I remember many years back on PBS someone had a documentary about a theory of how the red sea was parted. The area that Moses and the Jews were thought to have crossed at is actually very shallow. (easily verified by a geology study) Compbined with very high winds and a drought, portions of the sea actually move away for a length large enough (and shallow enough) for people and gear to move across it.

The scientists tested their theory in a lab using models and wind tunnels. It worked for the demonstrations and they had enough real scientific base to think that it was possible to actually have the red sea parted.

Its possible that God sent the winds and the drought and opened up the sea just enough for the jews and Moses to cross. Then shutting it down just in time to stop the pursuing army.

Basically we don't know.

No political party should be known as any type of "thought police". They should make their values and intentions known and let the people elect those they choose to represent them.

The problem today is an out of control federal judiciary and basically an out of control federal government. The Constitution is being abused like never before to do nothing but advance liberal, secular humanist and aetheistic agendas. It is up to Congress to reign the judiciary in. That is where Republicans can be helpful because Democrats support all these things.

Republicans can also help by reigning in Congress itself by putting a stop to the increasing amount of socialism creeping into American's lives. The more socialism introduced into any government, the lazier, selfish and more uncaring the populace becomes. Why should they care when "the state" will do everything for them. Europe is a perfect example of this mentality.

Will the Republicans step up to the plate? I seriously doubt that anymore. It is time for a new national party that is anti-socialist and interprets the Constitution literally. No more "living, breathing document" bullshit.

The people themselves are also a huge part of the problem. People get the type of government they deserve. Our population is becoming increasingly dumber and unaware of issues and concepts that affect their lives. There is a tendency towards laziness and lack of individual responsibility. The state has started to encourage this in an ever increasing grab for power. The worse the people... the bigger the government. The bigger the government... the worse the people. A vicious cycle.

There is a bright spot in the future however. Increasing numbers of young people are rejecting the liberalism of their parents. There are many more conservative high school and college kids than you would think. Things can change....

That was actually well put. Good job. I give you an "A" and a smile face for today's efforts.

When discussing the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, consider the second paragraph of The Declaration of Independence, which states, in part, “WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness…”

If our Creator does not give us these unalienable rights, then who does? “Well the government does” is the answer from the absolute “separation of church and state” crowd.

Well if the government gives them to us – then they can take those rights away. Those rights are specifically granted to us by a higher power so man cannot take them away. They are unalienable, look it up… incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred. You cannot surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and cannot under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individuals have unalienable rights.

Governments are there to secure these rights, NOT to grant or create them.

Creator does not necessarily mean the Christian God. Jefferson was, in fact, a deist. Deists DO believe in a creator. Some believe that everything was created, and then the "creator" no longer does anything. That is, we are left to our own devices.

From Deism.com: "Deism is, as stated above, based on nature and reason, not "revelation." All the other religions make claim to special divine revelation or they have requisite "holy" books. Deism has neither. In Deism there is no need for a preacher, priest or rabbi. All one needs in Deism is their own common sense and the creation to contemplate."

I never said religion or God was prohibited. What IS prohibited is any intertwining of them with government. Both ways.

Yes, the Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments, which technically, would make them part of the constitution.

Do you think it will ever happen though? Aside from different judges, the only way to reign them in is through amendments, and a lot of the stuff you'd like to have - it would be next to impossible (if not completely) to get the required number of states to ratify it.

This is not in response to any post directly. After reading this entire thread which has many of the SAME issues discussed in other threads here in The Asbestos Lined Room," I have become am sick and tired of every topic going in circles.

There are many appearances of phrases, scriptures, symbols and dipictions of persons all related to Judeo/Christian religions in many government buildings, documents and procedures.

Does each case deal with religious instances and inferences to Judeo/Christian values? YES

Are they also created, stated and displayed based on respect to their natural history? YES

Do they hurt anybody? NO

Do they offend anybody? YES, A VERY SMALL SELECT PERCENTAGE OF THIS COUNTRY. Although, bordering unconstitutional or factually unconstitutional, laws ARE and SHOULD NOT be made to make offended people FEEL better.

Let's focus on issues that really need attention in this country, not if a statue or phrase needs to be removed to make someone feel better.

God help this country, because we are destroying our once admirable society from within.

With our being beholden to NATO , the U.N , the WMF , the WTO , the increasing federalization of our government and it's dispersment of funds , the lack of power of the states , the strength of the I.R.S , corporate fraud , free spending lobyists , out of controll illegal immigration , the slow destruction of our natural resources , rediculously low test scores especially in math and science , violence in schools , contunously high murder rates , and half of all the countries children living in single parent homes I don't really think that the descision to have the ten commandments in a courtroom or the word "god" ommitted from an oath will be a major contributer to the demise of our empire.

