The Ten Commandments,your thoughts... [Archive]

FallenAngel

02-03-2004, 02:54 PM

I agree Deuce.

F*cking liberals don't like to reminded that a lot of what they want is considered immoral by many in this country (abortion, gay marriages, etc.)

Course, this all stems from the misinterpitation of the seperation between church and state in the constituion. All that meant was that clergy could not hold political office and the government could not interfere or control religious practices. As an act of tolerance, this rule of non-interferance was extended to all religions. However, liberals think this means that the government should not promote anything even resembling religiously based morals, even though something like 85% of people in the US are "religious".

This country was founded by Christians, and they established laws upon a Judeo-Christian moral stance and the government openly grants the existance of God- specifically the Judeo-Christian perception of God. I think that the government SHOULD continue to support this Judeo-Christian tradition, yet should remain tolerant of individuals who choose to have a different faith. Vice versa, those with different faiths should reconize and accept that this country if primarily Judeo-Christian in orientation- ditto for liberals.

If anyone doesn't like it that way. Feel free to move to North Korea where religion is outlawed.

NcDeuce

02-03-2004, 02:55 PM

BTW, some interesting military figures have had a stern approach to religion. Read my quote by Stonewall. Read up on General Boykin. ;)

cut

02-03-2004, 02:59 PM

Haiw

02-03-2004, 02:59 PM

If anyone could post 'em...?

(too lazy to go looking for them myself, and you can't expect an atheïst to know them :P)

cut

02-03-2004, 03:00 PM

oh no! he's coming back! hide!

Seoulstriker

02-03-2004, 03:08 PM

what does HOH stand for?

water!!! rofl

get it? H2O? rofl

FallenAngel

02-03-2004, 03:13 PM

I think we should put up muslim teachings on walls

Would this be the Palestinian variety? Ya know....kill all Zionists and their supporters?

Or perhaps the Iranian version? The USA is the great satan?

Or how about something more general? Kill an infidel and get 70-something virgins?

...I'm just joking, but you can see the potential for problems.

Besides, this isn't a majority muslim country. If you wanted to post the Five Pillars in a predominately muslim country- I am all for it. But the USA is a primarily Christian country, ergo it would follow that any religious endorsement would be in that tradition.

It's all based upon our type of government. Submit the the majority while still respecting/tolerating the minority.

Royal

02-03-2004, 03:25 PM

cut

02-03-2004, 03:26 PM

Who said I was talking about the states? you ego maniacs ;)

NcDeuce

02-03-2004, 03:29 PM

I think the Ten Commandments should be placed in all schools and government buildings. But that's just my opinion.

Why do people get mad when something on the wall says "Don't murder", "Don't lie", or "Don't steal"? I don't get it.

Teaching good morals oddly pisses off a bunch of people. :|

I think that the actual wording is "Thou shalt not kill", which kinda f**ks with the profession you seem to be choosing...

I know the actual wording. If you didn't notice, the other two were not the actual commandments either. :cantbeli:

The Hebrew word "ratsach" is translated as "kill" in the King James Version, Revised Standard Version, American Standard Version, and some other translations of the Bible. However, it is difficult to apply this in practice. Killing chickens and beef cattle is legal now as it was in biblical times. Nobody today is concerned about pulling vegetables from the garden, even though it kills them. The word "ratsach" is commonly believed to describe the premeditated killing of a human. It requires that the victim be a human being. Many translations translate "ratsach" as "murder" in this verse.

Trigger

02-03-2004, 03:56 PM

Royal wrote:

I think that the actual wording is "Thou shalt not kill", which kinda f**ks with the profession you seem to be choosing...
Actually I believe the correct translation is 'Thou shalt not Murder' which would make an obvious difference.
I could be wrong about the translation though. Maybe fisheyestudio can help us out. ;)

AFACadet

02-03-2004, 04:09 PM

The original Hebrew and Greek translates more correctly to "Murder."

"Kill" is the simplistic but more incorrect translation.

Salty Dog

02-03-2004, 04:12 PM

take em out of courts and schools! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! free mumia! i'm so confused..... :oops:

Royal

02-03-2004, 04:16 PM

So every premeditated killing is murder?

A jet jockey who bombs an enemy AFV has every chance not to, it is no threat to him.

A sniper who kills an enemy commander (or other HVT) has every chance not to...

A tank gunner who destroys an enemy dug out...

AFACadet

02-03-2004, 04:24 PM

This is what Murder means:

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

War comprises of the sactioned and lawful killing of other military and civilian members within the terms of international law.

War for reference is:

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

The key difference between murder and killing is the unlawful aspect.

Trigger

02-03-2004, 04:26 PM

Argyll

02-03-2004, 04:45 PM

What does Sanctioned mean?

Royal

02-03-2004, 05:25 PM

War for reference is:

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

The key difference between murder and killing is the unlawful aspect.

If I remember rightly, the last time the UK (or for that matter the US) was at a state of war was August 1945.

California Joe

02-03-2004, 05:27 PM

It means they put out a hit on you. Like the Eiger Sanction. Jeez Argyll. ;)

AFACadet

02-03-2004, 06:41 PM

What does Sanctioned mean?

To give official authorization or approval to

Authoritative permission or approval that makes a course of action valid.

hank

02-03-2004, 08:55 PM

Whoa - hold up Fallenangel. Were to begin.

First, what is your basis for the idea the founder only meant to say that clergy could not hold office? I must say I have never heard that before. The establishment clause in the First Amendment to the US constitution provides:

"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"

What part of that deals with clergy in elected positions? nothing - in fact if clergy could get freely elected there is nothing in the Constitution that would even begin to prohibit that. Really, the idea that there is a separation of church and state is the misconception. Read the first amendment I posted - all it says is that the gov can't establish a religion - it does not say the gov can't participate.

Second, the country was founded by Christians - mostly protestants who were is some way motivated to get away from the Chruch of England and the Catholic Church. That is beyond dispute. They did, however, think to include the first amendment. Why do you think they did that? Well, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that they put it in b/c they did not want Americans of later generations to suffer the same fate. That is a reasonable position.

