does this sound constitutional?

[dzolcali]

Preamble: We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us and our posterity, do, for the more certain security thereof and for the better government of this State, ordain and establish this Constitution.


call me silly but I think it's not mystery who "god almighty" is...and if i don't believe in god, then why must I abide by the silly legislation these god lovers have proposed and passed in gods favor?

[johnlv6]

We're never going to completely separate church and state...keep that in mind.

[dzolcali]

oh I understand but seriously I think if I spent a moment I could maybe think of a more politically correct preamble that said the same thing and it wouldn't negate any of our constitutional rights....I guess?

[goodburbon]

It's just a statement as to why the people who signed the constitution are signing the constitution, not the constitution itself.

Third article of the bill of rights.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Your example was
A. not made by congress
B. not a law, just a preamble
C. didn't respect an ESTABLISHMENT of religion.

I definately believe in separation of church and state, but to wipe all mention of God from every lawbook isn't productive. Just wipe all blue laws and dry county laws. Those are the religious laws that don't mention God, but do impose someone elses religious views on me.

[dzolcali]

that is true but even still...you don't think it some how violates your peace of mind when you read it...you say "these are the people passing the laws, and this is what they believe in"...so whether is directly implies this law was decided based on their religion, or if it remotely implies the laws passed are based off of people who write preambles for their states in such a manor as to refer to god, it could group all laws passed into the category of for the religion or majority.

[HilltopXJ]

then why must I abide by the silly legislation these god lovers have proposed and passed in gods favor?

You dont! you could move to another country:D

[dzolcali]

If i moved to another country then I wouldn't live in NC anymore...thus defeating the purpose of me living in NC and having to live by their jesus loving laws... As simple as it is to say "if you don't like it leave.." It goes both ways, I have as much right to live in NC as any other person who lives here...thus that statement doesn't stand as valid. It only really applies to those who come from foreign lands and therefore do not already possess the rights of an American, if they complain, then yes, if you don't like it leave. But for this instance that just doesn't work.

[HilltopXJ]

Call your congressman and bitch to him. I sure if you donate some money
he will look into this.;)

[goodburbon]

I do not find it comforting.

I had a startling revelation last night. People first turn to an irrational solution when faced with an irrational fear. After that it is a slippery slope to just turn to a god for everything. This came upon me as I lay in bed trying to fall asleep. I had just seen a program on Discovery about Hauntings. Suddenly l lie there hearing every noise, growing apprehensive of even my own bed. Then the most amazing thing happened. As a reflex, perhaps from my younger days of religious conformity, I wanted to begin praying. I immediately realized how logical it all was. People have irrational fears programmed into them for years, and then they are taught to understand an irrational solution that eases their fears. People who fear gods are not to be feared, people who know that YOU should fear god should be feared.

I haven't been religious for many years now. I see both sides overreacting to the State and church debate. Why not display the ten commandments in a courthouse? Why not mention god on the dollar bill, or in a state constitutions preamble? On the other side. Why ban the sale of alcohol? Why ban gambling? Why not allow a man to marry another man, or woman another woman? Why is bestiality a crime?

Keeping one foot in religion keeps us grounded for now, there are too many people out there that cannot accept that there is no god, and that we are the masters of ourselves.

[dzolcali]

I do not find it comforting.

I had a startling revelation last night. People first turn to an irrational solution when faced with an irrational fear. After that it is a slippery slope to just turn to a god for everything. This came upon me as I lay in bed trying to fall asleep. I had just seen a program on Discovery about Hauntings. Suddenly l lie there hearing every noise, growing apprehensive of even my own bed. Then the most amazing thing happened. As a reflex, perhaps from my younger days of religious conformity, I wanted to begin praying. I immediately realized how logical it all was. People have irrational fears programmed into them for years, and then they are taught to understand an irrational solution that eases their fears. People who fear gods are not to be feared, people who know that YOU should fear god should be feared.

I haven't been religious for many years now. I see both sides overreacting to the State and church debate. Why not display the ten commandments in a courthouse? Why not mention god on the dollar bill, or in a state constitutions preamble? On the other side. Why ban the sale of alcohol? Why ban gambling? Why not allow a man to marry another man, or woman another woman? Why is bestiality a crime?

Keeping one foot in religion keeps us grounded for now, there are too many people out there that cannot accept that there is no god, and that we are the masters of ourselves.

mainly agreed all but the beastiality...umm please ellaborate on that one?

but seriously we are all monkeys...I mean not derived from monkeys we are just another species of monkeys, more intelligent yes...superior..NO sure we can surive easier and have much better means of taking care of ourselves but then again we do some of the dumbest shit a species could possibly do...examples:
pollute your own environment, make up your own ellaborate conclusions to the universe, deodorant, shaving, clothes, pets, jewelry just to name a couple. These are all things i consider as dumb monkey activity. Opinions would be another dumb monkey activity that I heavily engage in...sometimes I wish I could just speak with peace of mind and then be done with a conversation.

oh well

[goodburbon]

Beastiality thrown in to see if you were paying attention. But I honestly can't find a reason why it should be illegal. After all, aren't we animals? Do we impound dogs for humping our legs or our cats?

I disagree with your monkey assessment on one count, we're actually apes.

BTW, I often "attack" you because you are so scattered, and cannot maintain a conversation within any reasonable bounds. You are quite tangential.

[dzolcali]

Beastiality thrown in to see if you were paying attention. But I honestly can't find a reason why it should be illegal. After all, aren't we animals? Do we impound dogs for humping our legs or our cats?

I disagree with your monkey assessment on one count, we're actually apes.

BTW, I often "attack" you because you are so scattered, and cannot maintain a conversation within any reasonable bounds. You are quite tangential.

apes monkeys...it's just wording :)
agreed on the animal thing sorta...still don't find any means of making it legal to screw a dog, a dog can't exactly chain you up and take advantage of your wiener....however on the other end, a human can chain a dog up or detain it and take advantage of it's sexual organs without consent...it's sorta morbid to talk about this I guess but eh...most animals don't interbreed when left in the wild.

I'm only scattered because I have what appears to be 100% versatile knowledge than the average monkey :)

for instance, you want to talk about one subject, I can contribute even if it's minute, but if you want to talk about another subject, I can more than likely contribute to that as well if not lead the topic. Most people can hardly keep on topic and tend to just re-state facts without thinking subjectively or even objective about a something aka out of the box. Sure I know what the norm is, almost always, in fact to me the norm is what is generally accepted...don't assume I don't know already what the "norm" is. If I am saying something that seems quirky or scattered it is only because I am looking for like minded individuals to challenge my own thinking, not to start an argument or to be called out as a kook or what have you. And just for kicks occasionally I just throw out things I know will piss off a few given individuals in the "Know" and I wait for their response, I chuckle, and then continue on with my day.

Heres more food for thought, it's 5:30 am and I am still up...as usual, reading...as usual...and I have school at 9:30 am as usual...hehe and everyone wonders why i'm strange and don't capitilize my i's.

[Wolfe]

Humping Dumb animals is wrong. They have no say and probably think you're ugly anyway.


As for G-d, it doesnt actually specify Jesus, does it? Couldnt that be left open to your own spiritual interpretation? Unless you are agnostic or athiest.

[Wolfe]

We have this, pretty much the same

An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia. [9th July 1900]

(The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom at Westminster)

Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:

And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen:

Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:--

[goodburbon]

So killing animals is ok as long as you're nice to them, but screwing them is right out? I know its off of the topic at hand, but why again is it wrong? Most animals don't give each other a choice in the wild, and we are constantly purposely force breeding animals, so that arguement is bogus.

Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not having intercourse with any animals other than myself and my wife.

[Ramsey]

i'm sure the dogs hate it when there tied up and taken advantage of...the ones i saw seemed to enjoy it.

[goodburbon]

I'm also NOT suggesting that someone run out and impale a chihuahua.

[red91]

Your right....


we should trust FEMA over God any day.

That or the welfare system.

I can't wiat until FEMA declares Martial Law due to a major catastophy or something.

THen lets see who bitches the loudeest.

And don't think it can't happen....

[dzolcali]

Humping Dumb animals is wrong. They have no say and probably think you're ugly anyway.


