<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> . . . someone covering the State of Texas one foot high with silver dollars, and someone reaching in and pulling out the only one marked red, accurately<p><hr></blockquote><p>Pffft. I was born and raised here and I do that at least once a week. Just for fun, nothing to it.<br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br>
_________________________ I always deserve it. Really.
Well then after you pull the red one out, write a verse about it, back date it, and you too can be a goddess. Or if you don't want to back date it just write several verses about pulling out a blue one, a silver one, a green one, then whichever one you do pull out start proclaiming the matching verse as the voice of a prophetic goddess.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Absolutely right, for once. They are foolishness, and since "spirit" means alcohol, and I rarely drink, I'm rarely drunk and so discern nothing but the foolishness.<br><br>   
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
good, then you do rely on the U.S. Supreme Court.<br><br>(before i continue, please don't lump me i with that "verse x... verse y..." stuff, i have little thought about what they(?) might be referring to.)<br><br>now, what is it you see written in the First Amendment's Establishment clause (and the Fourteenth's Amendment applying same to States) that the U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Federal Courts have consistenly misinterpreted and decided wrong?<br><br>Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)<br><br>a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Pennsylvania's 1968 Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which allowed the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to reimburse nonpublic schools (most of which were Catholic) for teachers' salaries, textbooks and instructional materials, violated the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. The decision also upheld a decision of the First Circuit, which had struck down the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act providing state funds to supplement salaries at nonpublic elementary schools by 15%. As in Pennsylvania, most of these funds were spent on Catholic schools.<br><br>The act stipulated that "eligible teachers must teach only courses offered in the public schools, using only materials used in the public schools, and must agree not to teach courses in religion." Still, a three-judge panel found 25% of the State's elementary students attended nonpublic schools, about 95% of those attended Roman Catholic schools, and the sole beneficiaries under the act were 250 teachers at Roman Catholic schools.<br><br>The court found that the parochial school system was "an integral part of the religious mission of the Catholic Church," and held that the Act fostered "excessive entanglement" between government and religion, thus violating the Establishment Clause.<br>Held: Both statutes are unconstitutional under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, as the cumulative impact of the entire relationship arising under the statutes involves excessive entanglement between government and religion.<br><br><br>Lemon test:<br><br>The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:<br>• The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;<br>• The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;<br>• The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.<br><br>If any of these 3 prongs is violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.<br><br>tested (below are but a few, there are a number of books available decsribing this legal/litigation history):<br><br>Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (US 1987)<br><br>in Aguillard, however, it did note that alternative scientific theories could be taught:<br><br>"We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. . . . [T]eaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."<br><br>the Court found that, although the Louisiana legislature had stated that its purpose was to "protect academic freedom," that purpose was dubious because the Act gave Louisiana teachers no freedom they did not already possess and instead limited their ability to determine what scientific principles should be taught. Because it was unconvinced by the state's proffered secular purpose, the Court went on to find that the legislature had a "preeminent religious purpose in enacting this statute".<br><br>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)<br><br><br>next time take over the courts first. i know that you will try. however, if the voters in Dover are any indication... look out.<br>again, your arguments [will] fail miserably. <br><br><br>the idea and reality of god is based in faith, nothing more and nothing less.<br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue]ichi</font color=blue><br><br>[color:green]peace</font color=green><br><br>[color:red]in times of peace, the warlike man attacks himself.</font color=red>
Read the Bible - the Ark of the Covenant is in heaven.<br><br>Ich, doesn't really matter what "my arguments" are, and just because the recent (last 50 years or so) courts have become a crew of anti-American activists, proves nothing. Find me in the US Constitution, anywhere that says the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution. Interpret means to change into another language. I can read English just fine; nowhere does our founding documents give them the right to change our English constitution into Chinese. Once again, our Declaration of Independence (Read It!), which established this Republic, states emphatically, that any RIGHTS come from our Creator - not the government! Comprende? Also, activist Supreme Court decisions cannot negate the fact that there is NO SEPARATION clause in the US Consitution (READ IT - I DARE YA) . Remember that the founding fathers all came from Europe where people were killed for not supporting whatever the state religion was, and they did not want that in America. That was the sole meaning as indicated in the Federalist Papers (Read them). Amazing, how for the first 170 years in this country, God, the church, the Bible, nativity scenes, honoring Christmas holidays, went a long way in displaying to the world, that we honored our Christian heritage. But since these activist God-haters have been installed into the black-robed ball, things have gone steadily down the tubes. How about the Supreme Court Decision of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892 - "Our lawsand our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically CHRISTIAN." The words "separation of church and state" are not in the US Constitution nor were they ever in any deliberations on framing the First Amendment. As late as 1952, the Supreme Court was still declaring it unconstitutional to remove Christianity from the