Let's keep things in perspective.

>>shaking head<<

It's not about someone being offended. It's about what the government can and cannot do.

Much like the whole sodomy ordeal in Texas - that wasn't about gay rights, it was about privacy. The majority opinion said as much: "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's majority. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."

The problem is, people make it out to what it's not - in the case of the Alabama court, people are making it out that the people who say it should be removed are anti-christian. Obviously, some people are, but that's not what the issue is, and never has been. Nobody is saying you can't engage in Christian acts - you can do them wherever you want - even in a public building. You just can't have any government agency organizing it or endorsing it.

States used to be able to do what they want - the First Amendment only applies to the Federal Government. However, that changed with the 14th Amendment: “no state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law... .” It's not something new either, as far back as 1947 the court ruled on establishment as it pertains to states (Everson v. Board of Education). Part of that decision: "The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion... . Neither a state or the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" (See, there's that quote of Jefferson's again!)

The fact is, it doesn't matter about offending - everyone has the right to have equal participation in the government - and if the Ten Commandments were to stay, that knocks some people out - Atheists, Polytheists (sp?), etc.

The fact is, it doesn't matter about offending - everyone has the right to have equal participation in the government - and if the Ten Commandments were to stay, that knocks some people out - Atheists, Polytheists (sp?), etc

Forget the quotes, Moby, why is that these people are vastly weak minded leftist? Do you honestly think that having the Ten Commandments in that building excludes people, or gives Christians special rights under the law? No it doesn't.
Weak minded people, particularly from the left, will always find something to take away from the anything decent in society. That sculpting doesn't hurt anyone. It doesn't help anyone. Get over it and live your (lefties) life the best you can.
I am so sick and tired of lefties trying to get into my life and tell me how to live. Geez, I hate every thing they stand for.
This darn thing has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with lefties with nothing better to do in their lives since they all just walked out of the abortion clinic and have no more worries so they look around and see what they can scrounge up next.
I like you Moby. I respect you. But, take all your lefty friends and move to that hippie nation just north of us.

I saw that same documentary and it was interesting. If that is true (and it is possible), then it still leaves us with how god sent winds and drought.

Not true. Congress can pass a bill. Technically they could pass a bill about anything. It would only be a temporary measure until...you guessed it... some federal judge struck it down. A Constitutional Amendment would solve this problem. This Constitutional Amendment must clarify Article III Section I of the Constitution and the role of the judiciary.

You are wrong. I do not think it would be impossible to get it passed. It just takes courage and hard work on the part of some of our representatives. The majority of the American population is not happy with the federal judiciary. Once this became a big issue, many congressman would be scrambling to prove why they should or should not support it and that could be large issues in their re-election campaigns. As I said... it just takes courage on the part of those that introduce it (It certainly won't be my congressman. He is a coward). There would certainly be enough states to pass it. The problem lies in Congress.

It is up to the Legislature to create laws. There seems to have been some sort of perversion of the American government over the last 50 years where the judiciary makes decisions and these decisions become defacto law. This is wrong and our government was never set up to operate in this manner. The federal judiciary is out of control and no longer operates within their constitutional parameters. The Constitution has been thrown out the window by the federal judiciary and we are basically living in a new form of government. It has to end or revolution is right around the corner.

You like Jefferson.... Isn't a little revolution every 20 years or so a good thing? Our system is cracking. Americans are not Europeans. There is only so much abuse they will take. Maybe a big revolution is in order.

By the way... Jefferson is also one of the most abused of our founding fathers by the liberals of today.

Very, very true. I'll give you one guess which group of sycophant ideologues is doing the destruction.

Like I said, it doesn't offend me being there. But going by the law, it shouldn't be there.

Quote:

I am so sick and tired of lefties trying to get into my life and tell me how to live.

But how is removing something in a courthouse rotunda getting into your life? Has any of the court decisions regarding church/state affected you personally? You still have your faith, as strong as ever, right? It hasn't diminished it.

Quote:

Geez, I hate every thing they stand for.

There are things that both sides do that I could do without...for me it just happens that I have less inclination to agree with conservatives.

Quote:

This darn thing has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with lefties with nothing better to do in their lives since they all just walked out of the abortion clinic and have no more worries so they look around and see what they can scrounge up next.

