Hi Larry,
Yes, more than once, and if only those laws had passed buying tires for a bandsaw would be a heck of a lot easier! (and with that, we are back on topic...)
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
WE are losing it. (2023 Update)
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Hi Doug,
When you say "if that was the case" do you mean if you were in another country, or do you mean if you had that feeling of being "diminished?"
Thanks,
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Again, If those Moral Principals were GOOD I would have no problem at all. If I were in a court room in Iran, I would not have much say in the matter. Either place, I can choose to ignore them or not.
I am not going to answer that simply because the whole reason for those moral princpals is to remind that person or people that he or they should be truthful and honest. Although those moral principals are displayed, the person in question can either accept them or ignore them. It is a daily occourance that those moral principals are in fact ignored. If you are a good person the effect of those principals should have a positive out come.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Who Would Jesus Torture?
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Ah, but that is where they are further using our society against us. Try refuting what they say if you are on a college campus where they have been allowed to make their statements. You, like Leon, will be accused of bigotry, racism, and hate speech. If you are a student, you will be invited to a re-education camp (oops, I mean sensitivity training); if you refuse, you will be expelled for creating an atmosphere of hate. Unfortunately, these groups choose the forums in which they express their hatred publicly, then use the rules of that forum to suppress any backlash or refuting commentary.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
So you would encourage a witness to lie to the court while taking the oath if he doesn't believe in God but trust that he would tell the truth under questioning?
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
From what I've seen, there aren't very many of those people around; at least with the not viewpoint that your comment insinuates regarding any criticism of the president. Try looking at the backlash his support for illegal aliens produced -- it wasn't coming from the left.
Now, maybe those people who are making the comments you reference aren't making them because someone is speaking against the president, but because of the correlated implied criticism of the country itself. Maybe it isn't the criticism of the president but the viewpoint being expressed.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Hi Leon,
Well, I do regret that you will not answer my question, but I do thank you for your reactions to this point.
All the best,
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
It is a reminder that your God is aware of what you are saying. You need to be honest and truthful with your answers.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Hi again,
A reminder to whom?
God, as you have said, already knows.
So it would appear that the only (relevant) person left would be the person about to offer testimony. And that person's moral standing surely would not be altered by the necessity to speak an oath that they either already believe to be of great importance, or see as nonsense.
Thanks again,
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
No, As long as he only mentally retracts the oath and from that point on tells the truth. The Oath does not make you tell the truth. Those with any Good morals should not object, recant or have a problem with sticking with the oath. Those that "feel" that they have a legitimate reason to mentally retract the oath and continue to lie from that point on purger themselves. The oath is just the person giving his word to tell the truth and makes his testimony "1" step closer to being believed by a jury that has faith in God.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Nope. It is when people denounce the President for violating his oath of office, for asserting powers for which he is granted no authority and which authority is granted instead to the Congress or the Courts, or even denied to all three, or when they denounce the President for breaking the law that they are called "liberals", or "traitors". Even if one assumes they are in error as to Constitutional law or the facts, at the very least it should be recognized that they speaking in defense of the country, right?
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
In this case keeping a list of Moral Rules in the courts does in fact intend to protect the minorities rights.
Good as defined by your creator.
Until I see a large decay in the morals in court system I would stay.
No.
The citizens as a whole.
Totally agree, but then its not all about me, "Me" being any person in general. The "old ways" is a system that worked much more often than not. Life is not perfect. Life is not fair. What we learn from these facts helps us.
Your are welcome, however I feel that either you agree with my comments or you are troubled with your own thoughts on the matter. My answers are my feelings and I am in total comfort with them. I hope that you find comfort in yours.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
No, God is the judge of that.
Yeah.
Well not really. ;~)
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Just as a reminder, I'd like to point out that "Leon's Racism" hasn't been proven - at least not to me, and I suspect not to very many other than the person who changed the original subject line. But it persists.
Naw, I'm not gonna get into this either. I'm havin too much fun reading it.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
No, he did not say that, You just said that. Reread the sentence he typed and leave out YOUR "in other words", interpretation.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Hi Leon,
But what happened to the concern for the rights of the minority?
There are many people in the United States who feel that they have been harmed profoundly by that notion of "the whole."
My family has gone to sleep and I am clicking away here quietly, but I laughed out loud when I read your last comment above.
All the best,
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
How about someone who believes they have a religious obligation to refuse to swear a religious oath, but a mental moral obligation to tell the truth?
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
You answere that below.
Absolutely correct, but that persons moral standing "could" be altered by the necessity to speak an oath that they either believe to be of great importance. Or not. If he is truthful he may sleep better tonight. The oath is for the person taking the oath.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
You forgot to ask if that person had his fingers crossed at the time of the oath. Are you really at a loss for answers? Do you really need me to be your guide. Are you trying to paint some kind of picture here?
Answering your question, the above statement describes a contradicting situation. I would say that that person is having trouble in his faith. Do you know a person like this?