Third, what the hell makes you think that only "f**king liberals" believe that the 10 comandments shouldn't be in courthouses. I have voted for more Republican presidents than you have I bet and I don't want the ten commandments in my courthouse.

Fourth, if you don't like what I have posted then you can go to North Korea. Where the hell does this come from?

What do you mean about a tolerance extended to all religions? I have no idea what you are talking about - but there is no mention of Jesus or Christianity in the Constitution anywhere. Clarify this if possible.

I also think cut's idea is good. More importantly so does the Supreme Court. If you allow the ten commandments under what rationale would you exclude the torah or the koran or buddhist sayings, etc. The fact is that if you allow some, then you really must allow all. That is the problem with not ver well thought out positions like this. Our constitution demands that our government not establish a religion. And if our government puts up the ten commandments then they are sure on their way.

Another intersting point that never gets brought up. My position is supported by the constitution and the Supreme Court. If you disagree then you should try to amend the Constitution to include something about Christianity and the ten commandments. You have that right, assuming you can get enough Senators, Congressmen, and State Legislators. See how it works? Instead of telling people to leave why don't you learn the rules of the game? It drives me crazy when people who have no idea what the constitution even says try to 'interpret' it without reading the damned provision they interpret.

Why are you so afraind of different opinions that you say "go to North Korea?" Instead of that kind of nonsense, why not read the damned constitution first. If you want or need a copy I can email one to you.

Now - on another note. AFACadet - that is good. Read the definition of a term before you attack its meaning. That definition, however, is only one defition of murder. The definition of murder is depends on where you live. Also, your reliance on the legality (i.e sanctioning) of killing in war (or even just conflict) is greatly dependent on the law that ultimately gets applied, don't you think? For example, you are a pilot and you bomb a village and kill a bunch of enemy soldiers and also some civilians. If the US wins the war you have killed the enemy legally just as you describe and nothing happens to you by way of being charged wit hmurder. But, if you get shot down and captured, then what? Is it legal or murder or killing or whatever then? What if the US ended up losing the war and your captors decided that killing civilians = murder? Are you a murderer then. Maybe, maybe not. The point is that murder, kill, and all that kind of stuff is not black and white and is always dependent on perspective.

hank

James

02-03-2004, 09:21 PM

I disagree with the display of the ten commandments or any other religious references in a publicly owned place.

That said, I consider myself a Christian, albeit a very unconventional one.

Roger Rabbit

02-03-2004, 09:25 PM

Decism(if i spelt it right) is the belif in God but not religion. Sounds like something worth believing in.

FallenAngel

02-04-2004, 01:16 AM

Decism(if i spelt it right) is the belif in God but not religion. Sounds like something worth believing in.

I believe Agnostic is a similar term.

Hank,

Despite your observation, I have read the constitution (and the declaration of independence which, if you ask me, is plagarized from good ol' John Locke, but that's neither here nor there.) And, as you said, interpitations will vary. I am preparing for law school, so it's in my best interest I would think to read the damn thing every so often. ;)

When the Anglican Church broke away from the Catholic Church, the King became the head of the Anglican Church. Ergo, all clergy became agents under a politician and had to follow orders which gave the King a pretty good tool, especially considering clergy were usually held in high regard in most towns. In THAT way they were politicians as they were sometimes the instrument the King would use instead of the classical perception of politicans. Of course, there's exceptions (the rev. al sharpton) who use their clergy title more for a voter-magnet than anything else. Thus, it is not unreasonable for the founding fathers to want to limit the dependency, if you will, of the church upon the government if you will.

The first amendment keeps the US from ESTABLISHING a church (like the church of england) but the government is free to endorse and "favor" a religion over another. We already do. Notice on your money it states "In God We Trust". It does not say 'Allah', 'Budda', Yaweh', etc. As for the ten commandmants being in the court room, they already are. Take a closer look at that book they make you swear on before giving testimony in court. You should see the word "Bible" clearly printed on the front. The fact that many of Laws we have in this country can be traced back to the Magna Carta among others, shows that Christianity has been a constant influence upon this country. As such, there are things that liberals generally advocate that goes against this influence (gay marriages and abortion to name a few) and so logically, they would be the ones with the biggest argument against this influence. It's a shame the Supreme Court overstepped their bounds in '73, setting a precedence on abortion only they can overrule. The SC is not allowed to make laws, only review ones already enacted by the congress. Since there was no law on the books either way on abortion....the SC should have refused to hear the case. Course...that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

Granted, the 10 Commandment probably are not suited to an elmentary school where children are very impressionable. But in high schools most kids have already formed their religious identity to the point where a piece of paper on the wall wouldn't be a terrible problem. Same with a court room. No one is forcing you to believe them, agree with them, or even to read them for God's sake. You're a big boy....if you don't want to read it, then don't. Yet it is a way to express the beliefs and values of the majority of the populace, while respecting the right of the minority to believe in something else if they wish yet not cater to them as they ARE the minority. That is the whole premise of our government that took a long time to iron out (see The Federalist Papers).

fred_engles

02-04-2004, 01:24 AM

Keep government out of religion, and religion out of government.

James

02-04-2004, 02:19 AM

Decism(if i spelt it right) is the belif in God but not religion. Sounds like something worth believing in.

Deism? From the dictionary -

a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe.

I don't know enough to say if God was involved in the big bang.

Tane! TANE! Where are you?

StarvingStudent47

02-04-2004, 02:26 AM

1) If we're going to post the Ten Commandments, which version should we post? The text of the Bible does not clearly deliniate one Commandment from the next. As such, Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism all have DIFFERENT versions of the Ten Commandments. Similar, but not the same. So are we going to post the Protestant version? The Catholic version? The Jewish version? Click here to see the three different versions. (http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/tencommandments.html)

For reference, there's even bigger differences than that link shows. Which translation of the Bible do we use when we post the Commandments? The King James Bible's translation? The Catholic Study Bible's translation? The New International Version Bible's translation? The Jewish Publication Society's translation? Those translations vary A LOT from one to the other, and not just in the numbering. Even here we can't agree on whether it says "do not kill" or "do not murder." What are we going to post as "The Ten Commandments" if we can't even agree on what those Commandments ARE?