I have never been closer than 20 feet to a clinic (and only that close because there's one in Falls Church right up against the road). Would I ever go into one? I don't know. I don't plan on getting into the situation where I need to worry about it. IF I ended up in that situation, I can't say what I would do.

[/qb][/quote]I like you Moby. I respect you. But, take all your lefty friends and move to that hippie nation just north of us.[/QB][/QUOTE]

All left, head north.

Nah....too damn cold in the winter.

A perfect example of an out of control federal judiciary.

Privacy is not addressed in the Constitution. Hence the 10th Amendment. This is an issue whose sole domain is the states. No federal court has any business addressing this issue and the case should never have reached a federal bench.

You are so damn wrong Moby. The Alabama 10 commandments issue is an Alabama problem. Not a federal problem. No federal court had any business addressing this issue.

Another fine example of our out of control federal judiciary.

Liberals love this shit when the federal bench makes up interpretations of the constitution to please them.

Madman, you are wrong on both counts - the Alabama case and the Texas case.

14th Amendment makes the First Amendment apply to states as well (until the 14th, it didn't).

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

And yes, the Court has ruled on that before. As early as the 1920s.

No you are wrong. I am well aware of what the 14th Amendment states. I have posted it here numerous times (when quoting an amendment...post the whole section).

It is the radical interpretation by the federal judiciary that is the problem. It only takes a new ruling to strike down previous interpretations of federal rulings.

The 14th Amendment is the most abused of all Amendments. The equal protection clause is the most abused of any text of the constitution. It has been used as a license for extreme liberalism. The interpretations are wrong and extremely broad. They totally blow the 10th Amendment out of the water. When a federal court takes a case similar to previous cases or rulings... that previous ruling is always in jeopardy.

The equal protection clause can also be interpreted to administer an opposite ruling. This is why a new Constitutional Amendment to reign in judicial tryanny is required.

But you would agree with them considering they suit your idealogy. If these rulings had gone the other way... you would be arguing against them.

Article III Section I must be redefined if this country is to ever move forward.... or survive.

Well, considering the 14th Amendment was determined to make the 1st Amendment applicable to the states in it's entirety since 1937 (Palko v. Connecticut), I'd say it sure has taken a long time for it to cause the downfall of the US.

Ironically, it was the Republicans who pushed this Amendment through.

But I must say...interesting journey that Amendment took to becoming law.

You do have a funny way of looking at American Constitutional law when it suits your agenda.

All Federal rulings.... including Supreme Court rulings are by nature not permanent. They are easily and frequently overruled by either higher or subsequent courts.

The first amendment was and is applicable to the states by virtue of the fact that it IS in the Constitution...Hence the 10th Amendment. All Amendments are applicable to the states. Remember one thing... The 14th Amendment was ratified under duress in 1868. Possibly because many at the time knew it would be abused because of it's loose wording.

The point of this conversation is a matter of the interpreation of the U.S. Constitution. How broadly and in what manner are we going to continue to allow the federal judiciary to make these interpretations? I believe we need a Constitutional Amendment to update Article III Section I because there is too many social values being brought to bear in federal cases. They are not adhering to and interpreting the Constitution which is their jobs and what they have sworn to do. This was also evident in another bad Supreme Court Case... Dredd Scott. I am sure even you would agree that was a bad decision. That decision was mostly based on social values at the time and "non-offense" of a certain portion of the population at the time. It was a bullshit interpretation and the court threw the Constitution out the window on that one.

Palko v. Connecticut was an issue based on a criminal case. You picked that case in a 14th Amendment argument?.... Not a great example of what we are talking about here because this case entered provisions guaranteed by the 5th Amendment. Not a good case for this discussion.

My concern is the total blowing off of the 10th Amendment by the federal courts to suit their needs and to placate modern social mores. (e.g. Lawrence vs Texas as one of many examples)

Anything not addressed in the Constitution is the domain of the states. This has been trampled upon relentlessly for many years. Mostly to advance liberalism.

Maybe another successionist movement might be in order to wake up the federal government. The states have no rights left anymore other than that of taxation because of an out of control federal judiciary and that is wrong.

What's also wrong is that most people don't even realize this....

Funny, that's what I call people that buy so heavily into religion in the first place...

Brent

Thanks Brent,

Ya beat me to it!

M

Jesse is that you??
[img]http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:dwtML8AvLDYC:www.metrocouncil.org/mnsmartgrowth[/img]

Kewl, I do think the same of you non-believers. The ones who can't accept anything as truth unless they can see it or hear it on CNN.