can establish their own Sharia type laws. The writings of
their various leaders has firmly established their goals and ultimate
objective. Various writings frankly sneer at our ideas of freedom of
speech and other freedoms.

The basic thrust of my comment remains valid. Who is the us who owns
'our laws?' White male Protestant US citizens? Are Muslims not
Americans? Aren't all Americans subject to and the owners of American
law?


If you mean by "our" laws, the laws and customs of the US, then one would
assume that we all own them. Muslims can and are US citizens, they are not
free to establish their own sets of laws within this country. It used to
be that when people came to this country from other countries, they were
expected to assimilate into the culture of this country, not expect this
country to adapt to the culture of the country from which they originated.
The fact is that they are using the freedoms we have available to us in
order to establish a foothold with the intent of removing those freedoms at
a later date.

D'ohBoy

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

On Feb 29, 12:23*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:


* If you mean by "our" laws, the laws and customs of the US, then one would
assume that we all own them. *Muslims can and are US citizens, they are not
free to establish their own sets of laws within this country. *It used to
be that when people came to this country from other countries, they were
expected to assimilate into the culture of this country, not expect this
country to adapt to the culture of the country from which they originated.
The fact is that they are using the freedoms we have available to us in
order to establish a foothold with the intent of removing those freedoms at
a later date. *


Ask anybody who lives in the UK, France, The Netherlands and other
parts of the EU where the infiltration has already begun, they will
tell you that it is NOT a good idea.
Freedom of what you believe should be a right, to use it as a back-
door for political change is not. I think it is time we start
collecting foreskins again.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
I think it is time we start
collecting foreskins again.

Muslim men are circumcised because Abraham had both Isaac and Ishmael
circumcised.

Your reference is to David and the Philistines?

On Feb 29, 3:15*pm, "George" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message

...
*I think it is time we start
collecting foreskins again.

Muslim men are circumcised because Abraham had both Isaac and Ishmael
circumcised.

The more you know..... ( I didn't know)


Your reference is to David and the Philistines?

It was.

On Feb 29, 1:57 pm, Robatoy wrote:

...



Ask anybody who lives in the UK, France, The Netherlands and other
parts of the EU where the infiltration has already begun, they will
tell you that it is NOT a good idea.
Freedom of what you believe should be a right, to use it as a back-
door for political change is not.

Freedom of belief coupled with free speech is
the FRONT door of political change.

--

FF

On Feb 29, 3:46*pm, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:
On Feb 29, 1:57 pm, Robatoy wrote:



...

Ask anybody who lives in the UK, France, The Netherlands and other
parts of the EU where the infiltration has already begun, they will
tell you that it is NOT a good idea.
Freedom of what you believe should be a right, to use it as a back-
door for political change is not.

Freedom of belief coupled with free speech is
the FRONT door of political change.

--

FF

Don't forget to buy your lady a burka then.

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On Feb 29, 1:57 pm, Robatoy wrote:
...



Ask anybody who lives in the UK, France, The Netherlands and other
parts of the EU where the infiltration has already begun, they will
tell you that it is NOT a good idea.
Freedom of what you believe should be a right, to use it as a back-
door for political change is not.

Freedom of belief coupled with free speech is
the FRONT door of political change.


http://www.dotsub.com/films/moredemands/index.php?autostart=true&language_setting=en_1618

On Feb 29, 6:42 pm, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Feb 29, 1:57 pm, Robatoy wrote:
...

Ask anybody who lives in the UK, France, The Netherlands and other
parts of the EU where the infiltration has already begun, they will
tell you that it is NOT a good idea.
Freedom of what you believe should be a right, to use it as a back-
door for political change is not.

Freedom of belief coupled with free speech is
the FRONT door of political change.

http://www.dotsub.com/films/moredemands/index.php?autostart=true&lang...

He doesn't much like Bush's Buddies does he? Sensible man.