Let's say I become president and I decide to post the Jewish version in every public building and public school. What do you think if every public school in the nation now has the Jewish Ten Commandments? Think any Catholics or Protestants might have a problem with that?

2) People who object to the Ten Commandments do NOT object to Commandment 6, "do not murder" and the like. To quote Boondock Saints, "Do not kill, do not rape, to not steal. These are principles, which every man of every faith can embrace." (of course, "do not rape" is not in the Ten Commandments.) No one quibbles about those points. The MAIN objection actually surrounds Commandments 1-3 or 1-4 (the exact numbers depend on the version (http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/tencommandments.html) you're using)

I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

You shall have no other gods before me.

You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments.

You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.

Six days you shall labor and do all your work,

but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates.

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

These are NOT codes of ethics. These are NOT principles shared by people of all beliefs. These are RELIGIOUS TENETS. These are MECHANISMS OF RELIGIOUS PRACTICE. They are not common moral principles. Hindus and Buddhists and Sikhs and Native Americans cannot follow the first half of the Ten Commandments without violating their own religion.

All moral people agree that you should honor your father and mother, that you should not murder, that you should not commit adultery, et cetera. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT HALF OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE ABOUT.

Argyll

02-04-2004, 03:52 AM

AFA_Cadet

I was being sarcastic!! ;)

Royal already picked up on what I was getting at!

hank

02-04-2004, 07:45 AM

Fallenangel - this is more of the same rationalization that the religious right point out without any support IN the constitution.

You say that a motivation to keep clergy out of office = part of hte establishment clause. WHERE does that come from. Not one mention of that in the constitution. The word clergy is not used once. That is something you read from somebody who does not know. Read teh constitution again and see that only in the first amendment is religion even mentioned.

As far as in god we trust goes - it does nothing to establish religion b/c each reader is free to interpret god as they choose. That is the only reason that phrase is still allowed.

Have you ever been in court or just seen it on TV? I go often (to both federal and state courts) and very RARELY is there a bible. In fact the federal rules of evidence, as interprted by the SC and the rest of the federal courts, do not require you to swear on a bible, although I admit it does happen. The only oath requirement is that you promise to tell the truth and acknowledge the consequences. If that were not hte case, how could a Jew or a Muslim or an Atheist ever take an oath. Do you think an Aethesit really cares what book he puts his hand on?

Magna Carta - where is the connection. Point to the part of our constitution that is like the magna carta. Lawmakers are always influenced by everything that came before, but to say taht Christianity is embedded in the con b/c of hte MC is just not true. Again, point to the part of the US con and we'll talk.

In your last paragraph you say taht the majority likes it so it is OK. Think about this. Mexican immigrants are increasing and people with Mexican backgrounds have become the largest minority in America. Right? That has been in the news and if not true now it is likley in the near future. Most of those people are catholic. I am a practicing catholic also. Well, we believe that whe we take communion that a miracle takes place and that we actually consume teh body and blood of Christ. I believe that happens to me every Sunday when I go to church. A lot of my protestant friends kid me and jokingly call me a cannibal. But some Protestants really believe taht CAtholics are cannibals and that we worship Mary not Jesus. I grew up Presbyterian so I thought that was weird for about hte first t years I was Catholic. Anyway, my Mexican immigrant brothers and I have tons of kids (b/c we don't believe in birth control ;) ) and we become the majority in the state where you live. I have great people skills and a winning smile and I manage to get eleceted governor. Its "time" for Catholics and diversity and I speka pretty good Spanish, understand? I run on a platform that I will get it legislated taht everytime anybody takes communion the water and bread BECOME the blood and body of Christ. Do you think that is right? Do you agree? Why not? Think about it. It is no different than what you ask for now.

The BS of this whole thread is that nobocy ever gives any justifiction for their beliefs. Everybody goes off half-cocked and spouts a bunch of religion based BS that is not grounded in law or fact.

I say again Fallenangel - you have not read the constitution. You obviously think you have but if you say that our constitution authorizes the 10 commandments in courts then i submit you have not.

What about the constitutional amendment. If you REALLY believ like you do then start a drive to amend the con. Same for abortion. The congress CAN overrul Roe v Wade anytime they want witha constitutional amendment. That statement in your post, about the SC can't make laws and when they do only they can change them is absolute horse s_ _t. Congress makes law and the SC interprets them. the SC did not make law when they decided R v W, they merely interpreted the con. If congress disagrees they need only legislate, in this case in the form of con amendment, to change that.

Then you throw in some crazy reference to the Fedrealist Papers. Have you ever read them? Tell the truth. What in the world makes you think that the Federalist papers are part of the con? They are never mentioned in the con and the Federalist and teh Anti-Federalists argued and debated and compromised when they made the con. You simply can't read the federalist papers into the con b/c the federalists did not get everything they wanted.

Fallen - i understand where you are coming from and in a different situation I would agree with you. I am not convinced that diverse means better. But don't spout off crap that is wrong and act like it is grounded in our constitution b/c what has happened to you will just happen to another generation. Meaning that misinformation will continue to reign supreme. PLEASE read the constitution again and reflect on whether you think is allows out governement to force teh 10 commandments on anybody. Then ask youself if it allows the legislature to force the Torah on you. If you come up with different answers then your internalized personal views are running amuck of your logic - just as it has in your two posts in this thread.

SStudent 47 is a law student like me. Read his post - there are good words there. I can't speak for him, but we might be alike. I am Christian and I attend church. My wife is going to have our first child in March and our child will be raised in the church. I tithe regularly. I volunteer through my church. I try to live the 10 commandments everyday in my marriage, my job, my friendships, etc. I fail everyday, but I get up the next morngin and try again. I am conservative, and vote exclusively Republican b/c I too hate bleeding heart libs and just about all that they stand for. But when it comes to our government I belive in limited power and I don't think anybody will be able to point to any document that gives any governemtn in the US the right to force the ten commandments on me or anybody else. If you can find on then let me know so I can read it.

