WE are losing it.

On Feb 22, 10:00 am, "asmurff" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree God has been removed from our schools. Not only has God name been
> removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, put some schools have stopped saying
> it all together to keep from offending those who are not Americans. My
> reply to that is they needn't be receiving a free public education then.
>

There is no shortage of Americans whose religious belief prohibits
saying the Pledge of Allegiance.

--

FF

On Feb 20, 2:12=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sickening how the Muslims are slowly using our laws against us to take ove=
r
> the world.


Hmm, I can't find any reference that this incident actually occurred.
Is there
a newspaper article or other reference?

Also, could this person be an actual US citizen? I don't recall a
religious test
to become a citizen. I would expect all of our laws to be equally
applied to
all of citizens and guests. Isn't that what I spent 4 yrs in Army for?

I love this wacky world called the Internet. You can say almost
anything and
then have achieve some level of truth and often without actually
having to
prove it.

MJ

On Feb 22, 9:31=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

>. =A0Putting your hand on the Bible and
> swearing to tell the truth is probably next.

Considering the true biblical meaning of an oath, I shuddered when I
saw Bush take his in '04.

I think 'oath' now means "whateverthehellyoucangetawaywith"

"Leon" wrote:


> Come to Houston, I probably have 100 in my neighborhood of 250
homes.

Must be NASCAR fans, not many Amishmen in Houston.

But only 100 out of 250, seems a little low<G>.



Lew.

"Robatoy" wrote:

You don't owe anybody any explanation.
<snip>

Still suffering the effects of male PMS are we?

Lew

"Leon" wrote:

>Another 60 homes for the
> Asians, 60 homes for the Mexicans and the rest of us probably have
parents
> that were born in the US.

How about your grandparents?

Lew

"Leon" wrote:

> My grandparents? Both grandparents on both sides were born in the
USA. My
> great grand father on my mothers side came to the US from Germany
when he
> was 14.

Sounds like you are a youngster<G>.

My grandfather, born in 1848, emigrated from Germany as a young man,
on a dare from his sister, who was already here.

Rest of the grandparents were from the same period.

My mother at 103, is the last surviving member of the 1st generation
born in the USA

Lew

D'ohBoy wrote:

> On Feb 20, 4:12 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Sickening how the Muslims are slowly using our laws against us to take
>> over the world.
>
> Can you 'splain that to me so you don't sound like a racist idiot?
>
> D'ohBoy

How about starting out by explaining the fact that islam is NOT a race.

Next?

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Robatoy wrote:

> On Feb 21, 10:13 am, "Tom Bunetta" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > On Feb 20, 4:12 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Sickening how the Muslims are slowly using our laws against us to take
>> >> over
>> >> the world.
>>
>> > Can you 'splain that to me so you don't sound like a racist idiot?
>>
>> > D'ohBoy
>>
>> He didn't come across that way to me.
>> Tom
>
> Neither did Leon come across to me that way.
>
> And if he sounded like a racist to someone, maybe that someone should
> try to hear what is being said, not what that someone wants to hear.
>
> Some people hear...but they don't listen.
>
> r

There is a segment of society, that whenever it hears words of criticism
directed at any protected block of society, will immediately
scream "racism" or "bigotry". It's a nice way to suppress freedom of
expression and squash debate. Works well when you don't have a really good
position from which to base a cogent argument.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Fly-by-Night CC wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Why, in spite of dress codes, are some
>> people allowed to disregard the dress code and dress a certain way because
>> of their religion when GOD has supposedly been removed from most of our
>> public schools? Why are they exempt form having GOD removed from their
>> education?
>
> God has not been removed from public schools. Teachers and children, at
> least in my little conservative town in Oregon, may wear symbols of
> their religious beliefs; two which come to mind immediately are gold
> crosses and Jewish headscarves. The Jehovah's Witness children are
> engaged in alternate activities during certain celebrations such as a
> birthday party in the classroom or holiday activities. Frequently
> children speak of God in their essays.
>
> There is no edict saying children or teachers may not observe their own
> religious beliefs. What IS restricted is the teaching staff and
> administration leading or teaching religion during the public school
> hours -- if you want your children to learn and be led in their
> religious practices during the school day, send them to an appropriate
> religious school.

The bemoaning of no prayer in school always reminds me that I probably
prayed more in school than at any other time. Especially before a test
or handing in a paper. Like your town, the people in my little
conservative town are more tolerant than I've seen elsewhere. A touch
of paradise. Maybe except for the snow. Another foot tonight. :-(
mahalo,
jo4hn

"Leon" wrote:

> 54 this year

Like I said, a youngin.

> My grandmother was born in 1894, I suspect that you grand father was a few
> years older than my great grand father.

Sounds like my aunts and uncles were of the same generation as your
grandfather.

> He was gone before I was born. He was a short fellow, 4'10". One of his
> sons was 6'8", I'm a hair under 6'

So was mine. He was also a small man, but my 5 uncles were all at least 6'.

Understand none of the kids, there were 10 of them, dared give him any lip.

Lived to be 83, which back then was a major accomplishment.

> Geez I bet she has some stories to share.

A few. Some very interesting ones that involved her twin sister and herself.

Both of them were natural red heads.

To this day, although the hair has faded, the fire in the belly hasn't.

Get out of line, she'll cut you a new one.


Lew

Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

> In article
> <2d645eed-aaf2-4f55-9733-a4c298cc643e@t66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> That one particular leader made it clear: if we don't have enough
>> pride in or appreciate enough to protect what we have as a nation and
>> as a culture, then we don't deserve to have it.
>
> What he doesn't seem to understand is that a portion of the pride and
> appreciation of our nation and culture is the freedom of speech he feels
> he is using to his advantage at our expense. He also seems to lack the
> ability to see beyond his own actions to those of others. Once he has
> broadcast his message others are likewise free to rebut and disagree.
>
> Just because he can say it publicly and be protected in that action, he
> has no further control over the public response.

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.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

> On Feb 21, 9:34 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>> > On Feb 21, 10:13 am, "Tom Bunetta" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> >> > On Feb 20, 4:12 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> Sickening how the Muslims are slowly using our laws against us to
>> >> >> take over
>> >> >> the world.
>>
>> >> > Can you 'splain that to me so you don't sound like a racist idiot?
>>
>> >> > D'ohBoy
>>
>> >> He didn't come across that way to me.
>> >> Tom
>>
>> > Neither did Leon come across to me that way.
>>
>> > And if he sounded like a racist to someone, maybe that someone should
>> > try to hear what is being said, not what that someone wants to hear.
>>
>> > Some people hear...but they don't listen.
>>
>> > r
>>
>> There is a segment of society, that whenever it hears words of
>> criticism
>> directed at any protected block of society, will immediately
>> scream "racism" or "bigotry".
>
> Yes. They are idiots.
>
> Just like there is a segment of society, that whenever
> one of its members is President, and it hears of word
> of criticism directed at him, will immediately scream
> "liberal", or "traitor".
>

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.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> I want a jury of my peers! All agnostics!

