Thank you.

I like the idea of the church in Jeanniebean's town.

I'd ask you to consider to what extent you would edit the education of history based on religious affiliation. Considering that most historical events throughout the world only occurred as a direct result of religious events or religious beliefs, there won’t be much history to teach if you cut out everything that occurred due to religion.

I'm just intrigued with the idea that most religious belief systems seem to follow the same principal concept of heaven and hell, even if the layout, or in your verstion "mansion", tends to be the only real variable.

If anyone said anything to me about my shorts and flip flops I would simply say very politely and without malice...

"Oops! It seems I've stumbled into the wrong room, I didn't mean to intrude on your fashion show. Do you know which room worship is being held in?"

I think that every man you ask would give you a different answer, and since most of them are going to give you an answer they think you want to hear, you will never know if you're getting an honest answer or not.

Indeed! Haha!

There is only one thing that gets me truly upset regarding the Constitution...and that is people who don't care enough to give it any thought at all.

So, even if we have had trouble understanding each other...which sometimes happens, I am glad to know there are still people who give their attention to it. I'm glad you give it the merit it deserves.

Since the above quote is exactly what I have been saying myself, I have to assume that we have indeed misunderstood one another and actually agree in our interpretations of the Constitution.

As we agree, I see no reason to continue a disagreement, and as all other arguments fall within the parameters of the original disagreement, they are by default moot.

And yes, as Constitutional law was my course study for 3 years, I have indeed read the Constitution. I wish to apologize if the comment that I have probably not read it was in retaliation for my offer to scan you a copy. I gladly pocket your insult, but wish to extend and apology to you as I meant no barb by my comment and had no more knowledge of your access to a copy than you would have of my educational background of the subject matter.

Have a pleasant Sunday.

I see morality as a principal. You either live the principal or you don't. Lists that allow this or ban that, as morally correct or incorrect can also be faulty, just as our laws sometime are; as that is what they try to do...define and list moral conduct.

Walking in the principal of morality is not Bible or religion specific to me, though all religious teachings support similar moral codes...people with no religious affiliation are not incapable of living in the principal of morality.

About drugs...I don't believe that it is the drug that poses the moral issue, but the behavior that sometimes accompanies the drug. This is totally independent in the nature of the person, the reason they take the drug and the manner in which a person conducts themselves when they are affected by the drug.

Smoking something to unwind at the end of the day does not, in my opinion, lead to moral wrongdoing in itself...however neglecting ones family or responsibility in order to do so is not a good moral decision in my mind.

When someone gets pumped up or chilled out to achieve a level of abandon for a party they intend to get stupid at or to get lucky at, that is quite different, as they are using it to create bad situations full of moral transgressions....which they often later deny responsibility for in the form of, "yeah...I was really out of it."

I also have a comment to make regarding God's instruction to obey the authorities in Romans 13:1. Obviously God had given us a trustworthy authority that he endorsed during that time period. In Romans 13:1, or elsewhere in the Bible, does God say that ALL of our leaders will be appointed by Him. Looking at the examples of our leaders since that time, I am convinced that this statement was indeed specific to that time. I have a hard time believing that Omar Al-Bashir, Kin Jong-Il, Ayatollah Khamenei, Hu Jintao, King Abdullah, Than Shwe, or Robert Mugabe (among way too many others) where God given authorities.

In support of this idea, think of how many disciples among others that we esteem as heroes of morality have been imprisoned and even executed because they defied the authorities on moral grounds…on Godly grounds. I don’t believe that Gandhi, for instance, was going against God in his endeavors…which were contrary to the authorities of many countries. It’s not only my belief that Gandhi had God’s full endorsement, but that he embodied the very essence of moral fiber; two beliefs in which I’ve never heard opposition to.

The Gandhi example also demonstrates my belief that morality is not Bible or religion specific, as Gandhi was not a Christian, did not care much for the Bible when he read it, and while holding Jesus Christ in the highest esteem, could not accept Christ as the only son of God or the Sacrificial Lamb sent to save mankind from sin. Yet, he is acknowledged by Christian, Buddhist, and Atheist alike as the biggest moral example we have had since Biblical days.

I should be helping with the rebuilding effort in Joplin, Missouri,(for those not familiar it was leveled by a tornado this summer) but I had to volunteer my car to a family member instead because their car is having engine trouble.