As for G-d, it doesnt actually specify Jesus, does it? Couldnt that be left open to your own spiritual interpretation? Unless you are agnostic or athiest.

if I don't believe in god, but i'm not athiest or agnostic, what does that make me? And even still if it's open to interpretation to all but athiest and agnostics it's still in violation...and I think it's funny how people play with wording in cases like this, like "well they didn't specify which god, totally disregarding that god=religion no matter what god it is, it's still affiliated with religion in some way shape or form whether it be mass gatherings at churchs, or humble acceptance of a devine creator it's still in some form or another a religious act to believe in god. And for those that don't being a small few, they have to sorta suffer the consequences for being more enlightened ;) haha j/k but still.:music:

[rocklandxjer]

those were the beliefs of our forfathers

this nation was founded on christian beliefs, not jewish, not muslim, not athiest. christian. the christians who founded this nation also believed in freedom of religion, show me any other religious group throughout the world who has established that sort of freedom... not saying "hail christianity", only that the founders of the constitution had the best of intentions.

also take into account the time period it was written in. this was the time of the quakers and the shakers. people who actually did not believe in sex. at all... not even for procreation. religion was the most prevelent part of their lives, so why not include it in their legislation. however no where in the constitution does it impose christianity on anyone. it mearly says "Almighty God" which like stated before refers to any/all Gods you choose to worship.

also take into account that the Americans did not wish to alienate themselves from the rest of the world. all other major nations were still ruled by christian leaders, and influenced by the pope. Had america decided to rule out any religious talk in the constitution, it would have seemed as though they were an athiest nation, and that would NOT have created any allies, which was necessary in their weakened state.

[Beej]

those were the beliefs of our forfathers

this nation was founded on christian beliefs, not jewish, not muslim, not athiest. christian. the christians who founded this nation also believed in freedom of religion, show me any other religious group throughout the world who has established that sort of freedom... not saying "hail christianity", only that the founders of the constitution had the best of intentions.

also take into account the time period it was written in. this was the time of the quakers and the shakers. people who actually did not believe in sex. at all... not even for procreation. religion was the most prevelent part of their lives, so why not include it in their legislation. however no where in the constitution does it impose christianity on anyone. it mearly says "Almighty God" which like stated before refers to any/all Gods you choose to worship.

also take into account that the Americans did not wish to alienate themselves from the rest of the world. all other major nations were still ruled by christian leaders, and influenced by the pope. Had america decided to rule out any religious talk in the constitution, it would have seemed as though they were an athiest nation, and that would NOT have created any allies, which was necessary in their weakened state. I'm not an American citizen, nor did I attend and American school, but somehow even I know that your forefathers were NOT Christians and hence came the separation of church and state... Read up on what Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson had to say about religion...

[Beej]

Also, for chrissake, I can't believe I have to even type this: HUMANS ARE NOT APES OR MONKEYS. Those terms were invented by biologists/naturalists to better categorize what they saw and give meaning to the wide variety of animal instantiation. In other words, there is nothing to say that Apes and Monkeys and Humans derive from the same 'class', 'kingdom', 'category' or otherwise, other than they were pigeon-holed into categories by humans for ease of conceptualization.

Got Grade 10 Biology anyone?

[rocklandxjer]

eh free masons and all that. obviously most were christian (espescially in the southern states) because..
in places like north carolina and south of that, separation of church and state didnt occur till the 1900s in some places. That may have been unconstitutional, but untill then, they were teh overwelming majority, and everyone saw it fit to do so

[rocklandxjer]

heh, definately a good point, humans are a SPECIES just as apes are. a species of mammals. so... you claim humans and monkeys are the same, why not humans and whales...

[Beej]

ALSO: Bestiality (note the spelling) is NOT illegal. Its not covered federally in the US or Canada. Its done state by state and in some states its not addressed by law other than animal abuse laws. As recent as July 2005 it was outlawed in WA as a result of an inquiry into the unusual death of a famous "horse videotape" manufacturer... (Google Kenneth Pinyan)

[Beej]

eh free masons and all that. obviously most were christian (espescially in the southern states) because..
in places like north carolina and south of that, separation of church and state didnt occur till the 1900s in some places. That may have been unconstitutional, but untill then, they were teh overwelming majority, and everyone saw it fit to do so Dude, go take some history lessons...

[Ramsey]

It's Interspecies Erotica!

[rocklandxjer]

?? on what.
the fact that this nation was founded by a majority of christians?
and besides, one of the requirements for freemasonry. even today, is to believe in a "supreme being" in other words, a God

[rocklandxjer]

It's Interspecies Erotica!

yee haw!!

[Ramsey]

How does believing in a god make you a christian?

[Beej]

?? on what.
the fact that this nation was founded by a majority of christians?
and besides, one of the requirements for freemasonry. even today, is to believe in a "supreme being" in other words, a God You are colluding "belief in a supreme being" with "religion". They are mutually exclusive. You are also colluding "forefathers" with people who came to North America long before the "forefathers"...

[rocklandxjer]

The constitution does not impose religion. no where does it say "christianity is great" or "we believe in God, but only in the christian way"

believing in a supreme being, and beliving in God, whether that be the christian God, Allah, Buddah, anything, you are still believing in a supreme being.
what forefathers are you refering to if not the creators of the declaration of independence and the Constitution


heh, i think we need a third party mediator

[goodburbon]

Don't look at me, I'm not an ape.

[rocklandxjer]

heh heh

[Beej]

The constitution does not impose religion. no where does it say "christianity is great" or "we believe in God, but only in the christian way"

believing in a supreme being, and beliving in God, whether that be the christian God, Allah, Buddah, anything, you are still believing in a supreme being.
what forefathers are you refering to if not the creators of the declaration of independence and the Constitution


heh, i think we need a third party mediator Those are to whom I refer. Try googling it, perhaps that will help you understand...

[Wolfe]

Correct me if im wrong but didnt the Pilgrims land on Plymoth Rock escaping religious persecution from the English? (Catholics)
Then A long time later after The War of Independence, the Constitution was written up. In the language of the day and as good god fearing people they wrote of almighty G-d and being mindful of a multitude of religions made it non-religion specific. I guess they didnt count in what ever mr d believes in.

[rocklandxjer]

exactly, they were speaking in the "tongue of the times" if you are one of those people "dzolcali" that wants to whipe all references of God off of the constitution and supreme court and everything, be my guest, but keep in mind they never say, "Join us or die" or claim that anyone who doesnt is wrong (much unlike yourself)

and wolfe... ten years to create a document that would dictate the way in which a democratic, free nation would be run, isnt really all that much of a "long time"

[Rocketman]

This thread must die...

Why argue something written so long ago besides the fact the original post has nothing to do with just about anything at all. If you don't like the Preamble of the Constitution of North Carolina, petition your representatives to change it. If the MAJORITY of the voters choose not to, then tough shit, accept it, or move.

Oh... and FAWK political correctness. Being politically correct is turning this country into a bunch of puzzy's! When will people actually stand up for what they truly believe and NOT be afraid to say it?

[Wolfe]

Those are to whom I refer. Try googling it, perhaps that will help you understand...

Good suggestion! I did and found the history on it and the Amendments.
The first
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

[rocklandxjer]

This thread must die...

Why argue something written so long ago besides the fact the original post has nothing to do with just about anything at all. If you don't like the Preamble of the Constitution of North Carolina, petition your representatives to change it. If the MAJORITY of the voters choose not to, then tough shit, accept it, or move.

Oh... and FAWK political correctness. Being politically correct is turning this country into a bunch of puzzy's! When will people actually stand up for what they truly believe and NOT be afraid to say it?

i thought i felt something weird...
you just stole the words right out of my mouth


:roflmao:

[Wolfe]

If the MAJORITY of the voters choose not to, then tough shit, accept it, or move.



Thats another issue all together how can you expect the average man to have a say when you dont have laws making them?
I know that sounds crazy but, we have compulsory voting, so every person (citizen) must have their chance to make thier opinion count, even if you choose to make an invalid vote. Your system doesnt allow for a true majority of voters, its only a majority of those that could be bothered. Before you flame me, note, I make no judgement as to which is a better system (our is)

I dont know if Im Ape or not. Fox wasnt there to record evolution.

[rocklandxjer]

yep, yup, yuup, mmm hmm

[lilredwagn]

Also, for chrissake, I can't believe I have to even type this: HUMANS ARE NOT APES OR MONKEYS. Those terms were invented by biologists/naturalists to better categorize what they saw and give meaning to the wide variety of animal instantiation. In other words, there is nothing to say that Apes and Monkeys and Humans derive from the same 'class', 'kingdom', 'category' or otherwise, other than they were pigeon-holed into categories by humans for ease of conceptualization. As anyone with half a brain can see, humans are much more closely related to celery.
Got Grade 10 Biology anyone?

indeed, indeed ..

[goodburbon]

Also, for chrissake, I can't believe I have to even type this: HUMANS ARE NOT APES OR MONKEYS. Those terms were invented by biologists/naturalists to better categorize what they saw and give meaning to the wide variety of animal instantiation. In other words, there is nothing to say that Apes and Monkeys and Humans derive from the same 'class', 'kingdom', 'category' or otherwise, other than they were pigeon-holed into categories by humans for ease of conceptualization.

Got Grade 10 Biology anyone?

you mean this?