Charlie Self wrote:
On Feb 29, 6:42 pm, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Feb 29, 1:57 pm, Robatoy wrote:
...
Ask anybody who lives in the UK, France, The Netherlands and other
parts of the EU where the infiltration has already begun, they will
tell you that it is NOT a good idea.
Freedom of what you believe should be a right, to use it as a back-
door for political change is not.
Freedom of belief coupled with free speech is
the FRONT door of political change.
http://www.dotsub.com/films/moredemands/index.php?autostart=true&lang...

He doesn't much like Bush's Buddies does he? Sensible man.

The Clintons don't seem to mind them:

http://www.nysun.com/article/5137

On Feb 29, 11:39 pm, Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 29, 3:46 pm, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:



On Feb 29, 1:57 pm, Robatoy wrote:

...

Ask anybody who lives in the UK, France, The Netherlands and other
parts of the EU where the infiltration has already begun, they will
tell you that it is NOT a good idea.
Freedom of what you believe should be a right, to use it as a back-
door for political change is not.

Freedom of belief coupled with free speech is
the FRONT door of political change.

--

FF

Don't forget to buy your lady a burka then.

Why?

--

FF

On Feb 29, 11:42 pm, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Feb 29, 1:57 pm, Robatoy wrote:
...

Ask anybody who lives in the UK, France, The Netherlands and other
parts of the EU where the infiltration has already begun, they will
tell you that it is NOT a good idea.
Freedom of what you believe should be a right, to use it as a back-
door for political change is not.

Freedom of belief coupled with free speech is
the FRONT door of political change.

http://www.dotsub.com/films/moredemands/index.php?autostart=true&lang...

I love that guy.

--

FF

On Mar 1, 1:06 am, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
On Feb 29, 6:42 pm, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Feb 29, 1:57 pm, Robatoy wrote:
...

Freedom of belief coupled with free speech is
the FRONT door of political change.
http://www.dotsub.com/films/moredemands/index.php?autostart=trueΩ...

He doesn't much like Bush's Buddies does he? Sensible man.

He clearly knows how to use that front door.


The Clintons don't seem to mind them:

http://www.nysun.com/article/5137

Every American Administration since WWII has been good buddies
with the Saudis.

--

FF

On Feb 29, 11:30 pm, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:
On Mar 1, 1:06 am, Doug Winterburn wrote:

Charlie Self wrote:
On Feb 29, 6:42 pm, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Feb 29, 1:57 pm, Robatoy wrote:
...

Freedom of belief coupled with free speech is
the FRONT door of political change.
http://www.dotsub.com/films/moredemands/index.php?autostart=trueΩ...

He doesn't much like Bush's Buddies does he? Sensible man.

He clearly knows how to use that front door.



The Clintons don't seem to mind them:

http://www.nysun.com/article/5137

Every American Administration since WWII has been good buddies
with the Saudis.

--
Something of a "have to be" to keep oil flowing. The Bush family,
though, seems to consider the Saudi monarchy (if that's what it is)
family friends.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Something of a "have to be" to keep oil flowing. The Bush family,
though, seems to consider the Saudi monarchy (if that's what it is)
family friends.

Amazing how the opinion flows, but the facts are unknown. Not that they
should interfere, of course....

On Mar 1, 8:41 am, "George" wrote:
"Charlie Self" wrote in message

...
Something of a "have to be" to keep oil flowing. The Bush family,
though, seems to consider the Saudi monarchy (if that's what it is)
family friends.

Amazing how the opinion flows, but the facts are unknown. Not that they
should interfere, of course....

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...06/b99415.html
http://www.hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1211-05.htm
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...shgifts05.html
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/041...5,52956,6.html

http://www.restoretherepublic.com/co...5/func,fb_pdf/

"D'ohBoy" wrote in message
...


My apologies for my outrage at the gross bigotry present in Leon's
statement overwhelming my semantic gifts. But that doesn't change the
problems with his statement.

The basic thrust of my comment remains valid. Who is the us who owns
'our laws?' White male Protestant US citizens? Are Muslims not
Americans? Aren't all Americans subject to and the owners of American
law?

D'ohBoy



You had a problem with defining "race". You obviously don't/won't
understand the meaning of my statement.