If you believe in the Constitution please read.

[Intune]

Only when rudely directed at me, then I take it personally.
You were NOT misquoted. If you mean to write something different from what was printed, please do so with you initial effort. Show the misquote if one exists.
No, it would be rude of you to direct words such as comprehension and edification in an effort to belittle.

I don't need the "bouncing-ball" version. Another shot. I was raised Methodist. Sang it once or twice. Gain an understanding of the Baptist perspective to see where I'm coming from. Until then, I consider the religious aspect of this discussion closed.

Don't deign to tell me how I read or comprehend a passage. You maintain your rudeness and can keep it to yourself. This WAS an interesting thread.
Your initial response to me was flawed.

"The FFs were a mostly religious bunch. Do any of you here think it was an accident that the words Creator, Supreme Being or God are used but not the words Jesus Christ?"

Jim replied:
There are three errors in your statement above:

1. Jesus Christ is not our Creator.

2. Jesus Christ is not the Supreme Being.

3. Jesus Christ is not God.

I never said that Christ was any of these entities. I implied that he was PURPOSLY omitted. DONE!

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Wow, one of the rudest posts I have ever seen on this board and I get the pleasure of having it directed at me."

Intune,

Is that in reference to my post?

Please let me know how my post was "rude."

If my disagreeing with your premise, and then laying out a structured argument to back my contentions is rude, then be prepared for a lot of rudeness from a lot of people who know how to put together an good rebuttals.

 

[Intune]

No Mike, not you at all. Sorry if you thought so. I enjoy a good rebuttal. Careful!!!

 

[Mike Irwin]

Ah, OK. My apologies then.

 

[jimpeel]

Intune

So you took it as an affront that I would point out to you that God, Creator, and Supreme Being are apples and Jesus Christ is an orange.

I openly admitted that you were correct when I stated "Yes, the later founding documents did not mention Jesus Christ." Jesus Christ with specificity was NOT mentioned yet, by your own admission, Creator, God, and Supreme Being are.

The fact that Jesus Christ is not mentioned with specificity does not negate the fact that the FF believed in a God, or a Supreme Being, or a Creator.

My effort at that point was to point out that there are documents, which are considered founding documents, which do mention the fact that Christianity was the basis of the founding of this country. To deny or ignore these documents is futile.

Basically, I have a thick skin so I imagine everyone else does also. I am a firm devotee of the school of "sticks and stones. You can badmouth me, my family, my dog, my cat, my car, my education, my beliefs, my religion, my clothes, my mama, my daddy, my shoes, my race, my hair color or anything else you wish and you can't hurt my feelings. Sorry if you were offended.

 

[Intune]

JP, I'll live, just got a little huffy. This whole Ten Comms thing is just going in circles. I would NEVER say anything bad about your Momma. That car though…

Yes, it was apples and oranges. Intentionally omitted by our FFs to be more inclusive to those that don't have the Orange in their religion. They (FF) thought that the 10 were extremely important but not as LAWS that EVERYONE had to live by. They knew them well enough to put them in there if they so chose. What this judge did alludes that the "state" embraces them and we should too. Hey, wait a sec… you sucked me back into this!!!

No harm done, back to the fray…

 

[jimpeel]

Intune

Hey, wait a sec… you sucked me back into this!!!

Gotcha!

The problem I have with the fray is this: If the court finds that the Constitution of Alabama is unconstitutional, doesn't that place in jeopardy every Constitution in the nation? Apparently, the Constitution of Alabama states that the laws thereunder are codified by the laws of, and the auspices of, God. If the Constitution is unconstitutional confused: juxtaposition ) then all of the laws of the state ever codified must, also, be unconstitutional. This also means that every person ever charged or convicted under those laws has standing for the expungment of those charges or convictions. This also means that every cell door in the state of Alabama would swing open and every cell would be emptied of its contents regardless of the crime committed.

Scary thoughts. What say you?

By the by, I drive an F-350, one-ton, crew-cab, twenty-two-foot long, eight foot wide, 6,300 pound, dually and am ia card carrying member in the official Arianna Huffington army of terrorist sympathizers; because it only gets nine miles to the gallon.

 

[Intune]

I don't believe they found the AL const unconstitutional. They found ol' Roy unconstitutional when he used an official decree to order a 5,000lb monument to religious laws enshrined in an Alabama house of law and that suggests such religious laws are sanctioned by the "state."

Ah, so you're the cause of this $1.65 a gal biz. Man, that's the butts they should be on, the oil companies. What a rip!

 

[jimpeel]

Intune

I don't believe they found the AL const unconstitutional.

You believe correctly. The problem occurs when the judge states in his decision that the State cannot recognize God. If the State cannot recognize God and God is enshrined into the State's Constitution, that Constitution is unconstitutional. That is what Moore has been stating all along. He says that if the court has not found the State's constitution unconstitutional the decision cannot disallow the Sttate from recognizing God. Its kind of a Catch-22 sorta, kinda, thing.

 

[Intune]

But neither the Alabama Supreme Court nor the U.S. 11th District ruled against a states right to recognize "God." See the exact ruling here- http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/religion/glsrthmre80503jdgmt.pdf

 

[LawDog]

I am hereby resurrecting the LawDog Off-Limits Topic List from TFL.

Religion. Off limits.

LawDog