Human
Eukaryota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryota) (Domain)/
Animalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animalia) (Kingdom) /
Eumetazoa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eumetazoa) (Subregnum) /
Bilateria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilateria) [having bilateral symmetery] /
Deuterostomia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterostomia) (Superphylum) /
Chordate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chordate) (Phylum) /
Craniata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniata) [animals with skulls] /
Vertebrata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebrata) (Subphylum) [...and backbones] /
Gnathostomata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnathostomata) (Infraphylum) [...and jaws] /
Teleostomi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleostomi) [advanced fish and descendants] /
Tetrapoda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapoda) (Superclass) [...and four limbs] /
Amniota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amniota) (Series) [...and amniotic eggs] /
Synapsida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsida) [mammal-like reptiles] /
Mammaliaformes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammaliaformes) / Mammalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammalia) (Class) [all mammals] /
Eutheria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutheria) (Subclass) /
Euarchontoglires (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euarchontoglires) (Superorder) /
Euarchonta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euarchonta) (Superorder) /
Primates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primates) (Order) /
Haplorrhini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplorrhini) (Suborder) /
Simiiformes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simiiformes) (Infraorder) /
Catarrhini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catarrhini) (Parvorder) /
Hominoidea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominoidea) (Superfamily) /
Hominidae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae) (Family) /
Homininae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae) (Subfamily) /
Hominini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini) (Tribe) /
Hominina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominina) (Subtribe) /
Homo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_%28genus%29) (Genus) / Homo sapiens (Species) / Homo sapiens sapiens (Subspecies)


Chimpanzee





Kingdom:
Animalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal)
Phylum:
Chordata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chordata)
Class:
Mammalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal)
Order:
Primates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate)
Family:
Hominidae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae)
Subfamily:
Homininae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae)
Tribe:
Hominini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini)
Subtribe:
Panina


wow, look at that beej we're primates too

10th grade biology anyone

[rocklandxjer]

whale

Kingdom:

Animalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal)
Phylum: Chordata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chordate)
Subphylum: Vertebrata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebrate)
Class: Mammalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal)
Order: Cetacea


human
Domain: Eukaryota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote)
Kingdom: Animalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal)
Phylum: Chordata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chordate)
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Mammalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal)
Order: Primates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate)

[rocklandxjer]

what are you suggesting

[goodburbon]

perhaps we are a little more related than both "animals" as beej suggested.

[TRNDRVR]

Just what we need, another religious thread....http://timbercrawler.com/bb/images/smiles/gd.jpg

[rocklandxjer]

he he good point, waaayyy to many of those

[Darky]

So killing animals is ok as long as you're nice to them, but screwing them is right out? I know its off of the topic at hand, but why again is it wrong? Most animals don't give each other a choice in the wild, and we are constantly purposely force breeding animals, so that arguement is bogus.

Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not having intercourse with any animals other than myself and my wife.
You just think Lassie's hot don't you?

The reason behind killing them is for food usually. The reason behind humping them? I haven't a clue.

[rocklandxjer]

yea, your point is definately moot.

animals dont give other animals of their species a choice. In our society of evolved and intelecutal creatures, we call that rape.

animals dont force themselves on other animals of other species...

[dzolcali]

This thread must die...

Why argue something written so long ago besides the fact the original post has nothing to do with just about anything at all. If you don't like the Preamble of the Constitution of North Carolina, petition your representatives to change it. If the MAJORITY of the voters choose not to, then tough shit, accept it, or move.

Oh... and FAWK political correctness. Being politically correct is turning this country into a bunch of puzzy's! When will people actually stand up for what they truly believe and NOT be afraid to say it?

when the war ends...


but for the other stuff, I believe correct me if this is wrong, but in a nutshell the puritans founded the 13 colonies, who each had their own seperate governments all to get away from the crown rule in England. However more over the founding fathers of "America" the land were actually from South America on up, christopher columbus was much later on the scene than many of the spanish inquisitioners, and the spanish inquisition well..they plundered and raped and murdered tons of the indiginous populations of south america before migrating upwards into the US formerly native american soil.
So anyways, the 13 colonies tried to fight the crown one by one, the crown was too powerful, originally they wanted religious freedom from the crown granted at that time it basically meant they didn't want to go to the kings church or be prosecuted. So they finally banded together to make the "united states" wow isn't that novel they defeated the kings army and won their freedom and decided since things were good they would establish a more perfect union. Enter the founding forefathers of our Federal government. And in regards to that, any state or local law that is not in conformity with the federal laws are rendered powerless...any federal law that is not inline with the constitution is dubbed unconstitutional and therefore has to be changed to be concurrent with the constitution.

Also beej, yes we are our own species, but we are like 2 what chromosome (not sure but I know it's super close) different than apes. apes, leemurs, gorilllas, baboons and a jungle of other species monkeys are all grouped into the same class thus my argument that we are in essence monkeys just smart monkeys.

[dzolcali]

You just think Lassie's hot don't you?

The reason behind killing them is for food usually. The reason behind humping them? I haven't a clue.

because it feels good duh?

[rocklandxjer]

wrong

most of the colonies were founded by the english by offering free land so that raw materials could be sent back to england. the puritans and pilgrims founded only a small amount of the "New america"

and wrong again. the reason for the declaration of independance was because the american colonists felt that they were being singled out. when really they were just being adapted to the english law.

a lot of what happened back then was our fault. but at least some good came of it.

the colonists did not separate for religious freedom. that was way out of the picture by then. they separated because of money. the britts wanted to keep them as a taxable colony, which they were. and they felt that they deserved more rights, even more than the average brit...

and state laws are not powerless if not mentioned in the constitution. those that contradict the federal law maybe, but not ANY law, thats why some states allow the death penalty and some dont

and no... we are not "smart monkeys" smart monkeys are smart monkeys. we are human. thats like saying a pellican is the same as a swallow. yea there birds, but they arent the same. or that whales and walruses are the same.. no, they are not.

[Wolfe]

because it feels good duh?

so you'd hump a donkey cause it would feel good?

[Wolfe]

so you'd hump a donkey cause it would feel good?
get a girlfriend

[rocklandxjer]

i think THAT was a joke lol

[dzolcali]

wrong

most of the colonies were founded by the english by offering free land so that raw materials could be sent back to england. the puritans and pilgrims founded only a small amount of the "New america"

and wrong again. the reason for the declaration of independance was because the american colonists felt that they were being singled out. when really they were just being adapted to the english law.

a lot of what happened back then was our fault. but at least some good came of it.

the colonists did not separate for religious freedom. that was way out of the picture by then. they separated because of money. the britts wanted to keep them as a taxable colony, which they were. and they felt that they deserved more rights, even more than the average brit...

and state laws are not powerless if not mentioned in the constitution. those that contradict the federal law maybe, but not ANY law, thats why some states allow the death penalty and some dont

and no... we are not "smart monkeys" smart monkeys are smart monkeys. we are human. thats like saying a pellican is the same as a swallow. yea there birds, but they arent the same. or that whales and walruses are the same.. no, they are not.

it's called the supremacy clause look it up moron...

i would have to disagree with just about everything you just stated but w/e to each his own the declaration of independence and the constitution are two seperate documents no body was talking about the declaration of independence.

[rocklandxjer]

you claimed that states cant pass laws that arent part of the federal law. your wrong.

and i was just letting you know that you were wrong. with everything. AMERICA WAS NOT FOUNDED BY PILGRIMS it may have been first settled by them, but it was not founded by them.

you can disagree with me all you like, but take a basic american history class and find out for yourself.
if you really want to go into it, i could give detailed examples and analysis on how every war ever faught on the premise of religion can be questioned as a war faught for money, even the crusades. and the war for independance was no different. if you think other wise, fine, but Stop putting out bad information. if you think america was separated from england when the pilgrims were still the majority, you have no concept of early america, and are missing out on at least one hundred years of history.

your not a damned scholar, get over it

[dzolcali]

do you even read anything man...scroll back up and take a gander at what I posted...SUPREMACY clause...if the state passes a law thats not in conformity with federal law the federal law superceeds(holds the authority) over the state law...YOUR WRONG

and I never said that the pilgrims founded america, again...YOUR WRONG

read what i wrote and quit blowing your self off...

oh and I can give you a run down of every event that ever happened in the world...so what, google is a great tool that any jack ass can use to sound smart, so keep on keeping on pilgrim

[dzolcali]

side note, all our law is based off Anglo Saxon jurisprudence which in turn came from England.

[Beej]

:yap:
:yap:
:yap:
:yap:
:yap:
:yap:
:yap:
:yap:
:yap:
:yap:
:yap:
:yap:
:yap:
:yap:

[dzolcali]

anybody weight lift?

also google the tesla motors new car the "tesla" thats the baddest ass car I have seen if I have ever seen a bad ass car...and I have seen plenty around here.

[johnlv6]

anybody weight lift?