public schools and public affairs. Since you mentioned Napolean, here's an often overlooked statement of his: "The Bible is not merely a book, it's a living power that surpasses all others. I never omit to read it, and every day with the same pleasure." Here's Patrick Henry, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ." How about a couple of guys from your camp: Aldous Huxley, "The reason we accepted Darwinism, even without proof, is because we didn't want God to interfere with our sexual mores." Or this from Dr T. N. Tahmisian, physiologist with the US Atomic Energy Commission: "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact, are great con men, and the story they are telling, may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." And last but not least by any means, Sir Isaac Newton, called the greatest scientist of all time - "I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever." On December 27, 1982, the liberal Newsweek magazine had this little ditty - "For centuries the Bible has exerted unrivaled influence on American culture, politics, and social life; now historians are discovering that the Bible, perhaps even more than the Constitution, is our founding document...." "....Bible study was the core of public education and nearly every literate family not only owned a Bible but read it regularly and reverently. Because of this Biblical influence, the United States seemed to Europeans, to be one vast public congregation - a nation with the soul of a church."<br><br>So, thanks for your keen insight, Ich - you're correct, only thru faith can one know GOD. That's the way HE intended it!<br>The proof of the puddin' is in the eatin'. <br><br>I've joined the RON PAUL REVOLUTION - www.ronpaul2008.com
"The value of the partisan is not in the amount of men and equipment he destroys, but in how many he keeps watching." COL John S. Mosby, CSA
our Declaration of Independence (Read It!), which established this Republic, states emphatically, that any RIGHTS come from our Creator<br><br>and who is our creator? or do you now need to start interperting?<br><br>examine your heart. you appear to be full of hatred, proud of that hate to the point of boasting about it.<br><br>Also, activist Supreme Court decisions cannot negate the fact that there is NO SEPARATION clause in the US Consitution (READ IT - I DARE YA) <br><br>wow. i'm one of this ppl who has pocket consitution, i read it almost every day, i research it a lot. the SEPARATION you seek us in Artcile Three... read on, i'll get to it. but, i will not provide you with a complete education on it, you're an adult you should know how to seek that for yourself. <br><br>if our forefathers wanted to establish a theocracy they would have tried and failed (as you will), but they had no such intentions (as you do) --they were escaping kings who meddled in the affairs of free-thinking men and women. <br><br>we are nation of laws --wherever they come from.<br><br> Find me in the US Constitution, anywhere that says the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution. Interpret means to change into another language. I can read English just fine; nowhere does our founding documents give them the right to change our English constitution into Chinese.<br><br>chinese, huh? no need to show your lack of education in such a manner.<br><br>apparently you cannot comprehend English (i suggest a good dictionary and a theasurus, perhaps even try your mac's built-in one), i.e., interpret means to explain the meaning of informnation, words, or actions.<br><br>in our system, well, read what was said in the dissent in Edwards v. Aguillard 482 U.S. 578:<br>Scalia and Rehnquist criticized the first prong of the Lemon test (see my other post [which may be in that other related thread, not it's not it's here]), noting that "to look for the sole purpose of even a single legislator is probably to look for something that does not exist.".<br><br>facsinating, isn't it? this thing judicial interpretation.<br>ust because the recent (last 50 years or so) courts have become a crew of anti-American activists, proves nothing.<br><br>aguian i guess these legisltors wh0 passedmin unanimously, during Jeffserson's presidency who signed it, the newspapers owners and editors and writers publicized it and all the americans who in read them, well, where they when <a href="http://www.macminute.com/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=politics&Number=342738&page=0&view=expanded&sb=5&o=7&vc=1#Post342738">this</a> happened, just 10 years later in 1796, to their theocracy?<br><br>we have a judicial branch goverment to interpret and rule on the letter and the intent of our laws. <br><br>explicitly, i suggest you study Article Three of the United States Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789 (the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the United States Constitution in 1788).<br><br>the three founding documents, first the Declaration of Indepedence, lay the ground work for these things occur. i.e, the Declaration of Independence lays the ground work for the Constitution, for the revolt would be have meaningless without the next step: a Constitution (not a king), soon after a Bill of Rights was included to protect the individual's basic human rights, what they termed as inalienable Rights, without which the Constitution and the new nation would not survive. as the supporters had promised opponents during the debates of 1788 the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in 1791. other such basic human rights bills were influencial: the English Bill of Rights (1689) was an inspiration for the American Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Declaration of Rights were incorporated into the U.S. Bill of Rights). <br><br><br>again, i refer you to the First Amendment: the Bill of Rights restricts Congress' power by prohibiting it from making any law respecting establishment of religion and by prohibiting the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. what is that process, can you describe it?<br><br>our Consiutution is a living, breathing, document of freedom, not enslavement.<br><br>i suggest you study all of the above matters very carefully because simply declaring that certain "words" are not present is quite sophomoric. it's downright ignorant. furthermore, it is unamerican to misrepresent american ideals embodied by those important documents. <br><br><br><br>google, yahoo, wikipedia, public libraries, et al, are your friends not your enemies. you must study everything not just whjat makes your case "sound better" but all that makes it better and honest on your part (note: honesty does not equal righteousness).<br><br><br>[color:blue]ichi</font color=blue><br><br>[color:green]peace</font color=green><br><br>[color:red]in times of peace, the warlike man attacks himself.</font color=red>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.