Sorry for th grammar and misspellings I am late for court and I WILL NOT swear on the bible when I get there.

One other thing, Fallen - I a ma card carrying memebr of THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY - I assure you that any person who tells you that a true federalist thinks that religion is part of hte government does not understand what federalism is really all about or where it comes from.. Read up on that a little b/f you invoke the ideas if a group. federalsit love limited government and a true federalist is appalled by the very thought a governemtn would even worry about commandmenst without a constitutional mandate.

hank

hank

02-04-2004, 08:01 AM

Fallen - one other thing before I head out. I really am late for court.

Don't get offended by what I post. I am argumentative and passionate on this issue. I argue for a living so I get a lot of practice. please respond and overlook anything I write that is sarcastic of offensive. It is not intentional - I just don't possess a lot of tact sometimes. This debate is probably the only worhtwhile one on the whoel forum b/c of the vast amount of misinformation.

Understanding R v Wade and religion in a constitutional context will help everyone understand our governement. So many of us are like sheep and we believe whatever Fox tells us or Brokaw or Jennings. They are most of hte time wrong when they talk about law and the constitution. These discussions help fix that.

Everybody else who has posted here. Please respond. Think first, maybe read a little, then respond. This stuff is important.

hank

StarvingStudent47

02-04-2004, 12:46 PM

SStudent 47 is a law student like me. Read his post - there are good words there. I can't speak for him, but we might be alike. I am Christian and I attend church. My wife is going to have our first child in March and our child will be raised in the church. I tithe regularly. I volunteer through my church. I try to live the 10 commandments everyday in my marriage, my job, my friendships, etc. I fail everyday, but I get up the next morngin and try again. I am conservative, and vote exclusively Republican b/c I too hate bleeding heart libs and just about all that they stand for. But when it comes to our government I belive in limited power and I don't think anybody will be able to point to any document that gives any governemtn in the US the right to force the ten commandments on me or anybody else. If you can find on then let me know so I can read it.

Sorry for th grammar and misspellings I am late for court and I WILL NOT swear on the bible when I get there.

First off, I've sat through a couple trials, and I've never seen a Bible used in court. That's 1950s stuff. I personally wouldn't want to swear on a New Testament anyway.

Which is a nice segue to my next point...naw, I'm not really like Hank. Actually rather different. I'm not a conservative, but a liberal (on everything besides national security, that is). I'm not a Christian, but a Jew. I generally vote Democrat (go Kerry). I generally only keep eight of the ten Commandments--I never keep the sabbath (whoever thought up taking a whole day off each week was obviously never a law student), and when the fit hits the shan, I've been known to take the Lord's name in vain. And I don't feel any guilt about violating either of those two Commandments. That said, I still try to be a good person every day. But I don't see how taking saturdays off, or saying "dammit" instead of "goddammit," would make me a better person.

WARPIG

02-04-2004, 01:02 PM

Outstanding thread. I avoided it because of the potential for flammable stupidity but I am pleasantly surprised to see this thread handled so intelligently. Great posts. Hank’s posts, especially, bring some much-needed light to the misnomers of government and religion.
The influence of Christian religion on our history and culture are heavy. (for obvious reasons) Our laws however have very, very limited traces of it. Most of which are remnants of traditional activities and practices that have passed down from the leaders of past generations. The legal boundaries of Federal involvement have been clear and obvious for most of us. Traditions, customs, and courtesies have made up the majority of the religious “breeches.” I personally think that is ok. As long as those customs or courtesies don’t alienate or impede other religious rights. For instance keeping the phrase, “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is acceptable to me, as long as it is not a mandatory activity in public schools. If one school seems to have a high number of practicing Jews, Muslims, or any other religion, then appropriate consideration should be afforded. I think in general it happens that way. The symbols and phrases on our money also come from many religious influences. They are not symbolic of our government today but in the interest of cultural preservation and history, they should stay there. In my opinion of course. I do think that as our country progresses further into cultural diversity that some of these traditions and courtesies will have to be given up. I am not happy about it but I will have to live with it.

It also has occurred to me that the most intolerant of people are those who do not practice any faith or religion. It seems like the loudest or quickest to complain that religious freedoms are being invaded are people are openly Atheist or simply don’t have a faith.

Like Hank, I am a practicing Christian, conservative, and Republican. However, I am new to all of it. As my life led me to search for something greater, I found Christianity last year. It comes as no coincidence that my religious faith has influenced my cultural outlook. That, in turn has influence my political preference.
I think that there is a difference between religious faith, cultural outlook, and political preference, but all three are what shape our country. The religious influence in our history, the cultural changes that occur, and the political climate we live in all interact in some way with the other. It is a mistake to give any one influence credit over the other.

Argyll

02-04-2004, 01:34 PM

ok what about this view?
In todays society of Political correctness would it be right to have them on view in the said places where they would be considered offensive to those who do not believe?
I make no apologies for saying this ,but I am a non believer,it does not make me a bad person,I help out where I can,I am charitable when I can,and I respect the other persons religion and denomination,but I from my own POV do not have a problem with it as long as it was not "forced " upon me,don't get me wrong I did all the Sunday school stuff and went to church ,but I lost my faith many years ago,and have never bothered to look for it again as it serves me no purpose.......I am happy with my lot in life as it stands today! If I were to die tommorow I will know that I gave my family everything,and that we shared a love of each other,I will die knowing that I have done many good things in my life.some not so good,but hey nobody's perfect!

Religion is the bane of life ,it is the root of many wars in the past and present conflicts,it has been responsible for the deaths of Tens of Millions of people through history!

Trigger

02-04-2004, 02:28 PM

ok what about this view?
In todays society of Political correctness would it be right to have them on view in the said places where they would be considered offensive to those who do not believe?
...