"Self-improvement is masturbation." ~ Tyler Durden


I love Fight Club :D.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/johnl24vvr6/Funny/flightcard_big.jpg

[Hellbent]

in a previous post you referred to atheists and agnostics as "morons" i believe it was; now you're all itchy in the crotch, and nigh indignant, by the wording put forth in a preamble by "god lovers" and "their jesus loving laws"? cripes man........

[goodburbon]

As an aside, Ten High is not goodbourbon.

[8Mud]

Tangent maybe, but perhaps the word God is used to try to label the unexplainable and religion is the methode used trying to explain it. We may use the word God, for lack of a better noun.
Someone trying to explain the unexplainable, with insufficient vocabulary, may be the reason for the differences in most religion. People get hung up on absolutes and are constantly trying to dissect the process. As an example, people are still trying to dissect the atom and label it's smallest parts, everytime someone cries success, somebody else finds a smaller partical. Almost the same with finding and cataloging all the parts of the universe.
Trying to legislate it's non existance, ignore it, deny it or in other ways trying to ostrich the whole thing, seems like the dumbest answer to the conundrom.
IMO, accepting it as a part of existance and concurrently trying to live a moral life, may be one answer to accepting it as an absolute (which it can't be to most people, other than phrophets) and living the ethic (maybe what the legislators in SC where hinting at) if not the substance may be the simpilist answer. I've always thought it really arrogant to ignore tradition and make judgements about it's relavance, which seems to be a sure way to make the same old mistakes, in the same old ways.
Somebody mentioned Anglo Saxon law as being the forerunner for most of the current law.
Read the law of Moses, specifically the "Judgements". Amazing how much of it is logical and still pertanant.

[goodburbon]

Trying to legislate it's non existance, ignore it, deny it or in other ways trying to ostrich the whole thing, seems like the dumbest answer to the conundrom.


Mud,

I agree with the rest of your post but the above statement and the part about accepting it is curious. I in no way want you to feel that I don't respect your right to believe in anything you feel is true, I do want you to clarify this concept for me though.

If God is just the wrong noun to indicate something which we do not understand, then what sense does it make to try to appease and appeal to something which we do not understand, which we do not know what it wants, which we cannot even really know exists. Why can we not be moral, ethical, and good because it feels right, and is driven by something within us, without the added burden of trying to placate something that we made up to explain the things we couldn't?.

[rocklandxjer]

when the war ends...


but for the other stuff, I believe correct me if this is wrong, but in a nutshell the puritans founded the 13 colonies, who each had their own seperate governments all to get away from the crown rule in England. However more over the founding fathers of "America" the land were actually from South America on up, christopher columbus was much later on the scene than many of the spanish inquisitioners, and the spanish inquisition well..they plundered and raped and murdered tons of the indiginous populations of south america before migrating upwards into the US formerly native american soil.
So anyways, the 13 colonies tried to fight the crown one by one, the crown was too powerful, originally they wanted religious freedom from the crown granted at that time it basically meant they didn't want to go to the kings church or be prosecuted. So they finally banded together to make the "united states" wow isn't that novel they defeated the kings army and won their freedom and decided since things were good they would establish a more perfect union. Enter the founding forefathers of our Federal government. And in regards to that, any state or local law that is not in conformity with the federal laws are rendered powerless...any federal law that is not inline with the constitution is dubbed unconstitutional and therefore has to be changed to be concurrent with the constitution.

Also beej, yes we are our own species, but we are like 2 what chromosome (not sure but I know it's super close) different than apes. apes, leemurs, gorilllas, baboons and a jungle of other species monkeys are all grouped into the same class thus my argument that we are in essence monkeys just smart monkeys.


i guess i miss read the supremacy thing, i appologize for that, but your still wrong, you said the puritains founded the 13 colonies, and later that they founded america. those were your words, i am not the idiot, you are.
i do not use google for that reason, people out there think they are right, and make webpages...

[red91]

it's called the supremacy clause look it up moron...



WELCOME TO OUR NEW TV SHOW....

Pot and Kettle....


In todays episode you'll hear POT say...."damn Kettle, your BLACK!?!?!?"

and in return hear Kettle say..." FU you racist SOB...wheres the ACLU?!?


:confused1

[8Mud]

Mud,

I agree with the rest of your post but the above statement and the part about accepting it is curious. I in no way want you to feel that I don't respect your right to believe in anything you feel is true, I do want you to clarify this concept for me though.

If God is just the wrong noun to indicate something which we do not understand, then what sense does it make to try to appease and appeal to something which we do not understand, which we do not know what it wants, which we cannot even really know exists. Why can we not be moral, ethical, and good because it feels right, and is driven by something within us, without the added burden of trying to placate something that we made up to explain the things we couldn't?.

I'm not going to try and do a discourse on my beliefs or try to tell anybody else what to believe. But I will apologize for my spelling, my spell checker has a bug.
I have some kind of ingrained aversion to Preachers, Preists, or higher religious leaders, though I have found some to be really wise, I distrust there motives as a personal policy. Probably a hold over from my Presbyterian upbringing.
Just a hypothosis, but trying to atune yourself to God (or whatever it may be called in many langauges and religions). May be benefitial beyond the moral and ethical training.
I doubt God has the time to communicate with me personally, but the Holy Ghost for lack of a better name, has saved my bacon too many times to be ignored. It would be down right stupid of me to even try to ignore it. It may be benefitial for others, to try and become atuned to the possiblilty, it may save there bacon also.
Some people may call it instinct, logic or reasoning, but at least with me the process goes way beyond instinct, logic or most times reason. Don't have a clue what it is, but am convinced it is genenrally benenfitial to me.
Your statement about trying to be moral, ethical and good, just because it feels right. Seems like a decent philosophy to me.
I sum up my philosophy as "if at all possible, do the right thing".

[dzolcali]

Tangent maybe, but perhaps the word God is used to try to label the unexplainable and religion is the methode used trying to explain it. We may use the word God, for lack of a better noun.
Someone trying to explain the unexplainable, with insufficient vocabulary, may be the reason for the differences in most religion. People get hung up on absolutes and are constantly trying to dissect the process. As an example, people are still trying to dissect the atom and label it's smallest parts, everytime someone cries success, somebody else finds a smaller partical. Almost the same with finding and cataloging all the parts of the universe.
Trying to legislate it's non existance, ignore it, deny it or in other ways trying to ostrich the whole thing, seems like the dumbest answer to the conundrom.
IMO, accepting it as a part of existance and concurrently trying to live a moral life, may be one answer to accepting it as an absolute (which it can't be to most people, other than phrophets) and living the ethic (maybe what the legislators in SC where hinting at) if not the substance may be the simpilist answer. I've always thought it really arrogant to ignore tradition and make judgements about it's relavance, which seems to be a sure way to make the same old mistakes, in the same old ways.
Somebody mentioned Anglo Saxon law as being the forerunner for most of the current law.
Read the law of Moses, specifically the "Judgements". Amazing how much of it is logical and still pertanant.

agreed...guilty as well. Also agree with goodbourbons comments about trying to appease a god we do not know of. But I believe god is hypothetical anyways but not in your common use of hypothetical, for instance, hypothetically if there were a god. But since we cannot prove the existance or lack there of, using the word god in itself becomes hypothetical. mud, I have struggled with the concept so to speak that language is a limiting factor to our own advancement, sure there are tons of big words and small words and inbetween words out there, but really to me using words is a limiting factor of human knowledge. I have felt things or done things that I can't really describe with human words, perhaps god is our most universally accepted word for the unexplanable like you were talking about. I dunno really just a thought.

rockland I said the spanish founded america, not the puritans, it was out of order in my post but I didn't say they founded america. Anyone been to james town pretty cool place.

[Ramsey]

Correct me if im wrong but didnt the Pilgrims land on Plymoth Rock escaping religious persecution from the English? (Catholics)

Spobi

[Beej]

WELCOME TO OUR NEW TV SHOW....

Pot and Kettle....


In todays episode you'll hear POT say...."damn Kettle, your BLACK!?!?!?"

and in return hear Kettle say..." FU you racist SOB...wheres the ACLU?!?


:confused1 :laugh2:

:thumbup:

[Wolfe]

Spobi
Now that is calling the kettle black. I dont pretend to know, thats why I said correct me if I'm wrong.
SO SPOBI BACK AT YOU BIATCH !!

[IXNAYXJ]

Now that is calling the kettle black. I dont pretend to know, thats why I said correct me if I'm wrong.
SO SPOBI BACK AT YOU BIATCH !!He can't hear you.

;)

-----Matt-----

[Timber]

Tangent maybe, but perhaps the word God is used to try to label the unexplainable and religion is the methode used trying to explain it. We may use the word God, for lack of a better noun.
Then don't capitalize the word. That's something I've never understood about Christians--the insistence on capitalizing the word god. Other religions sometimes do it as well, but more often than not, they simply use their gods' names.