So you wish a religious litmus test for justice? That is pretty sad.



>
> Too many religious people think it's their right to force their moral
> code on others.

Your right discouraging murder, rape and robbery is a grave burden for
society to be inflicted with by a few crazed zealots.....Realistically it is
the left that wishes true control , be it mandatory seat belt use, the right
to smoke, what you eat and how much, your home, where and what you can
build, buy or sell or even the trees in your yard. Then the thought police
and the word nazi's, as well as no dissent being allowed (as a politician or
on a college campus just try and doubt global warming).

Incidentally whom are these "too many" anyway and what control have they
inflicted on whom? Rod

Leon wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I want a jury of my peers! All agnostics!

> So you would prefer to be judged by wishey washey types, those that
> cannot decide one way or the other if they believe in a God or not? I
> guess it you murdered some one they may find that it is OK.


I hadn't thought of that......It would indeed increase of the odds of a hung
jury by selecting jurists not committed enough to make decisions. One might
as well anticipate an easier go among those whom moral compass is based upon
"it depends" instead of a right or wrong, of which I'd suspect are often one
and same. Rod

"Swingman" wrote:

> Au contraire ... it was the other way around. Not too worry, though ..
> you're going to have to take it back from Mexico real soon now.

My former barber (30 year Air Force) was fond of saying, "What they lost
with the sword, they are taking back with the pecker."

Of course, that seemed to fit in with Orange County, birthplace of the John
Birch Society.

Lew



Lew

Robatoy wrote:

> On Feb 24, 10:42 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The English version of the
>> Bible is an interpreted version of the originals.  When translated
>> phrases/words were not always done so to capture the intent of the
>> message.
>
> At the wedding in Canaan (Luke 3) water was changed into grape juice,
> according to the Greek text.
> Not wine.
> That makes a big difference to those who take that as a nod from Jesus
> that you can catch a buzz if you feel like it.
>

Not sure where you got that information, but coming from a denomination
that diligently researches and uses the original languages (all of our
ministers must be able to read the scriptures from the original Greek,
Hebrew, or Aramaic in the proper historical meanings those words had at the
time they were written), I can tell you that is the first I have ever heard
of that interpretation. It further does not fit with the rest of the
context of the account where the master of the wedding makes the comment
about how the best wine was usually served first, then after the guests had
drunk too much, the lower quality wine brought out. Try
substituting "grape juice" in that sentence and you don't get the same
effect. Also doesn't work for the account of "new wine in new wineskins,
and old wine in old wineskins" comment that occurs elsewhere in the
gospels. Further, it doesn't work in the historical context; there was no
way at that time for grape juice to have been kept unfermented for any
period of time.

On the flip side, this was not an approval of drunkenness as the
admonitions against that are found throughout scripture.



> There is a whole lot of creative interpretation of things written in
> the Bible.

That there is.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Robatoy wrote:

> On Feb 24, 3:40 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>> > On Feb 24, 10:42 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
... snip
>> > At the wedding in Canaan (Luke 3) water was changed into grape juice,
>> > according to the Greek text.
>> > Not wine.
>> > That makes a big difference to those who take that as a nod from Jesus
>> > that you can catch a buzz if you feel like it.
>>
>> Not sure where you got that information, but coming from a denomination
>> that diligently researches and uses the original languages (all of our
>> ministers must be able to read the scriptures from the original Greek,
>> Hebrew, or Aramaic in the proper historical meanings those words had at
>> the time they were written), I can tell you that is the first I have ever
>> heard of that interpretation.  It further does not fit with the rest of
>> the context of the account where the master of the wedding makes the
>> comment about how the best wine was usually served first, then after the
>> guests had drunk too much, the lower quality wine brought out.  Try
>> substituting "grape juice" in that sentence and you don't get the same
>> effect.  Also doesn't work for the account of "new wine in new wineskins,
>> and old wine in old wineskins" comment that occurs elsewhere in the
>> gospels.  Further, it doesn't work in the historical context; there was
>> no way at that time for grape juice to have been kept unfermented for any
>> period of time.
>>
>> On the flip side, this was not an approval of drunkenness as the
>> admonitions against that are found throughout scripture.
>>
>> > There is a whole lot of creative interpretation of things written in
>> > the Bible.
>>
>> That there is.
>
>
>>
> The 'word' is oinos and can mean wine or grape juice. Fact.
>

"fruit of the vine"

> The context, however, makes it clear that it probably was, in fact,
> wine.... the fermented stuff that made the guests, after having drunk
> freely, intoxicated.
>
> My point was that some people wag their fingers and proclaim, NO NO NO
> that wasn't booze, it was grape juice. Therefore NO amount of alcohol
> is allowed.

Kind of hard to make that argument based upon other passages, both Old and
New Testament.

> And others use it as an excuse to get intoxicated, because it is
> acceptable.
>

Again, same thing, there are numerous admonitions, both Old and New
Testament against drunkenness.


> I wonder how peyote, pot, opium (all natural) rank on the 'cannot-do'
> scale.

They would easily fit into the admonition regarding drunkenness, has
nothing to do with the "naturalness" of the substance but the use to which
it is put. After all, hemlock is natural as well, it's still not good for
one.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

D'ohBoy wrote:

> On Feb 21, 11:20 am, Chuck Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:37:50 -0800 (PST), "D'ohBoy"
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Feb 20, 4:12 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Sickening how the Muslims are slowly using our laws against us to take
>> >> over the world.
>>
>> >Can you 'splain that to me so you don't sound like a racist idiot?
>>
>> Can you 'splain to me exactly when Islam became a race?
>>
>> --
>> Chuck Taylorhttp://home.hiwaay.net/~taylorc/contact/
>
>
> My apologies for my outrage at the gross bigotry present in Leon's
> statement overwhelming my semantic gifts. But that doesn't change the
> problems with his statement.
>

My apologies in advance for making you out to be a complete and total
idiot.

Since when is it gross bigotry to point out salient facts? The fact of
the matter is that radical islamic groups like CAIR are using US laws
against the citizens of this country to establish a foothold in US society
in which they can establish their own Sharia type laws. The writings of
their various leaders has firmly established their goals and ultimate
objective. Various writings frankly sneer at our ideas of freedom of
speech and other freedoms.