Religion is the bane of life ,it is the root of many wars in the past and present conflicts,it has been responsible for the deaths of Tens of Millions of people through history!

1. I'm not sure if it was already mentioned, but 'artists' scream bloody murder if someone has a problem with their 'art'. They are free to express themselves, right? If someone finds it offensive, tough. Accept/Embrace/Tolerate or look the other way is their answer, right?
Why not then for the Ten Commandments?

2. Man's misuse of 'religion' as a tool to gain power over their fellow men is the root of many wars, IMHO.

hank

02-04-2004, 03:30 PM

Wow - nice to see that I did not get flamed for posting that.

SS47 - no offense about the alike part. I actually think it makes my points more valid that a jew and catholic can agree about posting the 10 commandments and disagree about the son of god. I have a felling that TJ and the whole constitution gang would be very proud of that. As scary as it is I have seen judges ask witnesses to swear on the Bible but not often. There technically is no problem with it but most judges stay away from it for establishment clause reasons. There is a line of cases that says you cannot require it, however it does happen.

Also, quick before I forget it. Agnostic as I understand it is not the same as what Rupert referred to. Agnostic's do not care about God - they are not necessarily atheist b/c an agnostic may acknowledge that there is a higher power but they simply tkae the view that that existence is irrelevant to their existence. That is a hard concept for me to get. So an agnostic atheist would think that there is no higher power but find that thought irrelevant to man's existence. Whatever that means. If I am wrong about this plese enlighten me b/c this is kind of an ethereal concept IMHO.

Argyll - the Suprme Court has already kind of leaned this way on some issues. With regard to Christmas there is a case that says no Jesus related Christmas images can be displayed unless other non-christian images are also allowed while christmas trees are OK b/c even though grounded in Christian societies they do not overtyl reference religion. This year there was a little furor in CT about this as a mayor wanted to have a bunch of christmas symbols (like manger scenes) in the front lawn of the City Hall. To get aournd the EC he allowed muslim, jewish "holiday" scenes to be displayed also. That is not what I would choose, but seems like a reasonable compromise. Did not get challenged in court if I remember right. Might actually have worked if it had.

Argyll - I used to be a staunch anti-Catholic largely b/c of the missionaries in the America's and the disease they spread and the people they killed. I don't really have good answer to that even now- it was wrong and closed minded but remember that religion = people and everybody sins/makes mistakes so we should forgive. i forgive and move on. Same withe *** assault by priests - people make mistakes and that's that. Still don't like it though and wish I could fix this unfixable problem. I do understand why someone would stay away from organized religion though. there are plenty of good reasons. Hang in there, you may change your mind when you least expect it. I did.

Trigger - that is a great argument. Expression is protected. However that expression is limited to individuals. Government expression is not protected by the Government and never has been. So, if you are an artist and you want to put a guy with a dildo up his you know what in a government funded photo exhibit that expression is protected but if you try the ten commandments no luck. I can't honestly say I understand that but the difference is the fact that the Bill of Rights reserves the right to speech/express and limits the establishment of religion. Something is going to lose when those come together and religion lost. The reason for that is probably the feeling that there is no lack of religious expression - its on TV, radio, internet - while homo****** expression tends to get stuffed under the rug, literllay if you are Maplethorpe. Those are tough desicions and the Supreme Court is also fallible - there may be changes in this i nthe years to come.

Trigger - i studied Shakespear for a year in college with a professor who was an avowed communist and atheist that interpreted shakespeare from a communist prespective. It was really wild and often maddening - but he always said a quote similar to yours. If you think about the fact that when Catholicism and thus the roots to protestantism was taking root people could not read then the mass (the actual christian religious service) and religion is a little less menacing. Now that people read and think for themselves the organized christian religions have a hard time b/c so many of their traditions are geared towards education (scarily like indoctrination) and audiance participation to keep illiterate people involved. I'm not sure I believed much of what he said, but those two concepts always made sense to me.

I thought of something else this morning while I was waiting. The word religion is not used in the body of the constitution anywhere. Only in the first amendment. That is a telling fact b/c the people who make the argument forget that the first amendment is in the Bill of Rights and the first ten amendments and they are NOT part of the original ratified constitution. So that really weakens the idea the foudning fathers really wanted to include religion or protect shristianity. The federal government has NO power outside the constitution and if the BoR had never happened then the Con would be silent on the issue.

The thing that is so maddening to me about this issue is that the bible thumpers never realize that they could get what they wanted if it were really true that the majority believed as they do. A constitutional amendment that said that the establishmetn clause in the 1st amendment is gone and now christianity = the USA religion etc. would ahve to be honored by the SC. The SC has never refused, nor could refuse without the fear the a lynch mob would go to DC and kill them all (as almost happened in the 1920's and 1930's switch in time) to enforce the constitution. If you guys wnat the 10 comandments so bad get your congressman to propse an amendment and put it to a vote of the congress and then the states. The reason this never happens is it would never pass - but that little nugget gets lost in the name calling and such.

hank

Nunavut's sewage

02-04-2004, 03:33 PM

StarvingStudent47

02-04-2004, 03:42 PM

Hank--certainly no offense was taken whatsoever. No hostility was intended in my post--just a clarification (I don't talk about domestic politics much here, so it's easy for people to not pick up on my liberalism). We've got a Federalist Society at my school too. I sometimes agree with them, sometimes agree with the American Constitutionalist Society. Depends on the topic, though I probably end up siding with ACS more than the Federalists.

And as long as several people are discussing the defintion of the term agnostic, here is my understanding. It literally means "not knowing" (a - gnostic)--I think it's from a Greek root, though it might be Latin.

Agnostics are people who are not certain whether there is or is not a God. SOME are apathetic about God, but not all. If someone wrestles with the issue their whole life and comes up with the answer "I won't know for sure until I die," then they're an agnostic too.