I would leave them be, but they seem to actually appreciate food water and re-built homes that are rising up out of the rubble.

See what I mean about our misundertanding one another and talking about two different things?

What you wrote is exactly what I've believed I was trying to convince you of all along. No, California law cannot overule Federal law...one is still held to the Federal law.

One step further though, until the time comes that California convinces the Supreme Court that the Federal law is unconstitutional, California is breaking Federal laws by not enforcing the Federal law.

I lost a quote somewhere, but wanted to respond to you stating that there was no Federal mandate for the death penalty.

I agree and never thought there was. If a State law were to sepercede Federal law regarding it...there would have to be a Federal law pertaining to it to start with...and I thought that by your stating that State law supercedes in death penalty cases, that you were saying there was a Federal law concerning it.

This is another example of our misunderstanding. I do not use the word supercede unless there is something TO supercede. That's just how I was taught the meaning of the word. You use it differently. For instance I would not say that there is a winner in a one man race...as there was no one to overcome.





No, my point there was that if there were conflicting law between State and Federal legislation regarding the death penalty, there would be a Supreme Court Case over it, as the Federal Government has no Constitutional right to legislate it.

The provisions ARE the entire Constitution of the United States...not just an article or two.

The Federal Governent is in charge of the laws pertaining to the provisions of the Constitution and all esle is left to the States to govern. I'm sure there are online verstions availabel, otherwise I would have to scan in the whole Constitution and email it to you.



Of course there are no specific references in the Constitution regarding issues that are regulated by individual States. These are things that are outlined in individual State Constitutions. The Federal Constitution was written for the express purpose of outlining what the Federal Government IS allowed control…and not what it is NOT allowed to control. The Supreme Court's job would be much simplified if they had…though I don’t imagine there would have been enough trees to get that job done. Haha.

As we continue back and forth, I'm beginning to suspect that we are not butting heads so much as talking about two different things.

Correct me if I’ve misunderstood you, but you may be referring more to the fact that States have precedence over all legislation that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the right to restrict….which is supposed to be most everything. Therefore States have the right to make laws that the Federal Government does not have the right to interfere with or pass laws of their own on the issue…if that’s what you mean by precedence then I quite agree.

I am using the word precedence to describe which law prevails when State law and Federal law butt heads. Obviously a State can pass whatever law it wants to, but will end up being brought to task in the Supreme Court if it infringes on existing Federal mandates. The only way the Supreme Court will find for the State law over the Federal law is if it is ruled as not offsetting the purpose of the Federal law or if the Federal law it contradicts is deemed Unconstitutional.

This is Article VI, Clause 2 of The United States Constitution:

“Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

There is a lot of assumption that plays into what people believe…most people believe that there is a Federal law that sets the legal drinking age at 21. Since there were many States that held the legal drinking age at 18, people assumed the State law outweighed the Federal law on the matter…which is not the case at all.

It seems that the Federal Government goes out of its way to make people think they hold all the cards. There is no Federal Drinking Age in any law in existance...and the Federal Government has NO Constitutional right to enact one. That being the case, here is what they do…

From Chapter 1, Title 23 of the U.S. Code…

Ҥ 158. NATIONAL MINIMUM DRINKING AGE

(a) Withholding of Funds for Noncompliance.—

(1) In general.— The Secretary shall withhold 10 per centum of the amount required to be apportioned to any State under each of sections 104 (b)(1), 104 (b)(3), and 104 (b)(4) of this title on the first day of each fiscal year after the second fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1985, in which the purchase or public possession in such State of any alcoholic beverage by a person who is less than twenty-one years of age is lawful.

(2) State grandfather law as complying.— If, before the later of
(A) October 1, 1986, or
(B) the tenth day following the last day of the first session the legislature of a State convenes after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, such State has in effect a law which makes unlawful the purchase and public possession in such State of any alcoholic beverage by a person who is less than 21 years of age (other than any person who is 18 years of age or older on the day preceding the effective date of such law and at such time could lawfully purchase or publicly possess any alcoholic beverage in such State), such State shall be deemed to be in compliance with paragraph (1) in each fiscal year in which such law is in effect.
(b) Effect of Withholding of Funds.— No funds withheld under this section from apportionment to any State after September 30, 1988, shall be available for apportionment to that State.
(c) Alcoholic Beverage Defined.— As used in this section, the term “alcoholic beverage” means—
(1) beer as defined in section 5052(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
(2) wine of not less than one-half of 1 per centum of alcohol by volume, or
(3) distilled spirits as defined in section 5002(a)(8) of such Code"

So, as you can see that what people think is a Federal Drinking Age, is actually a bribe to force States into enacting drinking legislation of their own that comply with Federal wishes. The books are full of these kind of underhanded controls, and are all too often taken to be actual Federal laws. The Federal Government has a lot fewer laws than most would expect…but what they do actually legislate, they have the authority to uphold.