[dzolcali]

Then don't capitalize the word. That's something I've never understood about Christians--the insistence on capitalizing the word god. Other religions sometimes do it as well, but more often than not, they simply use their gods' names.

best point of the thread...you capatalize a name, not a title. If I say. "I'm going to take my car to the mechanic" it is correct. but if I say "I'm going to take my car to the Mechanic" then it's grammatically incorrect.
So the insitance on capatalizing god, and the actual capatalization of it clearly shows the "god" they are speaking of whether they use the name or not.

[Hellbent]

"insitance"? "capatalize"? you have little room to attempt to school your fellow forum members on grammatical inaccuracies. making a point is fine, but being a hypocritical nitpicker is just the embodiment of silliness..... i REALLY tried not to post in this thread, but i found myself inexorably drawn toward it......aaaahhhhhhh dammit! bewitching, isn't he? :roll:

[rocklandxjer]

heh heh definately...

and by the way guys, i could care less whether any of you believe in any type of god. thats your perogative, and i am in no place to hold it against you.

however, with that topic, do you capitalize Buddah, Allah?

why? because they are beings of extreme importance in different religions, and they are People (at least they are given the qualities of people at times) , which according to grammar get capitalized.
in christianity, God is the supreme being, God is given no name because the name that Jesus passed to others was God, if he were to say Jim, would we all not capitalize that? God is the name by which we call our god. so we capitalize it.
another reason is to show that he is of great importance, again maybe not to you, but to christians.

and by the way, do we not capitalize Dr. Mrs. Ms. Mr. ? are these not titles?

[Hellbent]

very good point.

[Hellbent]

you could follow that up with Mayor, Chancellor, Dean(of students), Professor......all titles. i love how the original point of the post is cast aside, in favor of bizarre tangents. what fun!

[rocklandxjer]

enter the beauty of NAXJA

[TRNDRVR]

http://www.timbercrawler.com/bb/images/smiles/5popcorn.gif

[rocklandxjer]

gettin pretty interesting huh..

is it me or does every thread turn into religious threads...

edit: eh, well this one kinda started out as one but still...

by the way i like your sig. the infamous million post thread...

[Beej]

Since Canada is a pinko country, are we technically godless pinko bastards?

[rocklandxjer]

yeap :spin1:

[Beej]

Was Arjuna actually an alien?

[rocklandxjer]

nope...

son of Indra and Kunti

unless they are aliens too...

[WVXJ]

Hey dudes, i think the christian gods name was Yaweh, or Jehova. But the first four books of the christian bible make up the Torah, so maybe it's the jewish gods name, really.

[dzolcali]

"insitance"? "capatalize"? you have little room to attempt to school your fellow forum members on grammatical inaccuracies. making a point is fine, but being a hypocritical nitpicker is just the embodiment of silliness..... i REALLY tried not to post in this thread, but i found myself inexorably drawn toward it......aaaahhhhhhh dammit! bewitching, isn't he? :roll:

perhaps you should have held your tongue and opened your eyes...if you read what I wrote it had nothing to do with errors of fellow forum members...it had to do with the implied significance of the original topic of the preamble of NC and the capatilization of the word Almighty God signifiying it wasn't a diverse term but as rockland said...a christian god, so if we can all agree that "GOD" capatilized is the christian god and not the unviersal term for all gods..then my point holds substance.

And just to clear up some other details of your post...I was high when I typed that, yes thats right blitz outta my skull, I support the legalization of marijuana and I don't give a fug what you think about me...so sit on it :)


rockland heres something you should know, yaweh and jehova are the two names given to the christian god before king james edited the bible. I believe it is only mentioned twice in the entire new testament as his actual name but replaced with God in all others. Christianity has become the biggest fiasco of a religion I have ever seen in my life. Heres some nice known facts...God(jehova, or yaweh if your jewish, is the Father...)then you have the son JESUS and then the holy ghost..they are seperate entities, JESUS is not GOD, god didn't give his only begotten self, he gave his only begotten son who died for your sins on the cross...get it straight you yuppies before you cast your entire life into a religion at least know your sh!t. Also any of you who say "well the bible wasn't meant to be taken literal" why would god speak in codes...Another thing, if God Almighty is the all knowing creator of all, then satan and all evil is a manifestation of God therefore making it his own burden. By casting all that blame down to humans and making us accountable for gods own creation of evil makes god sound like not such a nice guy after all. Ima go pray to my sandwich and then eat it.

Another interesting fact, before christianity swept into northern Europe all those folks were pagans...yes pagans heaven forbid that all the people forcefully converted to christianity were perfectly happy being pagans whether it be witches or what have you they believed in tree spirits and the likes. In fact, I can let you know where the christmas tree came from as well..which would be Dec. 25 or there abouts the celebration of the trees or a specific tree I cannot recall, and the star on top, well pagan symbolism, but the christians couldn't get thorugh to the pagans so they said, "hey we can say jesus's bday was on the same day and conversion will become easier" so they did, and Oh wait, Easter too? no way...ah but yes...Pagan fertility celebrational day, thus the rabbit, and the eggs perfect signs of fertility...so whats something logical to do for the christians? "hey lets throw another jesus loving holiday on one of the pagans holidays and it will make converting them easier" so thats what they did, end of story. by the way there were like 30 some odd Jesus's known in that same village, it apparently was a very common name back then. Christianity is a scam that too many have fallen for and are too prideful to admit there own shortcomings.
by the way sorry in advance for any typos but i'm not writting any sorta masterpiece for forum readers to splooge over, so I frankly really don't care if my small typos hurt your feelings or if you want to call me a hypocrite thats fine but seriously I call myself one all the time so it's not like your gonna stun me with some profound thinking like you thought you thunk...

use god as a crutch and limp forever.

[goodburbon]

drizzle,

You are the most inconsistient poster in the world. Please don't ever agree with me, or try to argue the same side of a debate as me.

[Matt S.]

drizzledick,

You are the most inconsistent poster in the world. Please don't ever agree with me, or try to argue the same side of a debate as me.


hahaha you forgot the red! He will always be that!

Hey John Kerry, I mean drizzledick, don't ever try to argue with me... cuz you will just end up agreeing with me then disagreeing.

[dzolcali]

drizzle,

You are the most inconsistient poster in the world. Please don't ever agree with me, or try to argue the same side of a debate as me.

wth does that mean..inconsistient poster....IN THE WORLD...LOL
fine then, I don't agree with you that people should be allowed to freely hump animals at will. And most of the time thats all you guys do is debate. debate debate debate..It's not like Hey check out this new Tesla car it's pretty sweet..."oh yeah that is cool, wouldn't mind getting one of those"

it's more like "check out this tesla car it's sweet"
Oh yeah well F tesla, thats not even how you spell it, tell em bob,
bob: yeah drizzlnizzle your lamo, we all play butt darts and we will pwn you any day
"yeah" YEAH Yeah what he said, hoo rah. Hey lets talk about religion, no lets not lets talk about guns, NO lets talk about how everyone is wrong, yeah, YEAH yeah, hoo rah.

freaking monkys

[Matt S.]

oooiee oo-a-aa churcka churcka.

freaking monkys haters


fixed.

[dzolcali]

fixed.

scrappy serious question...do you whack off to the forums? cause it would be one thing if you contributed something even if it sucked but I think your 2 cents could be better spent on like www.cheapjeep.com (http://www.cheapjeep.com)

[Matt S.]

scrappy serious question...do you whack off to the forums? cause it would be one thing if you contributed something even if it sucked but I think your 2 cents could be better spent on like www.cheapjeep.com (http://www.cheapjeep.com)


I contribute a whole lot. Not recently because very little has been worth giving my 2 very expensive cents to. If you ever have a serious question about fabrication or a seriously interesting thing as far as our hobby goes, I will be one of the first to help or be there with you critiquing. I really really enjoy NAXJA because those who I respect and learn from on a near daily basis are the leaders and most wonderful guys around. I just post alot, cuz I am kind of an ass, and I have nothing better to do after all my work, school, and other fun things.

Like I said, when you REALLY need technical info.. or help finding it... or help getting ideas to build it. You know who to ask.

[Wolfe]

He can't hear you.

;)

-----Matt-----
Yeh thats why I was yelling at the stupid muthafuker

[Wolfe]

Actually I reckon Mr D's got a good point.
The Romans would often adopt the gods of the people they wanted to intergrate after invasion. They tried to come up with a Messiah for the Jews and the religion survived.

[Wolfe]

The puritans left England to come to the new world. They werent being persecuted. The puritans wanted newly in power king james to abolish the episcopacy. He refused. Let me back up for a second, the church at the time was one for both catholics and protestants as done by Queen Elizabeth. basically a protestant church that looked a lot like a catholic church. The more extreme puritans did not like this at all. They wanted all things catholic out of the church. Shortly after James was in power, they came to him demanding that. Many puritans comformed and were ok, but the extremists would not. Puritans teach that you have the right to over throw a bad government and James knew that as he was a protestant. When the puritans wanted to leave, he gave them the ships to do it. To start a new english empire. Though sending radicals that wanted to overthrow the government in the first place to start a new kingdom wasnt exactly the best idea and peaked in the form of the revolutionary war. They werent being persecuted.