> The basic thrust of my comment remains valid. Who is the us who owns
> 'our laws?' White male Protestant US citizens? Are Muslims not
> Americans? Aren't all Americans subject to and the owners of American
> law?
>

If you mean by "our" laws, the laws and customs of the US, then one would
assume that we all own them. Muslims can and are US citizens, they are not
free to establish their own sets of laws within this country. It used to
be that when people came to this country from other countries, they were
expected to assimilate into the culture of this country, not expect this
country to adapt to the culture of the country from which they originated.
The fact is that they are using the freedoms we have available to us in
order to establish a foothold with the intent of removing those freedoms at
a later date.

> D'ohBoy

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Feb 23, 11:55 am, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 02:07:14 +0000, Leon wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I want a jury of my peers! All agnostics!
>
> Too many religious people think it's their right to force their moral code
> on others.

For a jury of peers you need to be tried in England. On this side of
the
pond there is no dichotomy between lords and commoners.

--

FF

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I think it is time we start
collecting foreskins again.

Muslim men are circumcised because Abraham had both Isaac and Ishmael
circumcised.

Your reference is to David and the Philistines?

In article
<[email protected]>,
D'ohBoy <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Feb 20, 4:12 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Sickening how the Muslims are slowly using our laws against us to take over
> > the world.
>
> Can you 'splain that to me so you don't sound like a racist idiot?
>
> D'ohBoy

Can you understand that Muslims are not a race, so nothing said about
Muslims can be called racist?

--
Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On Feb 20, 4:12 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sickening how the Muslims are slowly using our laws against us to take over
> the world.

Can you 'splain that to me so you don't sound like a racist idiot?

D'ohBoy

On Feb 22, 10:57 am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 5:10 pm, Just Curious <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > It's bigotry based on religion, not on race.
>
> But who is the bigot? The Muslim who purports to be on our side, yet
> dances in the streets when an IED takes out a HumVee and several
> American soldiers, or the guy like Leon who complains about people
> going around dressed like bandits in a bad western from the '30s?

I's say it's you if you think that a Muslim who pupports to be on out
side and a Muslim who dances in the streets when an IED takes
out a HumVee are the same person, just because they are both
Muslim.

When Americans in humvees went to Iraq we plunged their
country into civil war. When Muslim women come to the
US wearing burkas, they hurt no one.

--

FF

On Mar 1, 8:41 am, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> Something of a "have to be" to keep oil flowing. The Bush family,
> though, seems to consider the Saudi monarchy (if that's what it is)
> family friends.
>
> Amazing how the opinion flows, but the facts are unknown. Not that they
> should interfere, of course....

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/06/b99415.html
http://www.hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1211-05.htm
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001997123_bushgifts05.html
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0416,mondo5,52956,6.html

http://www.restoretherepublic.com/component/option,com_fireboard/Itemid,27/id,2035/catid,15/func,fb_pdf/

On Feb 21, 10:13=A0am, "Tom Bunetta" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Feb 20, 4:12 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Sickening how the Muslims are slowly using our laws against us to take
> >> over
> >> the world.
>
> > Can you 'splain that to me so you don't sound like a racist idiot?
>
> > D'ohBoy
>
> He didn't come across that way to me.
> Tom

Neither did Leon come across to me that way.

And if he sounded like a racist to someone, maybe that someone should
try to hear what is being said, not what that someone wants to hear.

Some people hear...but they don't listen.

r

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:54:48 -0600, "Swingman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Kenneth" wrote
>
>> Are you of the opinion that the 10 commandments should be
>> displayed in the courts? If so, does that not imply "certain
>> groups of people having special privileges?"
>
>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?

Howdy,

'Happy to...

It advantages that group that supports, or believes in,
those particular principles. (But, I truly suspect you knew
that <g>.)

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,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

"Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> I want a jury of my peers! All agnostics!
>
>> So you would prefer to be judged by wishey washey types, those that
>> cannot decide one way or the other if they believe in a God or not? I
>> guess it you murdered some one they may find that it is OK.
>
>
> I hadn't thought of that......It would indeed increase of the odds of a
> hung jury by selecting jurists not committed enough to make decisions. One
> might as well anticipate an easier go among those whom moral compass is
> based upon "it depends" instead of a right or wrong, of which I'd suspect
> are often one and same. Rod
>

But on the flip side of the coin the guy that murdered your child could get
off just as easily if tried by a non committal jury.

On Feb 22, 7:07 pm, Kenneth <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:37:03 GMT, "Leon"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Kenneth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:31:57 GMT, "Leon"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Hi Leon,
>
> >> Perhaps you can help me to understand more about your views.
>
> >> In one of your posts in this thread, you wrote:
>
> >>>It is no longer acceptable for judges to
> >>>have the 10 commandments displayed in their court rooms or the Bible
> >>>displayed in from of the court house.
>
> >> but at another point you wrote:
>
> >>>I don't believe in certain groups of people having special privileges
>
> >> Are you of the opinion that the 10 commandments should be
> >> displayed in the courts? If so, does that not imply "certain
> >> groups of people having special privileges?"
>
> >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.
>
> Hi again,
>
> Let me start by saying I very much appreciate your response
> to me question, but it does raise another:
>
> How might it feel for you if you were called into court as a
> witness, or perhaps even charged with a crime (just for the
> sake of my example <g>) and on entering the courtroom behind
> the judge you saw hanging on the wall some set of moral
> principles completely different from those with which you
> grew up?
>
> Would you feel it appropriate were I to say to you at that
> point "You can ignore them if you find them offensive."?
>

One major problem: the 10 Commandments are the basis for western
society today. You're in a world of trouble if you go into a courtroom
and find something different from the moral and legal and ethical code
you grew up with. That code involves the 10 Commandments, whether you
are Christian or not. Think about the courts we know of that do not
subscribe to the Judeo-Christian moral and ethical codes and the laws
that have come about because of them. Do you relaly think you'll get a
better deal in a Muslim court with some words of Mohammed on the wall--
or not on the wall, but reverberating through the heads of the other
participants? Would you care to be tried in China where there is no
code of any kind except what the current leaders say?

I am the last person to want to force Christianity or Judaism down
anyone's throat, but the solid fact is those two religions form the
basis for much of what we call society today. The 10 Commandants might
be an indication of the fairness of attitude you can expect in that
particular courtroom. Or it may just be a decoration.

On Feb 21, 1:20=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
>
> You don't owe anybody any explanation.
> <snip>
>
> Still suffering the effects of male PMS are we?
>
> Lew

Huh?

