Perhaps you should first educate us as to how the simple display of the
moral imperatives of a society inarguably based on Judeo Christian
values/principles conveys "special privileges" onto any group of people?
Like CitiBank and Merrill Lynch? I'm waiting for someone to hide 20
or 30 billion in the "economic stimulus" package to bail out these two
But that's just the cynic in me.
Dave in Houston
I will accredit this to you, Swing, when I use this in other convos.
It seems so obvious to those who have their head on straight, but it
is so amazing to discover that so few of them have.
The cartoon side of me wants to say; "WTF??? Is this hard to digest???
It drives me nuts. Around here, I have a friend who operates a serious
fleet of school buses. About 70, I figure.
His contracts are with a school board which specifically exists for
the Roman Catholics. No matter how close a child lives to his/her
school, he/she gets a ride. He/she gets funding. From MY tax dollars.
One of my best friends is a principal of a Christian School. He
survives on fees paid by the parents who feel their little snowflakes
need to be indoctrinated by the same moral standards THEY were raised
by. Again, goodie for them, I think that is cool.
When I get MY tax bill (municipal) I get to pick. Catholics or public.
My buddy's school (with about 300 students) is NOT on that list.
Here comes the clincher:... He does not WANT any tax money, because
the second he does, he is told: No religious artifacts, like bibles,
NO prayer in school..yadda, yadda....
We, as Christians, never had an easy go of it. A few, like myself,
have become hardened and semi-militant about it. I don't think I am
known to mince words, but I assure you, that a meeting of either
school-boards is a whole lot more interesting with me in the audience.
It advantages that group that supports, or believes in,
those particular principles. (But, I truly suspect you knew
The simple intuitive test would be to ask yourself how you
would feel were you to enter a court that displayed some
other set of "moral imperatives." Might you feel in any way
disadvantaged, or diminished? To whatever degree you might,
one could suggest that your privileges had been diminished.
All the best,
That advantaged group would be a vast majority of the people in the United
States. Disputing that is in fact an attempt to twist and manipulate.
That would be just fine with me. As long as the imperatives were of Good
Might you feel in any way
Only if I was an idiot.
To whatever degree you might,
If I in fact felt that my privilidges had been diminished, it would be
because of my own doing. If I had a problem with that, I could certainly go
to another country and see how those courts would fit my wants.
No one that has not broken any laws is forced to stay in the United States
and be governed by its age old ways that worked pretty darn well unill some
people started twisting and manipulation the laws.
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:18:38 GMT, "Leon"
Please see my comments inline below...
As before, you are completely correct. What we are exploring
here has to do with protection for the rights of the
Do you mean "good" in the opinion of the judge in my
example, or in your own opinion?
This last one leaves me a bit confused.
If you were charged with a crime, and felt that your
privileges had been diminished would you be leaving for that
other country before or after your trial?
Are you really suggesting that all the people charged with
crimes are guilty? If that were true, we could save a
Also, when you say that things "worked pretty darn well" I
would have to ask "For whom?"
Anyone with even a superficial knowledge of our nation's
history knows that while those "old ways" worked "pretty
darn well" for some of our people, it worked very poorly for
As before, I thank you for your response,
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.
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
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
Well, since those moral imperatives are displayed all over the Supreme
Court building (and on most federal buildings in Washington, D.C.) in
stone and in fact are the underpinnings of our legal system, it
advantages all Americans.
I might feel I wasn't in the United States, and if that was the case I
might have no privileges at all.
I "am not" of the opinion that the 10 commandments must be displayed in the
courts. I do however believe that the judge, government official or not,
should be allowed to conduct his court room and have in his court room what
he chooses to have. Personally I prefer that they be displayed but I
certainly am against some one wanting them taken down for his day in court.
That person can choose to ignore them if he finds them offensive.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.