StarvingStudent47

02-04-2004, 03:49 PM

Now I was not brought up in any religion so I guess you'd call me Athiest. I don't off hand know all the ten commandments so if someone could post em I'd appreciate it.
I think it's a good idea to teach kids morals in school. But I'm not sure in a secular school religion is the best way to teach them. From my experience you've got muslims, hindus, jews, and a whole lota other beliefs in classes these days and to force a religious belief on them all seems to go against freedom of belief.
I ain't sayin the commandments aren't a good thing. I'm not religious but I have good morals and I have faith just not in a supreme god or anything.
Basically I like the way they taught us morals, treat others as you would have them treat you (which comes from religion originally I know) But I woulda hated having to learn from the Bible because it goes against what I believe.

Here's the Protestant version--this is the version that would most likely be put up in schools if the people who want to post it have their way.

Preamble:
And God spoke all these words:

I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

First Commandment:
You shall have no other gods before me.

Second Commandment:
You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Third Commandment:
You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

Fourth Commandment:
Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.

Six days you shall labor and do all your work,

but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates.

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Fifth Commandment:
Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

Sixth Commandment:
You shall not murder.

Seventh Commandment:
You shall not commit adultery.

Eighth Commandment:
You shall not steal.

Ninth Commandment:
You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

Tenth Commandment:
You shall not covet your neighbor's house.

You shall not covet your neighbor's wife,

or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Nunavut's sewage

02-04-2004, 03:57 PM

Ya I never knew those before.

I guess I would have a problem with having to recite the first four but the rest make sense for a good society to follow.

What were the seven deadly sins?

Trigger

02-04-2004, 04:01 PM

1. Posting in all CAPS
2. Not laughing at my jokes
3. Agreeing with ducimus19
4. Flirting with farmgirl *glaring at California Joe*
5. Failing to acknowledge that He219 is the King of daily pics
6. Arguing about the IDF with IDFM203
7. Sniffing your sister's panties

Any one of those and you'll be smoking turds in purgatory. :D

Argyll

02-04-2004, 04:03 PM

Hank,
Thank you very much,that is a nice thing to have said,perhaps one day ;)

I have no problems whatsoever with the displaying of any religious texts or symbols,I respect them all

what I will say is that somehow this passage means something to me

One night a man had a dream.
He dreamed he was walking along
the beach with the Lord.

Across the dark sky flashed scenes from his life.
For each scene, he noticed
two sets of footprints in the sand,
one beloning to him and the other to the Lord.

When the last scene of his life flashed before him,
he looked back at the footprints in the sand.
He noticed that many times along the path of his life
there was only one set of footprints.
He also noticed that it happened at the
very lowest and saddest times in his life.
This bothered him and he questioned the Lord about it.

"Lord, you said that once I decided to follow you,
you'd walk with me all the way.
But I have noticed that during the most
troublesome times in my life there is
only one set of footprints.
I don't understand why when I needed you most
you would leave me."

The Lord replied "My precious, precious child,
I love you and would never leave you.
During your times of trial and suffereing,
when you see only one set of footprints in the sand,
it was then that I carried you."

hank

02-04-2004, 04:03 PM

Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.

Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation.

Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.

Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.

Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.

Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.

Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work.

Behold the power of google.

hank

hank

02-04-2004, 04:07 PM

Argyll - anybody who tells you they have not struggled with what you struggle with is not being honest. When I converted to Catholicism my wife who sponsored me gave me a book mark that had that poem/whatever you call it and it is in my bible to this day.

Trigger - I like your list much better than SS47's ;)

Where is the fish guy- he started all this crap and now he is MIA. Penny for his thoughts. Anybody else check out his website? You should.

hank

Midtown

02-04-2004, 04:09 PM

I think we should legalize POT!

WARPIG

02-04-2004, 04:26 PM

When looking at the commandments and thinking of the word religion, it reminds me of my,very recent, past feelings of pressure and negativity about all things religious. I think most people feel that way. The word religion has always had a sort of opressing and critical tone about it. As many have expressed even here, when you realize that you don't think or feel the same as the clergy, or even the people who are supposed to have the same beliefs as you do... it sort of makes you feel alienated, and wrong. I may be new at being a Christian, but my take on words like religion, faith, and belief is that they are too often confused. Religion seems like a description of a disciplined beliefs. Belief is just that simple it is the passive act of simply knowing of a greater power. Faith is that active act of seeking a higher power and existance. Unfortunately, all of it is lumped together as religion. So anything of religious inclination is deemed offensive unless it is your religion.
For example even within Christian religion a cross seems to be worshipped by some while others see it as a reminder of great importance. Very different takes on the same thing.
The display of the commandments seems to have the same effect. If the intention is to remind people of the base values that the community was founded on.. it is not unlikely that other people (say Atheist) will regard it as devalidating to their own beliefs. Like many laws in this county, our 1st amendment rights were worded in a different era. Those rights still hold true but the language that it is written in has a different context now.

fisheyestudio

02-04-2004, 11:01 PM

Hey howdy hey!

My apologies for being out of the conversation today. I have really gained alot from reading what everyone posted. It is way to easy to develope misconceptions and misunderstandings through limited exposure to a variety of opinions. That is the reason that I always check this forum for the top news of the day before I visit any "news" sites. With all that said...blah bla bla blahhhhh bla..etc hehe.

Here is my short answer at to the relevance and purpose of the law. The Law was not given to keep but to be broken, because in the breaking of it we are shown that our problem goes deeper than our behavior; it goes to the very core of who we are. No human being has ever kept the law but the law has pointed out to everyone who has been exposed to it, the deadness of their soul/spirit. This makes perfect sense from God’s perspective since humanity will always justify itself in its own eyes. Only one being has ever kept the law perfectly and that was God the Father through the Son. So when I, through Faith, am placed into Christ by Gods Spirit, then God is able to see me as if I had kept the Law perfectly. This concept is the essence of being “born again” and is why a person who comes to faith in this present age is made righteous in Gods sight, as opposed to believers prior to the cross who were only declared righteous. Wheeew. Is that to much to chew on?

The Looonger answer...if you are still interested and/or awake.