Leon:

I don't think anyone here believes you are a racist for what you
said. You are being baited.

BUT... good sir...

Lemme give you all the ammo you could want to defend your statement

>Sickening how the Muslims are slowly using our laws against
>us to take over the world.

About 6 - 8 months ago PBS had a 12 hour series called "America At the
Crossroads". Knowing that the world would not trust anything produced
in America as factual, it was a co-production with the BBC.

I watched every episode, every minute. Some episodes more than once.

I would highly suggest anyone that actually had any kind of interest
beyond name calling and screaming about civil rights take a long, hard
look at this series. There was quite a bit if talk in the series
about just that - using our own laws against us.

Then the worst part. They had a couple of high ranking Muslim leaders
that headquartered in the Philippines that openly sneered at the US
and our system of laws. They despised the US for fact that they could
come into our country, preach anarchy, overthrow of the government and
could actually get a police escort to protect them in their efforts.
He commented on our weak minded stupidity to let them come into the
country and do those things out in the open.

That one particular leader made it clear: if we don't have enough
pride in or appreciate enough to protect what we have as a nation and
as a culture, then we don't deserve to have it.

That made it pretty easy to understand.

Watch or rent the show. It is a lot deeper than your one sentence
comment. Until you see it, you won't appreciate the gravity of your
comment.

Robert

"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article
> <2d645eed-aaf2-4f55-9733-a4c298cc643e@t66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> That one particular leader made it clear: if we don't have enough
>> pride in or appreciate enough to protect what we have as a nation and
>> as a culture, then we don't deserve to have it.
>
> What he doesn't seem to understand is that a portion of the pride and
> appreciation of our nation and culture is the freedom of speech he feels
> he is using to his advantage at our expense. He also seems to lack the
> ability to see beyond his own actions to those of others. Once he has
> broadcast his message others are likewise free to rebut and disagree.
>
> Just because he can say it publicly and be protected in that action, he
> has no further control over the public response.
> --
> This Administration begs the question: WWJT?


It seems pretty clear that what he has said reflects their attitude and why
they attacked us and continue to attack us.
If you don't understand their culture, the one that been at war for
thousands of years you may never understand that they will slowly take over
the world. They are very patient and persistent. They know nothing else.
Unfortunately this generation of Americans want immediate gratification and
are easily swayed from their goals.

On Feb 22, 4:54 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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?

OK.... I'm going to get some popcorn now. This could get good.

Robert

"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <Z7%[email protected]>,
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > The person who refuses to say the words because of their moral beliefs
>> > is actually truer and of higher moral character than the one who says
>> > it
>> > to get along with the majority rule and rescinds it mentally later.
>>
>>
>> That is your openion and are certainly entitled to it. But refusing to
>> say
>> the oath for what ever reason does not make a person truer and or of
>> higher
>> moral character. He can just as easily lie later also.
>
> Of course it makes him of better character. The person who publicly
> refuses on grounds of their personal beliefs is much more aligned with
> truth than the one who elects to deceive jurors into thinking he holds
> similar faith to them.

I hope that attitude continues to work out for you.

On Feb 22, 5:54=A0pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Kenneth" wrote
>
> > Are you of the opinion that the 10 commandments should be
> > displayed in the courts? If so, does that not imply "certain
> > groups of people having special privileges?"
>
> 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?
>

I will accredit this to you, Swing, when I use this in other convos.
Well said.

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.

r

On Feb 23, 2:35 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:3e6fb496-2fb0-47c9-9955-b43b5271607e@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 22, 6:43 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Feb 22, 6:37 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> ...
>
> >> > 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.
>
> >> Hold on a second there.
>
> >> When the POTUS swears on the Bible that he will uphold his
> >> office...yadda, yadda...
>
> >> The I think that everybody on down from him has to do the same.
>
> > IIUC, you are saying that if a President choses to put his hand
> > on a bible when he takes his oath of office the rest of us should
> > be required to do the same when we testify in court?
>
> No, he did not say that, You just said that. Reread the sentence he typed
> and leave out YOUR "in other words", interpretation.

The only reason a President takes his oath of office with his hand
on a bible is because he choses to do so. Some have chosen
not to.

--

FF

On Feb 22, 6:43 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 6:37 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > 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.
>
> Hold on a second there.
>
> When the POTUS swears on the Bible that he will uphold his
> office...yadda, yadda...
>
> The I think that everybody on down from him has to do the same.

IIUC, you are saying that if a President choses to put his hand
on a bible when he takes his oath of office the rest of us should
be required to do the same when we testify in court?

Why shouldn't we have the same freedom when we take
an oath that the President has when he takes the oath of
office?

--

FF

On Feb 29, 1:57 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
>
> Ask anybody who lives in the UK, France, The Netherlands and other
> parts of the EU where the infiltration has already begun, they will
> tell you that it is NOT a good idea.
> Freedom of what you believe should be a right, to use it as a back-
> door for political change is not.

Freedom of belief coupled with free speech is
the FRONT door of political change.

--

FF

On Feb 29, 3:46=A0pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Feb 29, 1:57 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ...
>
> > Ask anybody who lives in the UK, France, The Netherlands and other
> > parts of the EU where the infiltration has already begun, they will
> > tell you that it is NOT a good idea.
> > Freedom of what you believe should be a right, to use it as a back-
> > door for political change is not.
>
> Freedom of belief coupled with free speech is
> the FRONT door of political change.
>
> --
>
> FF

Don't forget to buy your lady a burka then.

On Feb 22, 11:34 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > Muslims ain't gonna make it. The Chinese will turf 'em out. Talk about
> > long term...they're still bragging about being a civilized society
> > back when 1% of the population lived off the efforts of 99%, so the 1%
> > could grow fingernails that curled into their palms and proved they
> > did no physical work. Oh, wait. That hasn't changed, except for the
> > fingernails.
>
> Well, you probably have a good point there. The Muslims will probably take
> us down and then the Chinese will take them down.

Or the other way around. Let's not forget all the chances we give the
Chinese to poison us, after which our company leaders get to apologize
(i.e., Mattel's CEO) to the Chinese for bitching about it.

