|
|
| Post Number: 61
|
irisheyes 
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3040
Joined: Oct. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Feb. 28 2004,5:34 pm |
|
   |
| Quote (minnow fan @ Feb. 28 2004,4:36:pm) | | She finishes her cigarette & guess what she does? Flings it right out her window. |
Oh no, she threw her cigarette out the window!  (very sarcastic)
The majority of time I'm smoking, I'm doing it in the car, I throw them out all the time. Several times when I've been pulled over the cop told me to throw the cig out on the ground, so it doesn't seem they're worried about it either. The only time I don't is if its summertime and its really hot and dry out, then I'll make sure to not throw it in an area of grass or brush, I think thats pretty considerate of me, "only you can prevent forest fires".
| Quote | | But then again, who ever said smokers were a considerate bunch? |
I've seen a lot of people throw their gum wrappers on the ground, does that mean that people that chew gum are inconsiderate also? 
--------------
You know it's going to be a bad day when you cross thread the cap on the toothpaste.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 62
|
GEOKARJO
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 28 2004,5:41 pm |
|
 |
We will let you pray to whichever god you choose at Eddie's Bar but if you feel the need to pray to the porceline one in the back please stand close. 
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 63
|
minnow fan
Group: Members
Posts: 198
Joined: Nov. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 28 2004,9:40 pm |
|
|
The cop probably would rather have you litter then take the chance of you reaching in to put out your smoke & pulling out a piece from under the seat. You must get pulled over a lot huh?
And nice try with the gum wrapper reference but that is a stretch. So it's OK that you throw a burning object full of carcinogens on the ground because someone else threw a piece of paper in the ground? Guess that is Albert Lea logic and it shows you why Albert lea is the toilet it is, people like you could care less about throwing your waste onto the ground.
--------------
Even if you think the ALEDC is a good idea, do you really want to put Sparks and Bishop in charge of all the economic development in Albert Lea?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 64
|
minnow
Group: Members
Posts: 2243
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 28 2004,10:07 pm |
|
|
"I've seen a lot of people throw their gum wrappers on the ground, does that mean that people that chew gum are inconsiderate also?"
Of course it does you simpleton! This means your a litterer AND a drug addict.
...and what's worse than that is you're a worthless hypocrite...LOL
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 65
|
irisheyes
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3040
Joined: Oct. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 28 2004,10:14 pm |
|
|
| Quote (minnow fan @ Feb. 28 2004,9:40:pm) | | Guess that is Albert Lea logic and it shows you why Albert lea is the toilet it is, people like you could care less about throwing your waste onto the ground. |
This might shock you, but people outside of Albert Lea throw their cigarettes on the ground, even in other states, and other countries. The only place I know of where they don't is in Singapore, I'd rather see cig butts on the ground then live someplace like that.
--------------
You know it's going to be a bad day when you cross thread the cap on the toothpaste.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 66
|
cpu_slave
Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 01 2004,3:09 pm |
|
|
| Quote | cpu_crackpot
How about the 10 commandments being removed from courthouses everywhere & the no prayer in school crusade for starters? I would say the gov't is doing everything it can to make sure there is no religion in public places. |
OOO- nice play on my screen name, think of that all by yourself? Should I start addressing you as minnow’s ass since that’s about where everything you two talk about originates?
Ok, let’s follow your logic and say that the government is “doing everything it can to make sure there is no religion in public places”. Since bars and restaurants are about as public as local churches, I want religion banned in them as well. Following the anti-smoker logic, even if I never actually even go to every church, I still have a right to go to any of them and yet not be offended by religion, so start banning!
So again for the mentally challenged, if smoking is banned I want religion banned in the exact same way! In my opinion, one is really about as harmful as the other.
--------------
An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it.-James A. Michener
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.-Albert Einstein
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from wise men.- Marcus Cato
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 67
|
cwolff
Group: Members
Posts: 265
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 02 2004,2:49 pm |
|
|
Cpu_slave, obviously you know nothing about secularism or the separation of church and state!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 68
|
irisheyes
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3040
Joined: Oct. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 02 2004,4:21 pm |
|
|
| Quote (cwolff @ Mar. 02 2004,2:49:pm) | | Cpu_slave, obviously you know nothing about secularism or the separation of church and state! |
Why don't you explain it to us, cwolff? After reading all articles and amendments to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, I don't see the sentence "seperation of church and state" anywhere. If I'm missing something, point out to me where its from, if you can, I'll start a new thread for it.
--------------
You know it's going to be a bad day when you cross thread the cap on the toothpaste.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 69
|
GEOKARJO
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 02 2004,4:37 pm |
|
|
Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, "Separation of Church and State". Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:
I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (1)
The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers. Williams had said:
When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world...(2)
The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.
The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture. The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.
There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.
