dzolcali
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- crank town
side note, all our law is based off Anglo Saxon jurisprudence which in turn came from England.
dzolcali said:anybody weight lift?
8Mud said:Trying to legislate it's non existance, ignore it, deny it or in other ways trying to ostrich the whole thing, seems like the dumbest answer to the conundrom.
dzolcali said:when the war ends...
but for the other stuff, I believe correct me if this is wrong, but in a nutshell the puritans founded the 13 colonies, who each had their own seperate governments all to get away from the crown rule in England. However more over the founding fathers of "America" the land were actually from South America on up, christopher columbus was much later on the scene than many of the spanish inquisitioners, and the spanish inquisition well..they plundered and raped and murdered tons of the indiginous populations of south america before migrating upwards into the US formerly native american soil.
So anyways, the 13 colonies tried to fight the crown one by one, the crown was too powerful, originally they wanted religious freedom from the crown granted at that time it basically meant they didn't want to go to the kings church or be prosecuted. So they finally banded together to make the "united states" wow isn't that novel they defeated the kings army and won their freedom and decided since things were good they would establish a more perfect union. Enter the founding forefathers of our Federal government. And in regards to that, any state or local law that is not in conformity with the federal laws are rendered powerless...any federal law that is not inline with the constitution is dubbed unconstitutional and therefore has to be changed to be concurrent with the constitution.
Also beej, yes we are our own species, but we are like 2 what chromosome (not sure but I know it's super close) different than apes. apes, leemurs, gorilllas, baboons and a jungle of other species monkeys are all grouped into the same class thus my argument that we are in essence monkeys just smart monkeys.
dzolcali said:it's called the supremacy clause look it up moron...
goodburbon said:Mud,
I agree with the rest of your post but the above statement and the part about accepting it is curious. I in no way want you to feel that I don't respect your right to believe in anything you feel is true, I do want you to clarify this concept for me though.
If God is just the wrong noun to indicate something which we do not understand, then what sense does it make to try to appease and appeal to something which we do not understand, which we do not know what it wants, which we cannot even really know exists. Why can we not be moral, ethical, and good because it feels right, and is driven by something within us, without the added burden of trying to placate something that we made up to explain the things we couldn't?.
8Mud said:Tangent maybe, but perhaps the word God is used to try to label the unexplainable and religion is the methode used trying to explain it. We may use the word God, for lack of a better noun.
Someone trying to explain the unexplainable, with insufficient vocabulary, may be the reason for the differences in most religion. People get hung up on absolutes and are constantly trying to dissect the process. As an example, people are still trying to dissect the atom and label it's smallest parts, everytime someone cries success, somebody else finds a smaller partical. Almost the same with finding and cataloging all the parts of the universe.
Trying to legislate it's non existance, ignore it, deny it or in other ways trying to ostrich the whole thing, seems like the dumbest answer to the conundrom.
IMO, accepting it as a part of existance and concurrently trying to live a moral life, may be one answer to accepting it as an absolute (which it can't be to most people, other than phrophets) and living the ethic (maybe what the legislators in SC where hinting at) if not the substance may be the simpilist answer. I've always thought it really arrogant to ignore tradition and make judgements about it's relavance, which seems to be a sure way to make the same old mistakes, in the same old ways.
Somebody mentioned Anglo Saxon law as being the forerunner for most of the current law.
Read the law of Moses, specifically the "Judgements". Amazing how much of it is logical and still pertanant.
SpobiWolfe said:Correct me if im wrong but didnt the Pilgrims land on Plymoth Rock escaping religious persecution from the English? (Catholics)
:laugh2:red91inWA said:WELCOME TO OUR NEW TV SHOW....
Pot and Kettle....
In todays episode you'll hear POT say...."damn Kettle, your BLACK!?!?!?"
and in return hear Kettle say..." FU you racist SOB...wheres the ACLU?!?
:confused1
Now that is calling the kettle black. I dont pretend to know, thats why I said correct me if I'm wrong.Ramsey said:Spobi
He can't hear you.Wolfe said:Now that is calling the kettle black. I dont pretend to know, thats why I said correct me if I'm wrong.
SO SPOBI BACK AT YOU BIATCH !!
Then don't capitalize the word. That's something I've never understood about Christians--the insistence on capitalizing the word god. Other religions sometimes do it as well, but more often than not, they simply use their gods' names.8Mud said:Tangent maybe, but perhaps the word God is used to try to label the unexplainable and religion is the methode used trying to explain it. We may use the word God, for lack of a better noun.
Timber said:Then don't capitalize the word. That's something I've never understood about Christians--the insistence on capitalizing the word god. Other religions sometimes do it as well, but more often than not, they simply use their gods' names.