On Feb 23, 11:40 am, Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> > Any requirement that a person make a statement implying
> > >> > religious belief is a clear blatant violation of the First Amendment.
>
> > >> If that person objects, he can simply say in him mind, I take all that
> > >> back.
> > >> He can deal with that when his time comes. If he does not believe in
> > >> those
> > >> set of beliefs or morals, they should not matter to him. It should only
> > >> bother him and his God if he is being deceitful or dishonest. You see,
> > >> God
> > >> is not easily fooled and knows whether you are being honest or not.
>
> > > 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?
>
> > 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.
>
> The person who refuses to say the words because of their moral beliefs
> is actually truer and of higher moral character than the one who says it
> to get along with the majority rule and rescinds it mentally later.
>
> As a juror I would place more credence in the testimony of former than
> the later (if I was aware of their deception).
>
> By the way, the last time I was a juror (5 years ago-ish) the oath went
> as follows (in Oregon): "Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or
> affirm that the testimony you will give here today will be the truth
> under penalty of perjury?"
> --

I used to laugh--'60s--at the college loan applications that provided
a list of Communist organizations and then required the signer to
affirm that he/she had never belonged to any of these, nor had any
intent to overthrow the government of the U.S. I guess they rooted out
thousands of spies that way. Sure they did. I tried to explain to one
oath-giver that the undercover "intelligence" types would be the first
to sign without a pause, but she couldn't understand that.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Feb 20, 2:12 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sickening how the Muslims are slowly using our laws against us to take
> over
> the world.


>Hmm, I can't find any reference that this incident actually occurred.
>Is there a newspaper article or other reference?

Did you even try to find a reference?? :(

Google go me this:

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=104&sid=1348193

Leon wrote:

> Thank you Robert, My comment was not a shot from the hip response. I
> have heard and seen the similar interviews and comments as those that
> you have
> referred to. The apathy and the twisting of our laws is dragging this
> country down. Home of the free does not mean every thing is free and
> you
> are free to do what you want. We need to start defending our country
> and
> quit being limp. We have to demand more from our leaders and make
> them accountable for their actions.

See.
http://uk.youtube.com/user/patcondell

> If the Congress didn't like the pledge, they should have written their
> own and not messed with someone else's composition. Can you
> imagine an act of Congress making a change to one of the ten
> commandments?
>
Are you kidding? They're too busy violating them.

B.

n Feb 22, 8:31 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Actually God HAS been removed from public schools, perhaps not the ones that
> you are familiar with but the big cities are witnessing this.

There are some strange and disturbing happenings in Houston, that's
for sure. My niece goes to HSPVA, and it is like the 60s all over
again. She is almost feeling guilty about being anglo, not just
seeing herself as another in the teeming pond of humanity.

She is being taught somewhere (NOT at home) the Christians and
Christianity are wrong. She is glad to tell me that she can't stand
Christians. Her reasoning? "Because they want to take over
everything".

Hmm.... inquiring minds, you know....

OK, have they made some bold business moves to take over oil, auto,
steel, electronics, banking or the internet?

Well no, she said, none come to mind.

So, any hard core members of Christian orthodoxy (you know, the kind
that put murderers, thieves and adulterer to death) take over a state
government? Any multinational, multicultural armies formed by the
Christians to threaten, terrorize or murder in ANY country, state, or
individual that doesn't believe in Jesus? (I am thinking of The
Crusades in my mind.)

Well no, she didn't mean that.

Have you or your friends been arrested or disciplined in any way for
speaking out against the Christians? Have any Christians, even a
militant sect carried out any type of activities that harmed you or
your friends in any way?

(anyone with teenagers in their life picture the eye rolling of a
teenage girl here) NOOO.... they haven't done anything to me or my
friends and they aren't trying to take over the world.

Well, you know that begged the question to be asked. "So why do you
hate them so much?"

Answer: Their attitude. (This was never clearly defined, but in her
mind it was a real thing). And the fact that the literati of the
school informed them that the use of God in the Pledge of Allegiance
could be unconstitutional. And, she argued, it was shameful that as
American we are so uneducated, unaware of other cultures and so
arrogant that we believe that a nation could be formed under God.
What if there is no God? What if there is Buddha (or any other
entity) and no God?

She says "under God" but only under protest. She is too mindful of
the rights and feelings of others and waaay too intellectually aware
to fall into the trap of that simple statement.

But she gushes on and on about many other religions, other
philosphies, and is in wonder and awe at their rites, customs and
tenets. She is proud to tell me that should all embrace other
religions and be tolerant of what our uneducated minds see and
idiosyncrasies. She is very proud of her religious awareness, and her
tolerance of religions.

So I asked her why she didn't feel that way about the Christians.
Well, no real answer except to tell me "it's different". I asked her
if that with her tremendous tolerance of other religions and their
rites and customs if she couldn't cut the Christians a break on The
Pledge. Nope, she said. Hmmm.... so much for religious tolerance.

She doesn't quite have angst about being anglo, but she kind of wishes
she wasn't. She loves the Asian culture and religions, same with the
Indian culture and religion, and there is another that she is
currently infatuated with as well.
She feel like their culture is special, and just being a plain old
anglo Christian is bad. Someway, we were left behind.


> > least in my little conservative town in Oregon, may wear symbols of
> > their religious beliefs; two which come to mind immediately are gold
> > crosses and Jewish headscarves. The Jehovah's Witness children are
> > engaged in alternate activities during certain celebrations such as a
> > birthday party in the classroom or holiday activities. Frequently
> > children speak of God in their essays.
>
> I wish that were true in Houston.

I know that to be true. Religious symbols are not tolerated. In
fact, they just recently went to uniforms at HSPVA so they can kind of
have that socialistic feel that there aren't even any class
differences.


>It is no longer acceptable for judges to
> have the 10 commandments displayed in their court rooms

You know, that bugs the crap out of me. Society is about learning
from each other, and tolerance of one another. Even if you don't
believe in God, those are some pretty damn good rules to live by and
great instruction on how to conduct one's self.

If Anthony Robbins had written them, they would be everywhere like
"Chicken Soup For the Soul".

> > There is no edict saying children or teachers may not observe their own
> > religious beliefs. What IS restricted is the teaching staff and
> > administration leading or teaching religion during the public school
> > hours

You know, Texas is supposed to be so backwards, old fashioned, and
right wing. I would propose that we could do any state full of
lefties proud with out progressive legislation.

In the holiest of shrines in Texas, also known as The High School
Football Stadium, students, teachers, players, coaches, fans... NO ONE
can say the Lord's prayer unless to themselves. We have been praying
those boys don't get hurt on the field ever since I can remember, but
no more in San Antonio. I believe that this is the law in Texas now,
although it is enforced much less in the smaller towns.

But when a group of students in San Antonio decided to exercise their
religious freedom (about 1,000) of them at a football game and say the
Lords' Prayer out loud before the game, they were made to stop by
ushers and security. The ones that didn't stop were ushered out.