Each form of government has a guiding principle: monarchy in which the guiding principle is honor; aristocracy in which the guiding principle is moderation; republican democracy in which the guiding principle is virtue; despotism in which the guiding principle is fear. Without people of the United States upholding good moral conduct, society soon degenerates into a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of government to obtain what they want at the expense of others. The U.S. Constitution is the form of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people. The virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible. This is why Biblical morality was taught in public schools until the early 1960's. Government officials were required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960). God was seen as the author of natural law and morality. If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base. And by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy the community. The two primary places where morality is taught are the family and the church. The church was allowed to influence the government in righteousness an d justice so that virtue would be upheld. Not allowing the church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys our foundation of righteousness and justice. It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble -- the representatives will look after their own good instead of the country's.
Government was never meant to be our master as in a ruthless monarchy or dictatorship. Instead, it was to be our servant. The founding fathers believed that the people have full power to govern themselves and that people chose to give up some of their rights for the general good and the protection of rights. Each person should be self-governed and this is why virtue is so important. Government was meant to serve the people by protecting their liberty and rights, not serve by an enormous amount of social programs. The authors of the Constitution wanted the government to have as little power as possible so that if authority was misused it would not cause as much damage. Yet they wanted government to have enough authority to protect the rights of the people. The worldview at the time of the founding of our government was a view held by the Bible: that Man's heart is corrupt and if the opportunity to advance oneself at the expense of another arose, more often than not, we would choose to do so. They firmly believed this and that's why an enormous effort to set up checks and balances took place. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. They wanted to make certain that no man could take away rights given by God. They also did not set up the government as a true democracy, because they believed, as mentioned earlier, Man tends towards wickedness. Just because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err. Government was not to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the principles of the Bible.
Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.(3) We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas. This is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government. An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..." The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive. As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government. For instance, the President has the power to execute laws but not make them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge the people. The simple principle of checks and balances came from the Bible to protect people from tyranny. The President of the United States is free to influence Congress, although he can not exercise authority over it because they are separated. Since this is true, why should the church not be allowed to influence the state? People have read too much into the phrase "separation of church and state", which is to be a separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority, not moral values. Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?
Our founding fathers who formed the government also formed the educational system of the day. John Witherspoon did not attend the Constitutional Convention although he was President of New Jersey College in 1768 (known as Princeton since 1896) and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. His influence on the Constitution was far ranging in that he taught nine of fifty-five original delegates. He fought firmly for religious freedom and said, "God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both."(4)
In October 1961 the Supreme Court of the United States removed prayer from schools in a case called Engel v. Vitale. The case said that because the U.S. Constitution prohibits any law respecting an establishment of religion officials of public schools may not compose public prayer even if the prayer is denominationally neutral, and that pupils may choose to remain silent or be excused while the prayer is being recited. For 185 years prayer was allowed in public and the Constitutional Convention itself was opened with prayer. If the founding fathers didn't want prayer in government why did they pray publicly in official meetings? It is sometimes said that it is permissible to pray in school as long as it is silent. Although, "In Omaha, Nebraska, 10-year old James Gierke was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time... the boy was forbidden by his teacher to open his Bible at school and was told doing so was against the law."(4) The U.S. Supreme Court with no precedent in any court history said prayer will be removed from school. Yet the Supreme Court in January, 1844 in a case named Vidal v. Girard's Executors, a school was to be built in which no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever was to be allowed to even step on the property of the school. They argued over whether a layman could teach or not, but they agreed that, "...there is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz. a pure system of morality." This has been the precedent throughout 185 years. Although this case is from 1844, it illustrates the point. The prayer in question was not even lengthy or denominationally geared. It was this: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." What price have we paid by removing this simple acknowledgment of God's protecting hand in our lives? Birth rates for unwed girls from 15-19; sexually transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds; pre-marital sex increased; violent crime; adolescent homicide have all gone up considerably from 1961 to the 1990's -- even after taking into account population growth. The Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum. After the Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably.
There is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be one dominant view. Someone's morality is going to be taught -- but whose? Secular Humanism is a religion that teaches that through Man's ability we will reach universal peace and unity and make heaven on earth. They promote a way of life that systematically excludes God and all religion in the traditional sense. That Man is the highest point to which nature has evolved, and he can rely on only himself and that the universe was not created, but instead is self-existing. They believe that Man has the potential to be good in and of himself. All of this of course is in direct conflict with not only the teachings of the Bible but even the lessons of history. In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion. The American Humanist Association certifies counselors who enjoy the same legal status as ordained ministers. Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools? The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity. This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 70
|
cpu_slave
Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 02 2004,5:03 pm |
|
|
| Quote (cwolff @ Mar. 02 2004,2:49:pm) | | Cpu_slave, obviously you know nothing about secularism or the separation of church and state! |
and you know considerably less about sarcasm... or civil liberties...
--------------
An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it.-James A. Michener
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.-Albert Einstein
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from wise men.- Marcus Cato
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
