|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Which religion's creation story should be taught? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4336 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Theodoric,
Theodoric writes: The constitution isn't a living breathing thing. The Constitution cannot be right or wrong. Would you please define ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ for me so I have a frame of reference to rebut your statement? P.S. I’ll try to remember to leave the coloring out for you; I use it to make it clearer whom or what I am quoting. If it does not offend you; mite I suggest you ‘copy’ and ‘past’ the text to your favorite word processor and change the text color to black. Thank you,JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4336 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Coragyps,
Great to hear from you, hope you will enjoy our discussions.
Coragyps writes: I don't know who wrote this, but some of the "absurd" leaked out of their pen. First, the last paragraph of the Constitution preceded the First Amendment by three years or so. We try not to do retroactive laws in this country. I believe that was the point that ‘Congress’ was making. That it was absurd that the ‘9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow’ would contrive that the Constitution’s use of the express religious reference ‘Year of our Lord’ in Article VII is itself a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution Findings Pub. L. 107—293, 1, Nov. 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 2057, provided that: Congress finds the following:
Coragyps writes: Second, ‘Year of our Lord’ is not an "express religious reference" - it's merely a way of telling time. You will note that it is immediately followed by "and of the Independance (sic) of the United States of America the Twelfth." That's an alternate way of telling time. Yes, it is a way of telling time; however, it is also a direct reference to the ‘Christian Era’ that is it refers to the Year of our Lord ‘Jesus Christ’.
Coragyps writes: "Under God" in the pledge is a whole different kettle of fish. It has no purpose in there except to chase away those scary godless pinko commies that were hiding under every other bed in 1954. Kind of like crosses and movieland Dracula. That my be so, however, the phrase 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 in the ‘Declaration of Independence’ is nether an after though (like the Amendments to the ‘Constitution’) nor something added to warred of evil spirits. Hope to hear more from you soon,JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4336 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Dr. Adequate,
You have hit on a vary good; and important point.
Dr. Adequate writes: In effect, the Constitution says that the Supreme Court can have the final say on what the Constitution means, whenever this is legally disputed Sure, the Constitution is the final authority on what the Constitution says. But the Supreme Court is the final arbiters of what it means. If you think about it, someone has to be. Of course; you see, my argument is not whether or not the Supreme Court has the authority to be arbiters of what the U.S. Constitution means by what it says. That is a matter of legality. Yes, the Supreme Court is the final ‘Legal’ arbiter of what the U.S. Constitution means by what it says. However, that does not change what the U.S. Constitution actually says or what it actually means by what it says. In other words; if the constitution stated that ‘all dogs were dogs’; and the Supreme Court stated (in a ruling) that the constitution meant that ‘all dogs were cats’. We would all legally have to treat all dogs as if they were cats; however, that does not mean that ‘all dogs are actually cats’. This is the point I was making when I spoke of my mother. If what she said was wrong there was nothing I could do about it; but that did not change the fact that she was wrong; she was still the authority and we had to do it her way. At least with the Supreme Court we could elect presidents that would put people on the Supreme Court that would eventually override these rulings and get things back to the way the Founding Fathers intended.
Dr. Adequate writes: This does not convince me (nor do I see why it convinces you) I was hoping you would use those references as a springboard to actually look at some of the Funding Documents, maybe read some of what our Founding Fathers had to say, etc. I close with this: No amount of evidence will sway a man, convinced that he is correct, if he is not willing to admit he could be wrong Thank you once again for your correspondence,JRTjr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4336 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Dwise1,
Dwise1 writes: Who cares what Jefferson had to say? Well, frankly, I do. I think that being the third President of the United States (1801—1809)A, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776) B, and a horticulturist, political leader, architect, archaeologist, paleontologist, musician, inventor, and founder of the University of Virginia. C eminently qualifies Him to speak on behalf of our founding fathers. However, If you listen to what Madison is saying in his decoration (Yes, I read the whole thing) he was insisting that the government have no right what-so-ever to restrict the freedom of the people in their religious pursuits, and that he believed that if this ‘amendment’ where placed into the Constitution that the government would, at some time, in some way, pervert it and use it to infringe on religious freedoms. Quit prophetic, I would say. By the way, I found these quotes (At the same website you gave us) in reference to government and Religion: (emphasis mine)