The critical problem that every human being that has ever lived has had to face is the deadness of the soul and spirit. All of humanity was in Adams gene-pool when he ate of the knowledge of good and evil, and “died”. (It is interesting that “good” killed Adams soul/spirit as much as “evil” did. In that context I place religion in the category of “good” as opposed to Life which was in the other tree in the garden. Think of what Jesus said, “ I am the way, the truth, and the Life”, He didn’t say He was “good”, and the people He was always in conflict with were the “religious” leaders.) Adam and Eve heard the first prophesy of a suffering savior when God spoke to them and the serpent concerning the Seed that would come. So those who lived during the old testament were “saved, declared righteous” through faith in the Seed that would come. On this side of the cross, people are “saved, made righteous” through faith in the Seed that came. As an aside, I have been in church since I was born. I am now 32 and it was only in the last 4 years that I became aware of “this” way of looking at things.

Never be at the mercy of the teacher. Dig and search and question, and become convinced for yourself as to what you will believe. It is easy to allow our morality to dictate our theology, but if finding objective and ultimate truth is the real desire, then I have no doubt that everyone who seeks will find.

Thank you for your honesty.
In Christ
chris holloman

NcDeuce

02-04-2004, 11:04 PM

We recite the Lord's Prayer in the locker room before we go out. Interesting to see some opinions on that...I know many high schools, colleges, professional organizations do it.

hank

02-04-2004, 11:09 PM

Fish - I don't think I follow all that and it is too late for me to try right now. Short answer - yeah or nay on teh 10 in courthouses? Just curious.

NCdeuce - did you used to be TF160SOAR? if not you probably know him - just curious - yeah that is a little different question because it is way more likely on a team that everyone will agree to pray or at least not take issue. If everyone agrees it is a different question than the 10 commandments in courthouse about which we will never get total agreement.

hank

fisheyestudio

02-04-2004, 11:33 PM

Hey howdy hey!

That is alot to dig through this late...so get up early...hehe.

I think it is fine to display them in any public building. My reasoning is as follows: The whole of the mosaic Law is the foundation of our legal system. If we take away or change that foundation and replace it with "conventional wisdom" then we will shortly find ourselves quoting pilot, "What is truth?" (and this is exactly where things are going...as has been fortold)

I dont believe that putting them on the wall of any building or requiring all students to pray or read the bible will magically return our nation to its former moral glory (real or imagined).

The Letter kills. That is the Laws purpose. Not to bring people closer to God but to point out just how seperated they are. And to point to the need for a rectification that can only be accomplished by God.

So, if we did put them back on every wall and in every yard, the result may just be that things would get worse in our country..."the Law was given that the transgression might increase...".

Sorry for giving you this much more to read...

Jesus blessings
chris holloman

Ian H

02-05-2004, 05:02 AM

Whilst uncalled for, I would like to present my viewpoint on religion for your perusal, as it is different to those posted previously:

To be honest I don't see the need for a God or religion in my life. This has numerous aspects. With regard to creation *goes to worm sanctuary and picks up can opener*, I find the scientific arguments far more persuasive then religious ones. I suppose Douglas Adams said it best: "God used to be the best explanation we had, but now we have vastly better ones and God has become something that itself would need a great deal of explaining" (this is not verbatim). I am quite happy to believe that the universe exists as it does through the action of probability, rather than some overseeing force, because to my mind that makes it even more special, because all the beautiful and breathtaking stuff in the universe did not have to exist, it just does.(This is not related to previous posts but it does sum up my attitude, albeit in a condensed manner.)

With regard to morality, I have no intention of following the ten commandments in my life, because I see that as something done to please god, whereas I prefer to do good (including the provisions of the fifth and subsequent commandments) because it makes me feel like a better person.

To sum up, I see no proof of the existence of god, to my mind the concept is one created to try to explain the universe before scientific advances could, and I see religious moral tenets as reflections of basic human civilisation's original codes of conduct used to extract it from the state of nature.

This is easily my longest post, and I hope the standard of debate here is not lowered by it. This thread is extremely civil and informative. Long may it live! woot

hank

02-05-2004, 08:13 AM

Ian H - totally valid position and I'm sure a lot of people believe as you do. One thing that if you could answer it would make me understand your point a little better.

You say that you see no proof of the existence of God and is is an explanation for science . . . I agree, God can't be proved and certainly can't be seen. But, then again aren't a lot of things the same way, even in science? I've never seen a neutron and neither has anybody else and science has changed its mind many times about subatomic particles. But I believe they are there. Why?

Also, isn't that the fundamental difference between faith and science. Inherent in the idea of faith is belief. I believe in God and his Son Jesus. There are inconsistencies in the story and a lot of unanswered questions that will never be answered. That is why it is called faith.

If you could just tell me how you square that up - meaning how you deal with it in a way that makes sense to you I would appreciate it. I promise I'm not being a smart-ass or anything like that - I sincerely want to know your answer - and for that matter if anybody else can chime in that would be great.

In the times when I questioned God and faith I've never had a good answer when a priest or pastor would hit me with this faith idea. Thanks in advance

hank

Ian H

02-05-2004, 10:00 AM

Thanks for the response, I will happily try to answer your queries. This should be interesting for me as well, as I have never had cause to articulate my beliefs fully before. Here goes...

Your first point: I agree there is a lot of uncertainty about science, what I meant was that what science says about the nature of the universe seems to me to bear up to more rigourous scrutiny than religious explanations for the same things. An example; the universe, says science, was created in the Big Bang, all matter is moving outwards from one central point, scientific studies have shown this to be very probably correct, 'Redshift' for example. Religion, specifically Christianity, says that an omniscient being created a fully formed universe out of nothing. There are irregularities in both versions, for science; How did the mass of the universe occupy one infinitely small point in space? How did the Big Bang come about in the first place?
With religion, I find myself wondering; What is the nature of this 'God'? How did it create the universe if the laws of physics applied? To be honest I simply prefer the idea of the wonders of the universe having created themselves, it makes them feel more special. The only time I could subscribe to the existence of some form of higher power is as an explanation for the initial occurence of the Big Bang, which science knows nothing about. This is not God to my mind though.
Science is not perfect, and does not have all the answers, however the answers it does have I feel make more sense than religious ones in this field.