So much for religious tolerance, or even tolerance of others, eh? How
hard would it have been for others to stand quietly for a minute and
let the folks pray for the safety of their kids to a Christian God? I
mean really, Christianity is still the predominate/preferred religion
of most of the US, so trying to hide it, ban it, or silence it seems
to be a wrong against the will of at least some of the people.

How hard would it be for my niece to skip that one sentence in The
Pledge and allow those that believe in God to say so?

I would at least think that these grand intellectual minds that debate
the validity and place of Christianity in today's world would try to
teach some tolerance for one another. I'm not holding my breath,
though. Christianity seems to be quite at odds with the intellectual
crowd at this time. I have even heard it debated on NPR as to whether
it is actually a religion or maybe a cult.

Sigh.

Robert

On Feb 29, 3:15=A0pm, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> =A0I think it is time we start
> collecting foreskins again.
>
> Muslim men are circumcised because Abraham had both Isaac and Ishmael
> circumcised.

The more you know..... ( I didn't know)

>
> Your reference is to David and the Philistines?

It was.

On Feb 29, 11:39 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 29, 3:46 pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 29, 1:57 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > ...
>
> > > Ask anybody who lives in the UK, France, The Netherlands and other
> > > parts of the EU where the infiltration has already begun, they will
> > > tell you that it is NOT a good idea.
> > > Freedom of what you believe should be a right, to use it as a back-
> > > door for political change is not.
>
> > Freedom of belief coupled with free speech is
> > the FRONT door of political change.
>
> > --
>
> > FF
>
> Don't forget to buy your lady a burka then.

Why?

--

FF

On Feb 22, 9:31 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > God has not been removed from public schools.
>
> Actually God HAS been removed from public schools, perhaps not the ones that
> you are familiar with but the big cities are witnessing this.
>
> Teachers and children, at
>
> > least in my little conservative town in Oregon, may wear symbols of
> > their religious beliefs; two which come to mind immediately are gold
> > crosses and Jewish headscarves. The Jehovah's Witness children are
> > engaged in alternate activities during certain celebrations such as a
> > birthday party in the classroom or holiday activities. Frequently
> > children speak of God in their essays.
>
> I wish that were true in Houston.

Am I to understand that in Houston students are not allowed to
wear crosses, Jews headscarves and so on? IN Houston are
the Jehovah's Witness children required to engage in activities
contrary to their faith? Are children not allowed to write about
their religious beliefs in their essays?

> It is no longer acceptable for judges to
> have the 10 commandments displayed in their court rooms or the Bible
> displayed in from of the court house. Putting your hand on the Bible and
> swearing to tell the truth is probably next.

When it rains, didn't that Bible displayed in front of the courthouse
get wet? Sounds impractical to me.

I certainly hope that in Houston as elsewhere, no one is required
to take a religious oath prior to testimony, or for any other reason.

Disallowing the use of religious icons to decorate a public building,
is
hardly tatamount to removing God from the building. Unless my
childhood religious education was very much in error, no earthly
power can remove God from anywhere. ISTM that if someone who
insists on conspicuous displays of their religious icons by their
government is a person who is without faith.

>...
>
> > There is no edict saying children or teachers may not observe their own
> > religious beliefs. What IS restricted is the teaching staff and
> > administration leading or teaching religion during the public school
> > hours -- if you want your children to learn and be led in their
> > religious practices during the school day, send them to an appropriate
> > religious school.
>
> In many schools God has been stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance also.

"Under God" is not part of the Pledge of Allegiance. It was 'added'
by
a well-intentioned but ill-considered act of Congress in the 1950's.

If the Congress didn't like the pledge, they should have written their
own and not messed with someone else's composition. Can you
imagine an act of Congress making a change to one of the ten
commandments?

--

FF

On Feb 23, 11:47 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>...
>
> > The bible is a printed book. Putting your hand on it is no different that
> > swearing on last month's issue of Popular Woodworking (keeping on topic).
>
> > If you believe in the words of the bible, you don't need it to swear to
> > and actually tell the truth. If you don't believe in the words of the
> > bible, laws at they are written, and have already committed a crime,
> > putting your hand on a book is not going to increase your morals and make
> > you be honest. The bible is a symbol, not a truth machine.
>
> Simply because it is symbolic and a gesture that that person agrees in front
> of every one that he will tell the truth.
> It guarantees nothing but like the lottery, you can't win if you don't play.
> I don't play the lottery but some people believe they will win.
> Not totally unlike giving some one your word.
> It is more about the higher standard of morals that the Bible represents.

How does a Bible represent a higher standard of morals, and higher
than what?

People who draw moral guidance from the Bible do so by careful
selection. The fact that so many people do, skipping over the
genocide and so forth is quite encouraging. It shows that most
people are fundamentally good by nature.

--

FF

Obama will correct that lolol
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sickening how the Muslims are slowly using our laws against us to take
> over the world.
>
>
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Wal-Mart Stores Inc. apologized to a Muslim woman who said she was
>> mocked because of her face veil.
>>
>> "Please don't stick me up," a cashier told the shopper on Feb. 2,
>> according to The Council on American-Islamic Relations.
>>
>> Wal-Mart apologized Monday in a letter signed by Rolando Rodriquez, a
>> vice president and regional general manager. It was released Tuesday
>> by the council's Nevada chapter.
>>
>> "I can assure you that the associate in question was disciplined in
>> accordance with our employment policies as a result of the situation,"
>> Rodriguez said without disclosing details.
>>
>> Rodriguez said employees at the Riverdale store would undergo
>> "sensitivity training," specifically in the Islamic faith and Muslim
>> culture.
>>
>> At Wal-Mart headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., spokesman Phillip Keene
>> confirmed the letter and declined further comment.
>>
>> "We applaud Wal-Mart for taking appropriate action to resolve this
>> incident," said Yasser Moten, executive director of the council's
>> Nevada chapter. The group doesn't have an office in Utah.
>
>

Kenneth wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:54:48 -0600, "Swingman"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Kenneth" wrote
>>
>>> Are you of the opinion that the 10 commandments should be
>>> displayed in the courts? If so, does that not imply "certain
>>> groups of people having special privileges?"
>> 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?
>
> Howdy,
>
> 'Happy to...
>
> It advantages that group that supports, or believes in,
> those particular principles. (But, I truly suspect you knew
> that <g>.)

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.

>
> 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.

I might feel I wasn't in the United States, and if that was the case I
might have no privileges at all.