This was sent to me by the littlest terrorist himself, Personally I dont know if its correct or not, as I said before Im not an expert on US history. Leave it to you guys to debate it.

[in2fords]

first, Hello everyone, my name Is Jeremy and I live on a small Island called Oahu, yeah, it's part of the United States(get asked that more then one would think) It's in a chain of Island's called Hawaii(yes, there all in the US!)(oh yeah and we have electricity and cable, I dont have to send notes on birds to get people to post on the forum for me and my house is not a grass shack, kinda looks like one but it just needs a few repairs). love the site, been planning on intruducing myself but havent gotten around to it, I practice the art of procrastination, you should read the book, if I ever got around to reading it I would recommend it!
now to the subject at hand.
I am actually very verble (obviously illiterate tho) about my rights being invaded by the holy rolling, bible thumping, clinic bombing, cult having mass suicide people(mostly southerners, not my fault Im just saying is all). I take offense when pleople say who can and cant get married(not gay, but if I was I would want someone to stand up for me) because of a god they cant prove exist's(the fact they dont accept the proof I have that he doesnt exist is mute at this point). However I dont take offense to things that were written before the Pollitically correct could stop them. this is how they talked then, this is the way it was, we cant go and change our entire history of a nation to please the newbies that now are whinning about such trivial things. if you want all refence of religion removed from all scripts of the entire planet(or even our own country) you are not very wise on your priorities. focus that attention on getting US to stop invading Iraq(and this will begin a whole new thread, what a way for me to introduce myself to a group of people I want a lot of help from!!)
as long as we dont enforce such things as "must be GOD FREARING" in our current court I dont see the problem, oh and to have all things completly void of religion is impossible, to not mention any god/spiritual/beastiality(had to throw it in just for you goodburbon) is to allude toward a agnostic/atheist style, which is a form of religion!
to not believe in god/s is your veiw of what is beyond this world(or lack there off) which is what all religions are. now we can not seperate all religion from state can we?

if your reason to want to remove all reference to god is for legal reasons, I.E. a person contest's it because he/she is not "god fearing" and therefor does not apply to that "rule" then you must be a lawyer that needs to be castrated! that is all on that.
goodnight, Jeremy

[goodburbon]

first, Hello everyone, my name Is Jeremy and I live on a small Island called Oahu, yeah, it's part of the United States(get asked that more then one would think) It's in a chain of Island's called Hawaii(yes, there all in the US!)(oh yeah and we have electricity and cable, I dont have to send notes on birds to get people to post on the forum for me and my house is not a grass shack, kinda looks like one but it just needs a few repairs). love the site, been planning on intruducing myself but havent gotten around to it, I practice the art of procrastination, you should read the book, if I ever got around to reading it I would recommend it!
now to the subject at hand.
I am actually very verble (obviously illiterate tho) about my rights being invaded by the holy rolling, bible thumping, clinic bombing, cult having mass suicide people(mostly southerners, not my fault Im just saying is all). I take offense when pleople say who can and cant get married(not gay, but if I was I would want someone to stand up for me) because of a god they cant prove exist's(the fact they dont accept the proof I have that he doesnt exist is mute at this point). However I dont take offense to things that were written before the Pollitically correct could stop them. this is how they talked then, this is the way it was, we cant go and change our entire history of a nation to please the newbies that now are whinning about such trivial things. if you want all refence of religion removed from all scripts of the entire planet(or even our own country) you are not very wise on your priorities. focus that attention on getting US to stop invading Iraq(and this will begin a whole new thread, what a way for me to introduce myself to a group of people I want a lot of help from!!)
as long as we dont enforce such things as "must be GOD FREARING" in our current court I dont see the problem, oh and to have all things completly void of religion is impossible, to not mention any god/spiritual/beastiality(had to throw it in just for you goodburbon) is to allude toward a agnostic/atheist style, which is a form of religion!
to not believe in god/s is your veiw of what is beyond this world(or lack there off) which is what all religions are. now we can not seperate all religion from state can we?

if your reason to want to remove all reference to god is for legal reasons, I.E. a person contest's it because he/she is not "god fearing" and therefor does not apply to that "rule" then you must be a lawyer that needs to be castrated! that is all on that.
goodnight, Jeremy

Hell of an introduction, just jump right into the fire. I like that. I only disagree on the points that A.)how exactly can you consider the lack of religion a religion? and B.) The US isn't invading Iraq, the invasion is done. We are occupying Iraq until we feel they can govern and police themselves at least half assed.

and welcome:cheers: to :NAXJA:

[lilredwagn]

how exactly can you consider the lack of religion a religion?
"I contend we are both atheists , I just believe in one fewer god than you do" :D

[in2fords]

thanx for the welcome. right into the fire has allways been my style.
that pic of spam is making me hungry, better get it from Mcdonalds.

your right about Iraq, now dont get me wrong, Im not some bleading heart liberal that is bitching about us killing everyone over there. in fact I could be the opposite, my veiw is who cares about them, why are we struggling to survive when they dont even want us there? sure it was hard for them with sadistic sadam(he's not alowed to kill them, thats our job!) but more people are suffering in other parts of the world that would not require lost of American Lives to help. and dont give me this "threat to America" crap, we all new thier wasnt anything limpdick housen get his hands on. I love when people come back at me with "thats what they get for 9-11" freaking inbreds are allowed to vote and it scares me.

ANYWAY, back on topic
lack of religion is a religion. anything a person thinks of after life, or beliefs of spiritualiy is their religion. that is what they live by, that is what the practice, one persons religion includes god/s and my religion has no gods, no coming back, nothing after I die! it is still a religion, it's beyond a thought it is a belief, and a belief without proof is a religion. I know it's a streach but I make it work in my mind!

I better get back to work before they fire me, oh wait, Im doing my job. I got to get used to this desk job stuff.
Jeremy

[Darky]

Evolution is a religion. It requires every bit as much faith as Christianity. There has yet to be any kind of proof that hasn't been disputed, and when you'vegot odds like evolution has against it, ya kinda need some sort of proof for it.

I could go around telling everyone my jeep has hidden rockets and is capable at flying just below the speed of light (any faster and it'd be torn apart and I'd be sent back in time) and unless I actually took them for a ride or showed a video, no one would ever believe me. Yet, tell that there were thousands and millions of occurrences that, had Vegas been around, would've been rated at impossible odds to lead up to us. Hell, a woodpecker doesn't make evolutionary sense. His beak has to be super strong and reinforced or else it'd break and kill him when he first slammed it into a tree. But he also has to have a cushion around his brain that was thicked than the rest of the birds or else his brain would get battered, swell, and he'd die. Get one before the other he dies. The chances of either spontaneously developing? Pretty small. The chance of either happening together? Even smaller.

[dzolcali]

who knows, the answers won't be uncovered in this thread thats for sure.
but what i do know is religion is religion and government is government and if you think someone is stupid for changing from "old" or "traditional" ways then you will always be limited by that factor. Think about fiber optics, they allow us to send signals other than 1's and 0's to communicate and essentially unlock possiblities of infinate proportions...but the traditional way is binary 1's and 0's...so I guess by your logic it's ok to just be how we are and never actually step up to the plate and do something better with our minds and technology. Same applies to the preamble from my original post, once you discover your being a hypocrite or something isn't lining up right..FIX it don't continue to promote ignorance.
any who.