Very interesting topic.

I think the evolution you’re speaking of is due to many things such as necessity, modern convenience and a community’s or individual’s adopted way of life. Evolutions like this have yo-yoed and changed in many ways over our history.

Consider how different the dynamic was in ancient days where a father played a much larger role in the upbringing of male children in the form of manly pursuits (hunting, fighting, home security, and politics) and agricultural or trade instruction and the mother played a larger role in the upbringing of female children taking charge of their instruction in running a home and supporting the men’s efforts. They were essentially equal in parenting and nurturing their children…but within certain roles that for the most part don’t apply today.

I was trying to add this to my previous reply and mussed it up....

As far as the link you provided...I do not know Mr.V or what his opinion is based on, but think he should read the Constitution and Bill of Rights to see where he is mistaken.

I stand by my statement that Federal law comes before State law because it's what is how it is written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If Mr.V can show me where the Constitution was amended, thus reversing it, I would be more than happy to change my thinking.

As I said in my earlier comments in this post, the confusion on this is in what the Federal Government has the right to pass laws on...and what they do not.

The Constitution states clearly (some think not so clearly) what issues the Federal Government has the right to legislate and all else is left to the discrepancy of the individual States. The Federal Government overreaching and writing laws it has no right to makes it seem as if States go against Federal laws.

I'm glad your statement made me revisit this subject.

I'm not that familiar with these imprisonments. Are the cases that are prosecuted, cases where multiple "legal marriages" are concerned or are they also convicting church made marriages?

If they are prosecuting church made marriages I would have to disagree with that. I'm not saying I agree with the prosecution of multiple "legal marriage" either, except to the tune that as of right now they are illegal, and therefore laws are being broken. If they believe strongly enough in the marriages being "legal" they need to keep fighting to change it through legal channels.

I believe this is really the issue, as many would see the legalization of multiple marriages as a religious party dictating a law…which crosses a line. I think most of us would agree…especially with the example of most Middle Eastern countries as a warning…that the main reason behind separation of church and state is to insure that no one religion dictates the laws of our country…thus forcing their beliefs on the general population through legal measures.

Personally I’m not really sure how I would feel about multiple marriages being legally accepted. I’ve not made the effort to fully study the ramifications, so have no right to an opinion. I do, however understand the principal resistance given it so far, and can’t say that I fully disagree right now.

I will add that I view prosecuting anyone that chooses to practice the religious principle of multiple marriages within the confines of their own church and homes would compare to prosecuting any single mother whose baby’s father is in the picture, but not legally married. Since the only differing denominator is religious preference…this IS by definition, religious persecution.

You’ve hit the nail on the head, as it’s issues like medical marijuana that make Article VI murky to a lot of people, in that it would seem as though these States are defying Federal laws.

Whether this is the case or not is 100% dependent on whether or not the Federal laws pertaining to marijuana, and many other issues, are Constitutional or not. The States that have adopted legalization of medical marijuana do not believe the Federal laws are constitutional, and therefore are not legitimate laws at all, therefore they do not consider themselves as trying to supersede Federal laws, but simply making legislation on issues that the Constitution gives them the right to discern for themselves.
This will take years if not decades to work itself out in the Supreme Court.

I guess we are branching off a bit from the topic, so to bring it back on track…in my opinion, the fact that Article VI has never been amended to include a religious party in this pecking order, means that we have indeed done a good job of keeping any set of religious ideals from forming the principal operation of our country. I think we can all agree that this was the main point made by the founding fathers… providing for religious freedom, while keeping any one religion from forcing its laws and policies on the country as a whole.

jrbogie,

I was referring to Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution outlining "Supremacy of National Law".