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: XXII. The first duty of subjects towards their magistrates is to entertain the most honourable sentiments of their function, which they know to be a jurisdiction delegated to them from God, and on that account to esteem and reverence them as God's ministers and vicegerents. . ..D. Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists: "Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty" in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all Men are clearly entitled to, by the eternal and immutable laws Of God and nature, as well as by the law of Nations, & all well grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former.--E. Continental Congress to the Inhabitants of the Province of Quebec: that the Divine Being would bless to you the dispensations of his over-ruling providence, by securing to you and your latest posterity the inestimable advantages of a free English constitution of government, which it is the privilege of all English subjects to enjoy.F. John Adams, Novanglus, no. 4: The clergy of this province are a virtuous, sensible and learned set of men, and they don't take their sermons from news-papers but the bible, unless it be a few who preach passive obedience. These are not generally curious enough to read Hobbs The clergy in all ages and countries, and in this in particular, are disposed enough to be on the side of government, as long as it is tolerableG. It is the duty of the clergy to accommodate their discourses to the times, to preach against such sins as are most prevalent, and recommend such virtues as are most wanted.H. Let me put a supposition. Justice is a great Christian as well as moral duty and virtue, which the clergy ought to inculcate and explain. Suppose a great man of a parish should for seven years together receive 600 sterling a year, for discharging the duties of an important office; but during the whole time, should never do one act or take one step about it. Would not this be great injustice to the public? And ought not the parson of the parish to cry aloud and spare not, and shew such a bold transgressor his sin? Shew that justice was due to the public as well as to an individual, and that cheating the public of four thousand two hundred pounds sterling, is at least as great a sin as taking a chicken from a private hen roost, or perhaps a watch from a fob!I. Dwise1 writes: quote: 3. Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. quote: Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever? What part of that do you not understand? The part, were you believe that this somehow declares that there must be a wall of separation between the Church and the State (Keeping the state out of the Church and the Church out of the state.) I agree with Madison on the point that he is making here; which is that if you start allowing the government to make laws concerning religion (The Church) then the government can begin restricting the free exercise of religion. Which, by the way, is exactly what the First Amendment was placed into the Constitution to prevent: keeping the government from restricting the free exercise of religion. Not to keep religious expression out of the Government. I would like to respond to all that you have written but that would, inevitably, make both of our post far to long. Thank you for your time and effort,JRTjr. References:
A,B,C. Wikipedia.org / Thomas Jefferson D. U Chicago.edu / founders documents / amend I - on religion / 1 E. U Chicago.edu / founders documents / amend I - on religion / 15 F. U Chicago.edu / founders documents / amend I -on religion / 20 G,H,I. U Chicago.edu / founders documents / amend I - on religion / 22.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4336 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Dr. Adequate,
Dr. Adequate writes: JRTjr writes: I’ll close with this question: How does a Bible, sitting in a display case, in front of a court house prohibit the free exercise of an atheist’s religion?; Or a Muslim?; Or Buddhist? It doesn't. It violates the establishment clause. Duh. O.K., Please, explain to me in what way does ‘a Bible, sitting in a display case, in front of a court house’ violate the First Amendment? {I.e. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof Thank you for your time and interest,JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4336 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Hooah212002,
First, thank you for your interest in our discussion. I hope you will become a regular participant.
Hooah212002 writes: Please tell me, in detail, what religion an atheist would ascribe to? Religion, according to ‘Dictionary.Com’ is: 2. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.3. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 6. Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice. (Dictionary.com Unabridged. Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2010.) So, the fervently healed belief that this universe is ‘all that there is’ can be defined as a ‘Religion’ and, of course, the name of that ‘Religion’ is ‘Atheism’. I hope that clears it up for you. Hope to hear from you again; soon,JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4336 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Purpledawn,
Great to hear from you again; I would love to respond to everything you’ve posted here but I am endeavoring to keep my post brief.
Purpledawn writes: Actually, I wanted to know what the exercise of the Christian religion actually entails? True Christianity is not as much a ‘religiona’ in the belief system sense; as it is a relationship with the Creator of the Universes. OR, let me put it this way: I do not consider myself a ‘Christian’ because of ‘religiously held beliefs’ as much as because of Whom I believe in, Trust in, cling to, and rely onB; namely Yahushua Mashiach (Jesus the Christ). Some one once said: that The religions of the world are man’s attempt to find God; in ‘Christianity’ it is God that has searched out (is working toward a relationship with) man. Yahushua sums up the duties of a ‘Christian’ this way: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind (intellect). This is the great (most important, principal) and first commandment.And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as [you do] yourself. These two commandments [a]sum up and upon them depend all the Law and the Prophets. Again, I would like to touch on some of the other things you mention here; I just do not have the space/time. As it is; at this moment I have 16 other replies to try to get to. God Bless,JRTjr _______________________________________________________A. religion /rɪˈlɪdʒ ən/ [ri-lij-uh n] —noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. 6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice. 7. religions, Archaic . religious rites. 8. Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow. B. John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)16For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten ([a]unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life. 17For God did not send the Son into the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, but that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him. C. Matthew 22: 37 - 40 (Amplified Bible)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4336 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Theodoric,
Thank you for your interest.