[dzolcali]

long but if you missed it on the yahoo headliner here it is

By DAN SEWELL, Associated Press Writer 4 minutes ago


CINCINNATI - The Bush administration can continue its warrantless surveillance program while it appeals a judge's ruling that the program is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
var lrec_target="_top";var lrec_URL=new Array();lrec_URL[1]="";var lrec_flashfile="http://us.a2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/in/insweb/092506_flash_top.swf?clickTAG=javascript:LRECopenW indow(1)";var lrec_altURL="";var lrec_altimg="http://us.a2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/in/insweb/092506_yahoo_newsandsports_dirty_rustic_flash_back up091906.jpg";var lrec_width=299;var lrec_height=43; on error resume next plugin = ( IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash.6"))) http://us.a2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/in/insweb/092506_yahoo_newsandsports_dirty_rustic_flash_back up091906.jpg YesNo YesNo YesNo if (window.yzq_a == null) document.write("");if (window.yzq_a){yzq_a('p', 'P=2ZnYDkSOwhUMKkyFRQuz3APKGEqbtUUkILUAAZV6&T=1a7aiocuu%2fX%3d1159995573%2fE%3d83018502%2fR%3d news%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d1.1%2fW%3d8%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d9 08393764%2fH%3dY2FjaGVoaW50PSJuZXdzIiBjb250ZW50PSJ pdDtDaXJjdWl0O3RlcnJvcmlzdDtnb3Zlcm5tZW50O1NhbjtTZ WN1cml0eTtyZWZ1cmxfd3d3X3lhaG9vX2NvbSIgcmVmdXJsPSJ yZWZ1cmxfd3d3X3lhaG9vX2NvbSIgdG9waWNzPSJyZWZ1cmxfd 3d3X3lhaG9vX2NvbSI-%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d46C28E44');yzq_a('a', '&U=13avh1trc%2fN%3dGQA8DESOxLw-%2fC%3d386999.9393467.10128431.1442997%2fD%3dLREC% 2fB%3d4000797');}http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=2ZnYDkSOwhUMKkyFRQuz3APKGEqbtUUkILUAAZV6&T=1adjgcrht%2fX%3d1159995573%2fE%3d83018502%2fR%3d news%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3d8%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d2 247038585%2fH%3dY2FjaGVoaW50PSJuZXdzIiBjb250ZW50PS JpdDtDaXJjdWl0O3RlcnJvcmlzdDtnb3Zlcm5tZW50O1NhbjtT ZWN1cml0eTtyZWZ1cmxfd3d3X3lhaG9vX2NvbSIgcmVmdXJsPS JyZWZ1cmxfd3d3X3lhaG9vX2NvbSIgdG9waWNzPSJyZWZ1cmxf d3d3X3lhaG9vX2NvbSI-%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d46C28E44&U=13avh1trc%2fN%3dGQA8DESOxLw-%2fC%3d386999.9393467.10128431.1442997%2fD%3dLREC% 2fB%3d4000797
The president has said the program is needed in the war on terrorism; opponents argue it oversteps constitutional boundaries on free speech, privacy and executive powers.
The unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gave little explanation for the decision. In the three-paragraph ruling, judges said that they balanced the likelihood an appeal would succeed, the potential damage to both sides and the public interest.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit ruled Aug. 17 that the program was unconstitutional because it violates the rights to free speech and privacy and the separation of powers in the Constitution.
The Justice Department had urged the appeals court to allow it to keep the program in place while it argues its appeal, claiming that the nation faced "potential irreparable harm." The appeal is likely to take months.
"The country will be more vulnerable to a terrorist attack," the government motion said.
The program monitors international phone calls and e-mails to or from the United States involving people the government suspects have terrorist links. A secret court has been set up to grant warrants for such surveillance, but the government says it can't always wait for a court to take action.
The American Civil Liberties Union (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=American+Civil+Liberties+Union) filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the program on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say it has made it difficult for them to do their jobs because they believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets. Many said they had been forced to take expensive and time-consuming overseas trips because their contacts wouldn't speak openly on the phone or because they didn't want to violate their contacts' confidentiality.
Similar lawsuits challenging the program have been filed by other groups, including in New York and San Francisco. The issue could wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=U.S.+Supreme+Court).

[rocklandxjer]

how does it really effect you?
what do you have to hide?

its not like the government is going to listen to YOUR phone conversations, and if they did, what would they hear, "work sucked today... my jeep..." nonsense, they wouldnt care to hear what you or any normal person would have to say. its not like the government has a task force that listens in on every average joes phone and computer...

im willing to hear a little clicking in the backround so that the gov can more easily weed out terrorists and criminals... but thats just me

[dzolcali]

how does it really effect you?
what do you have to hide?

its not like the government is going to listen to YOUR phone conversations, and if they did, what would they hear, "work sucked today... my jeep..." nonsense, they wouldnt care to hear what you or any normal person would have to say. its not like the government has a task force that listens in on every average joes phone and computer...

im willing to hear a little clicking in the backround so that the gov can more easily weed out terrorists and criminals... but thats just me

So your saying it's ok to give up your rights to privacy...because some terrorist attacked us...your basically saying "i've got nothing to hide no worries" So I guess since I've seen naked women before you wouldn't mind me seeing your wife naked if she sent you an e-mail of her and your last name just happened to be hijibaba or something right...

I guess the terrorist have won, they hate us for our freedom so they attack us, and look what they accomplished out of it, little by little our freedom gets pieced away in the name of avoiding "terrorism"
red alert, yellow flag, orange alert...you don't see a green terrorist alert on there, and we haven't been bombed since 911 so wouldn't you say terrorist levels have been in the green?

And they are from what I know of storing all these calls in a huge database, one of the largest ever made...and it's not just your average foreign targets it's everyones calls. Think about the potentials of future use against you.

[rocklandxjer]

o believe me, i am not for it, but in times like these, I could care less. my name isnt tajibibabala-maham... i understand that its infringing on rights of privacy, im just saying...

anyway, im sure there are people, especially in government who have been doing this same thing for decades. no doubt about it. the only thing this law has done has been to make it so that charges can be brought up in court as viable evidence, without enough probable cause for a search warrent.

you cant seriously believe that with the passage of this law came the first time the government ever secretly and illegally tapped someones fone or email or whatever to get info... thats just silly

edit:

and i do not deny the possibility of a "huge database" but i definately question its viability... the gov. would have nothing to gain from recording every phone message ever sent... maybe phone records for selected individuals, but every call... thats trillions of calls every year..

[Hellbent]

:roflmao:

[Beej]

I guess the terrorist have won, they hate us for our freedom so they attack us... No, its because of American foreign policy. Until that changes, the onslaught will likely continue...
And they are from what I know of storing all these calls in a huge database, one of the largest ever made...and it's not just your average foreign targets it's everyones calls. Think about the potentials of future use against you.Okay, think carefully about this one. Don't think of possibility, as literally anything's possible. Instead, just for fun, think of this idea in terms of probability. How probable is it that is happening. Who would man it? Who would determine how to tap or record or isolate the calls or interpret the data or decide targets or how to hide this practice, how to store the data, how to categorize in meaningfully so that it could be called back later to use against someone, etcetera. Now do you see how unwieldy, unlikely, improbable and impossible the entire concept is?

[rocklandxjer]

but beej....

they are "from what he knows" doing it....

[Hellbent]

well...then that means "they" aren't actually doing anything, right? :laugh2: this is soooo much fun that i ponied up, and am now "red".

[dzolcali]

let me google it and see what i come up with, but i seriously think I remember reading an article about it and it was linked to the patriot act. Now positive but let me check on it before someone qoutes me and calls me out about it.

[dzolcali]

Oh looky there ten seconds

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

oh what come on can't I get a "kudos dzol you were right again"

no challengers tonite? lets go seriously LOL nah i'm just playing but for real someone come out and say "hey dzol your not completely full of shit" cause I would appreciate that much :)

peace

[8Mud]

As a former governement employee, I always assumed my e-mails where being monitored, phones periodically monitored and probably at one time or another, my life has been scrutinized rather closely. On occasion I'm sure they have crawled up my rear with a microscope.
I always had to chuckle when my computer was hacked, I've no doubt the hacker opened himself up to some serious scrutinay.
I've also noticed, those appointed above me, mention things in passing conversation that I'm certain came from monitoring. On numerous occasions. I'm not nearly as dumb as they think I am.
Most people have some sort of blairing personality flaw or phoible. Even those with security clearances.
Do you really think, anybody actually cares about 99.9% of your mundane life?

[dzolcali]

nah not really but even still I like to think that my thoughts and ideas are secret when i'm on the phone. For instance what if I had a crazy plausible idea that I wanted to share with a friend and then they tapped in and stole it and patent it before I could. Things like that...who cares if they care about my life...obviously they do if they are going to tap that many peoples lives...it's invasion of privacy no matter how "big" or "little" a person is on the importance totem pole, it's unconstitutional and if you allow it to happen then you are not american at heart in my opinion.

Mud I respect your opinion probably the most out of all posters I have read in here..just to let you know you drop some serious sh!t when you post and I enjoy reading it.

peace

[8Mud]

I think it would be irresponsible for them not to monitor. If just 1 percent of the population are certifiable, that is like 3 million nut jobs running around the US alone. Trying to monitor foriegn nut jobs, just makes sense to me.
What I do think, is that the watchers should be subject to at least the same (if not more) scrutinay than the average person. I think two classes, the watchers and the watched is just another class distinction that we don't need, too many already.
I have no problem with it at all, as long as it is equitable, which is unlikely.
Monitoring has been going on for a long time (through many administrations), for decades and it becomes a topic periodically. Not a knew revelation.

[goodburbon]

Drizzle

The second paragraph of your proof of a giant recording database clearly states

"This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews."