On Feb 21, 11:20 am, Chuck Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:37:50 -0800 (PST), "D'ohBoy"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Feb 20, 4:12 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Sickening how the Muslims are slowly using our laws against us to take over
> >> the world.
>
> >Can you 'splain that to me so you don't sound like a racist idiot?
>
> Can you 'splain to me exactly when Islam became a race?
>
> --
> Chuck Taylorhttp://home.hiwaay.net/~taylorc/contact/


My apologies for my outrage at the gross bigotry present in Leon's
statement overwhelming my semantic gifts. But that doesn't change the
problems with his statement.

The basic thrust of my comment remains valid. Who is the us who owns
'our laws?' White male Protestant US citizens? Are Muslims not
Americans? Aren't all Americans subject to and the owners of American
law?

D'ohBoy

On Feb 29, 6:42 pm, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> > On Feb 29, 1:57 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> ...
>
> >> Ask anybody who lives in the UK, France, The Netherlands and other
> >> parts of the EU where the infiltration has already begun, they will
> >> tell you that it is NOT a good idea.
> >> Freedom of what you believe should be a right, to use it as a back-
> >> door for political change is not.
>
> > Freedom of belief coupled with free speech is
> > the FRONT door of political change.
>
> <http://www.dotsub.com/films/moredemands/index.php?autostart=true&lang...>

He doesn't much like Bush's Buddies does he? Sensible man.

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:33:11 -0800, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Didn't a state legislator once try to change the value of Pi ?

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...)
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Feb 20, 2:12 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sickening how the Muslims are slowly using our laws against us to take
> over
> the world.


Hmm, I can't find any reference that this incident actually occurred.
Is there
a newspaper article or other reference?

Also, could this person be an actual US citizen? I don't recall a
religious test
to become a citizen. I would expect all of our laws to be equally
applied to
all of citizens and guests. Isn't that what I spent 4 yrs in Army for?

I love this wacky world called the Internet. You can say almost
anything and
then have achieve some level of truth and often without actually
having to
prove it.

MJ

If you live anywhere near a big city and watch the news, it is almost daily
that a Muslim wants special handling for his or her dress. Why can't I
wear a mask and shield my face when in a bank?

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
> On Feb 22, 5:54 pm, "Swingman" wrote:
> > "Kenneth" wrote
> >
> > > Are you of the opinion that the 10 commandments should be
> > > displayed in the courts? If so, does that not imply "certain
> > > groups of people having special privileges?"
> >
> > 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?
> >
>
> I know more than one Jew who finds the term "Judeo Christian" to
> be offensive, regarding it as yet another attempt by Christians
> to blame Judaism for their own shortcomings.

I'm quite aware of those who oppose the term because they feel it was
conceived to celebrate commonality instead of differences ... but there's
never been any shortage of jackasses more than willing to slobber in the
public trough.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Feb 29, 11:42 pm, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> > On Feb 29, 1:57 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> ...
>
> >> Ask anybody who lives in the UK, France, The Netherlands and other
> >> parts of the EU where the infiltration has already begun, they will
> >> tell you that it is NOT a good idea.
> >> Freedom of what you believe should be a right, to use it as a back-
> >> door for political change is not.
>
> > Freedom of belief coupled with free speech is
> > the FRONT door of political change.
>
> <http://www.dotsub.com/films/moredemands/index.php?autostart=true&lang...>

I love that guy.

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:d6e5b54e-7349-4452-b9a1-66ed008f5ab5@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> My first ever photo ID was a passport. At the time, drivers'
> licenses
> did not have photos on them.
>
> As they became more popular at least one state Missouri continued
> to issue non-photo licenses to people who objected on religious
> grounds. Those people by and large were Christian.
>
> American law and custom is filled with exemptions for religious
> belief. Regarding conscription, members of some religious sects
> easily qualified for conscientious objector status while others
> had to prove deep seated personal, moral belief against war.
>
> Separation of church and state is a conundrum. If churches
> are taxed, then church and state are not separate. If churches
> are not taxed, the state is showing favoritism to religion.
>
> There is no solution. We just have to muddle through as best we
> can.

If only we could let common sense play a more prominent role we would all be
better off. Unfortunately everything has to be adjusted so that no one is
offended. We are in a process that is certainly numbing out society. Most
of us are adult and should realize by now that the world is not a fair and
just place to live. A society advances by moving forward, not by dumbing
down the system so that the undeserving have equal opportunity. Respect is
earned, not a right.

"Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>
>> My bank has a "please remove your helmet" sign for the benefit of
>> snowmobilers.
>
> Mine bank's a little more direct. They just instruct you to leave your
> weapons at the door.
>
> Seems to be working.



Better still, be even more direct. Don't enter if you intend to rob this
bank or kill people. I am guessing that this would be a logical suggestion
by those that feel a mask is not a threat. I mean if you forgot to take off
your vest full of explosives or feel that there is no problem with bringing
your gun into the bank and have absolutely no intention of using either
while in the bank, what's all the fuss about? ;~)
Now on the other hand, if those people came to the bank and slipped a note
under the door indicating that they wanted to steal money or to blow people
up, they absolutely should not come into the bank.
There is a simple solution for every thing.

On Feb 22, 9:54 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <2d645eed-aaf2-4f55-9733-a4c298cc6...@t66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> That one particular leader made it clear: if we don't have enough
> >> pride in or appreciate enough to protect what we have as a nation and
> >> as a culture, then we don't deserve to have it.
>
> > What he doesn't seem to understand is that a portion of the pride and
> > appreciation of our nation and culture is the freedom of speech he feels
> > he is using to his advantage at our expense. He also seems to lack the
> > ability to see beyond his own actions to those of others. Once he has
> > broadcast his message others are likewise free to rebut and disagree.
>
> > Just because he can say it publicly and be protected in that action, he
> > has no further control over the public response.
> > --
> > This Administration begs the question: WWJT?
>
> It seems pretty clear that what he has said reflects their attitude and why
> they attacked us and continue to attack us.
> If you don't understand their culture, the one that been at war for
> thousands of years you may never understand that they will slowly take over
> the world. They are very patient and persistent. They know nothing else.
> Unfortunately this generation of Americans want immediate gratification and
> are easily swayed from their goals.

Muslims ain't gonna make it. The Chinese will turf 'em out. Talk about
long term...they're still bragging about being a civilized society
back when 1% of the population lived off the efforts of 99%, so the 1%
could grow fingernails that curled into their palms and proved they
did no physical work. Oh, wait. That hasn't changed, except for the
fingernails.