Theodoric writes: Please show me where this is evidenced? Just one little source please. I have actually given several examples in this string; however let’s just start with the Declaration of Independence which sited more then two dozen Biblical violations as the justification for their need for independence from England.
Declaration of Independence
(emphasis added) IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 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. You may also want to check out this link: Legal Information Institute Thank you for your Time,JRTjr Edited by JRTjr, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4336 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Jar,
Great to hear from you again; I apologize for taking so long to get to these postings.
Jar writes: The United States was most definitely NOT founded for religious reasons, certainly not Christian reasons. The United States was founded to resolve economic, political, commercial and territorial disputes. This is a nice statement; but that is all that it is {a statement}. You have given no evidence that what you say here is true (factual, accurate, correct, right, etc. ) I have given evidence that our nation was founded by Christian for Christians; and the evidence I have given here is just the tip of the iceberg. So, if you want to ‘prove’ that The United States was most definitely NOT founded for religious reasons, certainly not Christian reasons. than you’re going to have to refute a good portion of the evidence to the contrary. Hope to hear from you soon,JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4336 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Theodoric,
Nice to hear from you again.
Theodoric writes: Since you are the one that brought up 'right' and 'wrong', you will need to be the one to define them. Sorry, I did not bring up 'right' and 'wrong' you did in post #116. However, if you would like me to give a definition of each I am more then happy to.
Right: adjective, -er, -est, noun, adverb, verb—adjective 1. in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct. 2. in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct: the right solution; the right answer. 3. correct in judgment, opinion, or action. {Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2010.} Wrong:
—adjective1. not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed. 2. deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer. 3. not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error: You are wrong to blame him. {Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2010.} Using these definitions for right/wrong I can safely say that your statement that The Constitution cannot be right or wrong. is definitely wrong. It either accords to fact or it does not. But that was even beside the point; I was making the point that If the Supreme Court says something, or does something, that is opposite of what the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ says then the Supreme Court is wrong and the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ is right. In other words if the judgments of the Supreme Court do not accord with what the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ actually says then the Supreme Court is wrong. Or, let me put it this way: If the Supreme Court say something and the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ says just the opposite then the Supreme Court is wrong. I don’t know too many other ways to put it. I hope this clarifies it for your. Hope to hear from you soon,JRTjr {P.S. I did not color the Hyperlinks, that is done automatically.}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4336 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Bikerman,
Your point would be valid if not for things like the following excerpts from ‘Thomas Jefferson First inaugural address, Washington D.C., Wednesday, March 4, 1801:
Thomas Jefferson writes: enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter--with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. ...the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith... And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity. As I have been trying to point out ‘your idea of what President Jefferson called ‘separation of Church and State’’ is not what even he meant by it. Thank you for your interest and participation,JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4336 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Jar,
Jar writes: The intent of the Founding Fathers was to create a society that met their needs but that would change over time to meet the needs of each generation. That is why they created a system that can change, designed in planned inefficiencies, and put the greatest power in the Supreme Court who also serve the longest terms. If you really believe that I have ocean front property in Arizona I can sale you real cheap. The three branches of government (President, Congress, and the Supreme Court) were to be an even distribution of power (Executive power in the President {Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States Of America}, Legislative power in Congress {Article I, Section 1}, and Judicial power in the Supreme Court {Article III, Section 1}); so no one person or group had total control. Also note that the making of changes to the Constitution of the United States of America requires that two thirds of both houses of Congress must aggress to any proposed changes (or two thirds of the several states); and then, for it to be ratified, it must have three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress {Article V} Note here that neither the ‘President’ nor the ‘Supreme Court’ has any say in this procedure. So changing the ‘Constitution’ was not supposed to be easy, and the ‘Supreme Court’ is not the branch of our government that is charged with making changes to our ‘Constitution’. Thank you for your time and interest,JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4336 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Bikerman,
Bikerman writes: you don't have to believe the evident, you simply have to accept it. I don't 'believe' in evolution, for example, it is evident, therefore I accept it. ‘AcceptingA’ and ‘BelievingB’ are two sides of the same coining. You must accept something to believe in it; and you must believe in something to accept it. ‘Evidence’ must be believed; if you do not ‘believe’ the ‘evidence’ it dose you no good. I’ll use your own logic against you.