[dzolcali]

but they can if they want to...isn't that the point? Even still...i wasn't just making up that idea, there really is a huge database recording calls..maybe or maybe not conversations, but phone calls none the less. From what I know again...the phone companies are starting to advertise call secracy type incentives when signing up saying that they are against people using or paying for your call records(since that's legal to do evidently) a lot of people are starting to come out about that saying it's invasion of privacy as well, it's not just the government doing this but it's sad that they would especially where it states in the first paragraph..10's of millions of everyday households who aren't suspects. That means your tax paying money is going into investigating millions of people not at fault for anything.

[DaffyXJ]

Preamble: We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us and our posterity, do, for the more certain security thereof and for the better government of this State, ordain and establish this Constitution.


call me silly but I think it's not mystery who "god almighty" is...and if i don't believe in god, then why must I abide by the silly legislation these god lovers have proposed and passed in gods favor?

No you don't. You can move.

[Timber]

What's more shocking than most of this stuff being discussed is that JFK signed into law many executive orders that give the president the power to do just about anything he wants. When the Bush White House said it would continue its phone tapping because it was within the president's rights, they were right (unfortunately). The president could take it even further and tape anyone's conversations he wants.

[dzolcali]

daffy...that has already been addressed...it's not that I "can move" it's that lets say I go around shooting people with my possy of killers and you don't like it, should you have to deal with it if you want to stay in the state, or should you have to move...neither, it should cease to exist thats my point.

Timber some judge has already declared the phone tapping unconstitutional but they appealed it so they are allowed to do it for a couple more months until the case gets resolved, hopefully their appeal won't get granted, it doesn't appear there were any errors of law in the case.

[8Mud]

but they can if they want to...isn't that the point? Even still...i wasn't just making up that idea, there really is a huge database recording calls..maybe or maybe not conversations, but phone calls none the less. From what I know again...the phone companies are starting to advertise call secracy type incentives when signing up saying that they are against people using or paying for your call records(since that's legal to do evidently) a lot of people are starting to come out about that saying it's invasion of privacy as well, it's not just the government doing this but it's sad that they would especially where it states in the first paragraph..10's of millions of everyday households who aren't suspects. That means your tax paying money is going into investigating millions of people not at fault for anything.





Seperating the chaff from the wheat is the name of the game, right along with trying to prevent attacks, instead of just reacting to them.
If you can figure out a way to do this, without infringing on anybodies privacy, be sure and let the NSA know your solution, Im sure they would be interested.
It's typical for somebody to blame the current administration for failing to protect the public and at the same time for the public to demand privacy, due process, Habious Corpus and other civil rights not be abridged. I don't really think the legislated restricitons, make it plausible or even possible to prevent and protect seriously. When theory and practicality clash, I generally come down on the side of practicality and try to fine tune the process at a later date and placate the handwringers.
People often have a tendancy to underestimate the enemy, I assume they are at least as bright as we are and will likely have a solution to most any problem or find a way around most obsticals. Keeping the rules static (at least on our side), seems like a sure way to be outmanuvered to me.
I do think the privacy legislation should be directed at private concerns and relaxed as far as governement is concerned. Private information gatherers are much more likely IMO to have agendas, the current governement can always be voted out, if they are a bit too succesfull in there info mining operations. Where the private sector would be monitarily rewarded, most likely, for there excesses.
The potential for excess is there for both government and the private sector. I worry less about government excesses than I do aobut private sector excesses, because the governement is often much less efficient than the private sector.:roll:

[Timber]

Timber some judge has already declared the phone tapping unconstitutional but they appealed it so they are allowed to do it for a couple more months until the case gets resolved, hopefully their appeal won't get granted, it doesn't appear there were any errors of law in the case.
I'm aware of that. Evidently, however, the judge was unaware of certain executive orders that the president can put into effect simply by signing his name. She (the ruling judge) has been proverbially spanked by law pundits because of her drawn-out, illogically sequenced 44 page memorandum. The interesting part of it (to me) is that, IIRC, Judge Posner was basing her ruling partly on the precedent in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. This means that, "The Supreme Court ruled that congress cannot give the president power to create laws, so it would follow that an executive order in restraint of a law, not enforcing, would be beyond the president's power." The only problem with that is that the executive order in question was created by another president over 40 years ago and remained unchallenged until now.

[rocklandxjer]

daffy...that has already been addressed...it's not that I "can move" it's that lets say I go around shooting people with my possy of killers and you don't like it, should you have to deal with it if you want to stay in the state, or should you have to move...neither, it should cease to exist thats my point.

killing people is against the law, and you would be captured and dealt with accordingly.

the patriot act, then, and for the time being, IS LEGAL.

yet another moot point... sorry

[dzolcali]

rock...i'm not high, I don't understand you..what are you talking about?

[TRNDRVR]

Have you heard that ACME is coming out with a new design of rocket powered roller skates? :dunno:

[goodburbon]

This is the kind of unproductive thing we don't need around here dan

[TRNDRVR]

This is the kind of unproductive thing we don't need around here danThey're supposed to have little tiny parachutes on them so when you inadvertently fly of a 1000' cliff you're protected. :thumbup:

[goodburbon]

They're supposed to have little tiny parachutes on them so when you inadvertently fly of a 1000' cliff you're protected. :thumbup:

:eeks1:

[Beej]

This is the kind of unproductive thing we don't need around here dan :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

http://www.forumspile.com/LOL-Bee.jpg

[dzolcali]

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

http://www.forumspile.com/LOL-Bee.jpg

theres no laughing matter about dead bugs...

[Beej]

I'm not sure what that collection of words is supposed to represent, but it doesn't appear to be a sentence...


:D

[TRNDRVR]

Personally I think it should be a mandated industry standard on all rocket powered roller skates. :idea:

[in2fords]

sorry to bring this back to topic
who knows, the answers won't be uncovered in this thread thats for sure.
but what i do know is religion is religion and government is government and if you think someone is stupid for changing from "old" or "traditional" ways then you will always be limited by that factor. Think about fiber optics, they allow us to send signals other than 1's and 0's to communicate and essentially unlock possiblities of infinate proportions...but the traditional way is binary 1's and 0's...so I guess by your logic it's ok to just be how we are and never actually step up to the plate and do something better with our minds and technology. Same applies to the preamble from my original post, once you discover your being a hypocrite or something isn't lining up right..FIX it don't continue to promote ignorance.
any who.
how can you compare technology to a few words on paper? does the word GOD offend you? so we should get rid of it completly? if your name is highly offensive to me can I make you change it? as long as we all know there is no legal ground on the refernce to religion on paper work what is the big problem?

like I said, I dont even believe in god, but I am thoughtfull enough to not force change that is unnesesary. you are trying to get the books changed because they are forcing religion on you, but by doing this you are forcing your believes on them. now if there is a law that says you must pray, or you must do something religous then I would have a problem. if all it is, is a refernce I have no problem, just translate it to mean that you have to act as an honorable person in the courtroom.

[Wolfe]

sorry to bring this back to topic


there was a topic?

[dzolcali]

sorry to bring this back to topic

how can you compare technology to a few words on paper? does the word GOD offend you? so we should get rid of it completly? if your name is highly offensive to me can I make you change it? as long as we all know there is no legal ground on the refernce to religion on paper work what is the big problem?

like I said, I dont even believe in god, but I am thoughtfull enough to not force change that is unnesesary. you are trying to get the books changed because they are forcing religion on you, but by doing this you are forcing your believes on them. now if there is a law that says you must pray, or you must do something religous then I would have a problem. if all it is, is a refernce I have no problem, just translate it to mean that you have to act as an honorable person in the courtroom.

you know what man, i'm not really offended bya nything, I don't even care honestly it's just something to talk about. I do think it's funny that people can get into debates about things like this...god and notta god who cares? ignorant people care about whether theres a god or not a god thats who cares. just forget the whole topic I quit man it's not even worth my time.

[Lawn Cher']

but for the other stuff, I believe correct me if this is wrong, but in a nutshell the puritans founded the 13 colonies, who each had their own seperate governments all to get away from the crown rule in England. However more over the founding fathers of "America" the land were actually from South America on up, christopher columbus was much later on the scene than many of the spanish inquisitioners, and the spanish inquisition well..they plundered and raped and murdered tons of the indiginous populations of south america before migrating upwards into the US formerly native american soil.

Conquistadors, numbnuts. Ponce de Leon, et al. He discovered the fountain of stupid, remember? Aren't you the only surviving member of that expedition?

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

[rocklandxjer]

hah hah i didnt even catch that...
thats brilliant. the spanish inquisitioners LMAO

[dzolcali]

my bad...well at least I was right on some essence even though the wording was wrong. Lawn why you gotta hate on me so much :(

[Lawn Cher']

my bad...well at least I was right on some essence even though the wording was wrong. Lawn why you gotta hate on me so much :(

I don't hate you, I correct everyone equally.:kissyou:

[Root Moose]

I don't hate you, I correct everyone equally.:kissyou:

LOL