I certainly misspoke if there is a Federal Law making the death penalty mandatory. Do you happen to know where I could find it?

I don't want to wait to read it until it's kicked out by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, or until the states that are not complying are brought to task.

This one is very close to me, as I have an Amish background myself.


This is the basic breakdown of why this is allowed. I'm not saying it's right or wrong...it's just how it's legally justified.

The Amish actually have the same tax breaks as other churches do. The key word is "church", which is something the Amish do not have....therefore the tax break is given to the congregation. The Amish congregation is in religious practice every minute of every day and their lands, roads, buildings and businesses are all owned by the congregation.

Again...not saying it's right or wrong...but in the court decisions regarding this, the amount of US tax money used to support the Amish communities...virtually none...was also weighed into the decision made of if and how they should be taxed.



Absolutely, a state law is bound to the minimum confines of any Federal law...therefore a state can institute laws that are more stringent than the Federal laws but cannot cross over them in terms of being more lenient.

While I agree wholeheartedly with your own interpretation of their scriptures, no matter how clear the print on the pages are to us, our saying so will not dispel an entire religious belief system…so for now anyway, they are a religious sect with the same rights to believe as any other…in our country anyway.

That being the case, we can only be glad that they ARE bound to and thus limited by our legal system in how far they can take the practice of Sharia Law here.

If we were allowed to limit which religions we extend freedom of expression to, I imagine there would be a lot of religions that would not make the cut based on the argument that "your own scriptures say your religion is BS". Haha.



Ok, that one was a stretch. Of course that is what they argue...but I see your point in that this is not such an infringement to practice it, but to be given the same legal benefits as single marriages.

As far as the government prohibiting the free expression of religion…

I believe there are at least a couple of cases that we’ve overlooked. They are probably overlooked due to how basic and broad spread the laws are as well as due to how miniscule the affected religious sects are in respect to larger religious populations within the US.

I don’t believe I have to cite specific laws that prohibit and define “vigilante” justice or “taking the law into one’s own hands”, as I’m sure we all know without doubt that there are a multitude of such laws to insure that our government holds the sole authority for convicting, sentencing and the carrying out of sentences in the USA and prevent vigilante justice at the hands of any others for any reasons.

That being said, those laws DO, in their very principal, prevent Islamic and Muslim factions that practice Sharia law as a religious practice from doing so within US borders.

Obviously these laws were not written with that intent, but with the intent of assuring everyone a fair trial for their alleged crimes. These laws do, however, prohibit the more violent aspects within the practice of Sharia Law.

Again, other laws that I don’t believe require citing, as they are common knowledge, which also prohibit the free expression of religion, are the laws which prohibit polygamy.

Besides Mormonism, some sects of Muslim and Islamic based religions practice polygamy as not only part of their religious practices, but in some cases are thought to be a requirement for the attainment of heaven.

There is irony in the fact the very laws that prohibit these religious practices at the same time insure that religious practices are not capable of superseding our legal system; a standard that is upheld in constitutional law in this country, whether you believe that the constitution implies a separation between church and state or not.

Whether or not the language in the ever changing Constitution of the United States allows every religion the right to physically practice every aspect of their religion anywhere in the US or whether it simply preserves every religion the right to believe…and every possible interpretation in between… will be argued for longer than there are stars in the heavens.

So, personally, I look at the larger picture and feel privileged to live in a country that, while no-one will ever agree to everything, gives me the right as a free woman to an education, to work or run a business and to date who I choose…without being stoned for it.

Relative to that blessing, I don’t see the rest as being so very important.

Tudoravenger,

Jeremiah 21 has but 14 verses, Jeremiah has only 30...so I cannot follow you through Jeremiah.

Otherwise, I simply can’t make out some of the chapter and verses to hold the same meaning as you've interpreted.

It really doesn’t matter to me that I understand what form of destruction God has in hand when the time comes.

I don’t imagine I will be among the 144,000 numbered in the 1st resurrection and be imune from hell fire, nor that I’ll be eliminated by the plagues or sickles, so I’d better make sure there are a few good works written in the book of life about me when I’m judged after the 1,000 years rule of the beast.

Only one thing confuses me about the end days, and that is the John himself states that he ate the book…in fact it gave him a tummy ache. We will just have to assume the angel kept a copy…or we are all doomed.