‘You don't have to believe the evident, you simply have to accept it. I don't 'believe' in Intelligent Design, for example, it is evident, therefore I accept it.’ ‘I don't 'believe' that the United States was founded on Christian principles, it is evident, and therefore I accept it.’ My point here is ‘just because someone says something does not make it so’. Just because you believe/accept something as trueC does not make it true.
Bikerman writes: I don't see how any ambiguity could now remain in the mind of any honest person. This is explicit, completely clear and entirely unambiguous. The problem is not that what he said is not explicit, completely clear and entirely unambiguous.; the problem is that what our Founding Fathers have said and did has been twisted to mean things that thy themselves never intended. I’ll give you an example from the document you yourself quoted. Madison writes: I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of Religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does not trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite principle with me; and it was not with my approbation, that the deviation from it took place in Congress, when they appointed Chaplains, to be paid from the National Treasury. It would have been a much better proof to their Constituents of their pious feeling if the members had contributed for the purpose, a pittance from their own pockets. This is a portion of the first paragraph of the same document you pulled your quote from. If you’ll note here there was no question, or argument, over whether or not clergy should be offering prayers at the opening of the Congressional preceding (a tradition, may I add, that started with the first Congress, and continues to this day); the contention was whether or not the clergy should be paid from the public coffers (the treasury) or contributions made to the clergy from the pockets of members of Congress themselves. May I add here that I agree with Madison on this issue. I’ll close with this quote I gave Dr. Adequate: No amount of evidence will sway a man, convinced that he is correct, if he is not willing to admit he could be wrong Thank you for your posts,JRtjr A. Accept — verb (used with object)
1. to take or receive (something offered); receive with approval or favor: to accept a present; to accept a proposal. 7. to regard as true or sound; believe: to accept a claim; to accept Catholicism. B. Believe —verb (used with object)2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to. 3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person). 4. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border. C. True - adjective, truer, truest, noun, adverb, verb, trued, truing or trueing.—adjective 1. being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false: a true story.2. real; genuine; authentic: true gold; true feelings. 3. sincere; not deceitful: a true interest in someone's welfare. {Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2010.}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4336 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Theodoric,
Where to start; O’ where to start.
Theodoric writes: the Declaration is not a US legal document Never said it was. However, It is a Federal Government document that was written and signed {at peril for their lives, may I add} by the Founders of our Nation to give their reasons for declaring independence from England; so, in that respect, I would say that ‘yes’ it is a legal document.
Theodoric writes: the use of "creator", is not a reference to the christian god. This and the other terms used in the declaration like Nature’s God, and Divine Providence were terms used in the deism that was common among many of the founding fathers. Just looking at the beliefs of the writer of the declaration will show that it is in no way a reference to the Christan god. It could be a reference to any deity and no deity. That is the beauty of the founding fathers. They did not set much in stone. Give me a minute, I have to stop laughing. ;-} O.K., I’m better now. Let’s see; the Term ‘"creator"’ is, as you say not a reference to the christian god However, the term {capital ‘C’} ‘Creator’ {used in ‘The Declaration of Independence’} most defiantly is referring to the ‘Creator God’ of the Bible. That fact is so well documented that it is literally laughable that you would suggest otherwise. Also, ‘ the deism that was common among many of the founding fathers’ is the ‘Christian Faith’. Check out Signers of The Declaration of Independence Note here that there were 2 x Anglicans, 11 x Congregationalists, 2 x Deists, 14 x Episcopalians, 11 x Presbyterians, 1 x Quaker, 1 x Roman Catholic, 1 x Unitarian, and only 13 signers whose religious affiliation is un-known; and wouldn’t you know it, all of the ones mentioned are Christian denominations. That means that at least (at bear minimum) a full 75% of the signers of ‘The Declaration of Independence’ were of the Christian persuasion; so I think, on that fact alone, you could safely conclude that the ‘Creator’ ‘God’ ‘Divine Providence’ that they were referring to was the God of the Bible. Thank you for your response,JRTjr Edited by JRTjr, : Corrected a misquote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4336 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Dr Adequate,
Thank you for your responses, and your interest in this topic.
Dr Adequate writes: You keep ignoring the Establishment Clause. Since the entire paragraph you quoted was directly relating to the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, and it is often miss labels as ‘the Establishment Clause’ of our Constitution, I am forced to conclude that you are speaking of some other Clause in some other document that I am ignoring. I do not want to ignore any facts so, if you would, what Establishment Clause are you speaking of? Thank you for your time and effort,JRTjr
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024