With regard to your second point: This is harder. I personally see faith as being about personal beliefs, be they religious, scientific, or whatever. Therefore religious beliefs are just like scientific ones, beliefs. As I said (typed?) above, science is not always correct, but if something is shown to be obviously incorrect, it is adapted based on further research, giving a new explanation which again may well not be the truth. Religious beliefs seem more fixed, and are rarely adapted in the same way. If, as I typed earlier, faith is based on personal belief, then fair enough, some people believe in God, and some in science, and some in the Great Green Arkleseizure. All opinions are equally worthy, just not all are as well supported in logic and argument as others. I do not mean this to sound patronising, but in the case of the nature of the universe I see religious explanations as being akin to Windows 95, and scientific explanations more like 2000 or NT, simply more advanced and logically more robust.

When it comes to morality, I don't feel bound by religious ideas such as the ten commandments. I say 'for god's sake' a lot, and if I were called into court and asked to swear on a bible I wouldn't feel bound by that oath. However, that is not to say I go round committing perjury, murder and adultery (for one thing I'm single :( ), because I know they would get me into trouble with the law, society's rules, which I take as my moral basis. I know they are largely based around Christian tenets, but that isn't the point, they belong to society in general now regardless of origin.

Hank, I hope this all made some sense to you, and anyone else who reads it, and maybe gives you some food for thought, although I'm not out on an atheist recruitment drive.

@ NcDeuce, they sometimes do, I don't have Andrew Linklater anymore, which is a shame, but my new semester modules look very interesting.

Laters

NcDeuce

02-05-2004, 10:02 AM

I have a lecture so must run

Like blueballs man, it sucks, eh? :D

memphiz

02-05-2004, 10:01 PM

this is from a book im reading called Rogue Warrior Green Team
(i put it in my sig)

-The 10 Commandments of SPECWAR

1] I am the War Lord and the wrathful God of Combat andI will always leadfrom the front, not the rear.

2] I will treat you all alike--just like ****.

3]Thou shalt do nothing I will not do first, and thus you be created Warriors in my deadly image.

4] I shall punish thy bodies because the more thou sweatest in training, the less thou bleedest in combat.

5] Indeed, if thou hurteth in thy efforts and thou suffer painful dings, then thou art Doing It Right.

6] Thou hast not to like it--thou hast just to do it.

7] Thoushalt Keep It Simple, Stupid.

8] Thou shall never assume.

9]Verily, thou art not paid for thy methods, but for thy results, by which meaneth thou shalt kill thine enemy by any means availible before he killeth you.

10] Thou shalt, in thy Warrior's Mindand Soul, always remember My ultimate and final Commandment:There Are No Rules--Thou Shalt Win at All Cost.

--A SPECWARRIOR by def is someone who gives a F*ck.
--by Richard Marcinko

mocking_loudly_died

02-06-2004, 12:53 AM

That's one big sig.

Okay religion is not for me.

I like really kinky **** and I'm a raging glutton.

James

02-06-2004, 03:14 AM

Now, can one not be an unconventional Christian and enjoy the same things? Without feeling guilty?

Not me, of course :oops: but I'm curious...

fisheyestudio

02-06-2004, 09:17 AM

Hey howdy hey!

I think the answer to that can be yes, for a season(relatively short period of time). Here is why. Before a person is born again in Christ, it is their nature to love sin. Exactly which sins will vary from person to person. Once a person is born again in Christ, they recieve a new nature. Also they recieve the mind of Christ, and God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit come and dwell within them in their soul/spirit. Once this change occurs a person can no longer sin "comfortably". The new nature hates sin but the person still posses the same brain which houses all of the old memories and habits.

I struggled with ****ography for almost 20 years. I would try to stop and succeed for a while and then fall again. I went through periods of justifiying it in my own reckoning or I would just twist some scriptures so that I could say it was ok. In the end I became so sick of this "habit" and my failure to be free of it that I told God I quit. I knew that He did not want me to be a slave to it but that He was the only one who could change that behavior in me. I gave up and asked Him to do it, and He did. Its been about two years since that all happened and I am still free from that slavery. Not because of anything I did, but because I allowed Him to change my "want to".

Now He is pointing out other character flaws and short fallings in my behavior that He wants me to let Him change...pretty cool experience.

This points out in an understandable way, the difference between Life and Religion(good). My only concern when I was religious, was that no one find out what I did in secret. When I came in contact with real life, my concern was my love for Jesus and wanting to live by His life....

Well I hope that wasnt too personal...lol, but in the end it has to be Jesus who is at work in us both to desire and to accomplish His purposes.

Jesus blessings!
chris holloman

Guttorm

02-06-2004, 10:27 AM

Keep government out of religion, and religion out of government.

I'm with him. The two should never be combined, nothing good comes from it.

hank

02-06-2004, 11:31 AM

Ian H - that is great and it is interesting to me that the struggles for answers are so similar and the motivation behind that answers is similar also. I like you analogies. I appreciate that answer.

I do the same thing about evolution. i am chirstian and there is that struggle between evolution and creation- How to recopncile the two has always been a struggle and I answer the problem similarly to how you answer where the matter for the big bang came from. I just say to Cahtolics - how long are the seven days and what did god look like. If you assume that a God day = an earth day then evolution is impossible I agree. But, on the other hand if you define that God day as a hundred million years then bingo evolution is possible. Anyway I don't suggest any truth to that or ask anyone to follow that but it hlps me sleep at night. Also - I have no idea what god looks like - and therefore I have no problem with the idea that our appearance and physical structure has changed over the years.

That is all well and good and it sounds like we all understand that there will never be consensus about the propriety of hte commandment. Let me change the question a little bit and ask the peopl who want the ten commandments in courthouses to give a justification other thatn "i think so" - same applies to everyone else. I have tried to give the reasons why I say no to the courthouse bu yes to my personal life. I'd like to hear other responses.

Keep this going maybe we all will learn a little.

hank