On Feb 23, 1:49 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> ...
>
> So I asked her why she didn't feel that way about the Christians.
> Well, no real answer except to tell me "it's different". I asked her
> if that with her tremendous tolerance of other religions and their
> rites and customs if she couldn't cut the Christians a break on The
> Pledge. Nope, she said. Hmmm.... so much for religious tolerance.
>
> She doesn't quite have angst about being anglo, but she kind of wishes
> she wasn't. She loves the Asian culture and religions, same with the
> Indian culture and religion, and there is another that she is
> currently infatuated with as well.
> She feel like their culture is special, and just being a plain old
> anglo Christian is bad. ...

For your next talk you may want to address the concept of
"ethnic self-loathing". My observation is that it can be
pretty much independent of ethnicity.

--

FF

On Feb 22, 8:21 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> There is a segment of society, that whenever it hears words of
> >> criticism
> >> directed at any protected block of society, will immediately
> >> scream "racism" or "bigotry".
>
> > Yes. They are idiots.
>
> > Just like there is a segment of society, that whenever
> > one of its members is President, and it hears of word
> > of criticism directed at him, will immediately scream
> > "liberal", or "traitor".
>
> 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.
>

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?

--

FF

On Feb 22, 12:11 am, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:10:14 -0700, Just Curious wrote:
> > Larry Blanchard wrote:
> >> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:30:41 +0000, Leon wrote:
>
> >> And I see few, if any, Muslims demonstrating in the streets against the
> >> latest atrocity. I have seen them dancing in the streets to celebrate.
> >> Is my assumption that the majority of them approve of the violence thus
> >> racist, or is it based on the evidence?
>
> > It's bigotry based on religion, not on race.
>
> In other words, you can prove that most of them do NOT approve of the
> violence? Then how come no protests?

Early in the occupation a group of Shia clerics in Basra
led a demonstration to protest the killings of two British
soldiers. At the time it was the largest gathering of civilians
in Iraq since before the invason. So now the question is,
why didn't you know about that?

Go back to the time between WWI and WWII and there
were massive KKK rallies in the US with no one protesting
them.Now if the Klan holds a rally no one comes to support
them but the skinheads and Nazis, the police mobilized to
protect them often outnumber the Klan members themselves
and the people who come out to protest against the Klan
always outnumber them. The Klan no longer has the power
to suppress and intimidate opposition. The Muslim paramilitary
groups do.

Is it any wonder you don't see demonstrations and
protests against the violent jihadis in Iraq, Afghanistan,
or Pakistan? As for the rest of the Muslim world, maybe
they don't identify with the jihadis any more than you
or I. I dunno about you, but *I* haven't taken part in
a protest against the jihadis either.

How many protests were organized in the US against
IRA violence--ever? How many Americans protested
against the death camps and rape brothels in the Bosnian
war?

The IRA was only a small percentage of Christians
in Ireland, and an even more miniscule percentage of
all Christians worldwide. So how did they survive so
long? The Serb war criminals were only a small
percentage of Serbs, why did it take foreign
intervention to drive them from power.

Our government took action in Bosnia. The Egyptian,
Turkish, Jordinian, Lybian, Morrocan, Tunisian, Indian,
Pakistani, Afghan, Phillipine, Sri Lankan, Russian,
Israeli, Lebanese, and Indonesian governments have
been taking action against Muslim paramilitary groups
within their borders. Maybe the majority of Muslims in
those countries think that supporting their government's
efforts are sufficient.

Even the Wahhabi rulers of Saudi Arabia has taken action
against al Queda. So has the despot Bashir in the Sudan.

Meanwhile, how many Americans organized a protest against
Elohim City after the Oklahoma City bombing? How many
protested against the Olympic Park bombing?

During our intervention in Panama, how many Americans
protested against the harrassment of the Vatican embassy,
seizure of the the Nicaraguan embassy or destruction
of the Jamaican embassy?

Every time I hear a statistic on the number of Muslims in
the world I hear a bigger number. The last one was
1.2 billion. If one tenth of one percent of Muslims were
willing to go to Iraq to fight us, the insurgency would
be a million strong!

If you look, you will find individual Muslims speaking out
against violence. But if a thousand Muslims write letters to
a newspaper promoting peace, and bin Laden sends one
letter predicting violence, which letter(s) would get all the
press?

I daresay most Muslims just go about their daily business,
just like anyone else.

--

FF

On Feb 22, 6:31 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:68bae744-6d28-4b23-96e5-1d4b3c48441b@q70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> ...
>
>
> > I certainly hope that in Houston as elsewhere, no one is required
> > to take a religious oath prior to testimony, or for any other reason.
>
> You mean I swear to tell the truth and the whole truth, so Help me God? Is
> there any court room in the US that does not require that?
>

I have sat on juries in Ohio and Maryland. Neither required a
religious
oath. Any requirement that a person make a statement implying
religious belief is a clear blatant violation of the First Amendment.

>
>
> > Disallowing the use of religious icons to decorate a public building,
> > is
> > hardly tatamount to removing God from the building. Unless my
> > childhood religious education was very much in error, no earthly
> > power can remove God from anywhere. ISTM that if someone who
> > insists on conspicuous displays of their religious icons by their
> > government is a person who is without faith.
>
> A constant reminder of God is no harm to anyone not is it a sign of lack of
> faith.

Why does a person who has faith need a constant reminder?
and why does a person who has faith need to canstantly remind
other people?

> A conspicous display of their religious icon by anyone, is not a sign of a
> person who is with out faith. If you believe that, explain that to any
> priest. It matters not, where the display is.
>

We simply disagree.


> ...
> > "Under God" is not part of the Pledge of Allegiance. It was 'added'
> > by a well-intentioned but ill-considered act of Congress in the 1950's.
>
> Thats crap. The Under God IS a part of the pledge, not all the time but has
> been for a very long time. If you want to argue, just say so.

The Congress didn't write the Pledge of Allegiance so it is no more
appropriate for the Congress to edit it than it is for the Congress
to
edit anyone else's writings.

What purpose is served by adding divisive language to the Pledge?

--

FF

"Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 20, 6:36 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ac284014-04ca-4cdd-93bc-12fc455d4f95@b29g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Feb 20, 5:12 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Sickening how the Muslims are slowly using our laws against us to take
>> >> over
>> >> the world.
>>
>> > The Muslims are using our laws to slowly take over the world? How does
>> > that work?
>>
>> Apparently very well, haven't you noticed?
>
> If they're taking it over they're saving my neighborhood for last. I
> see maybe ten muslims a month. They have an odd sense of fashion but
> so do NASCAR fans and Amishmen.

Come to Houston, I probably have 100 in my neighborhood of 250 homes.

On Feb 23, 3:12 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
> > On Feb 22, 9:07 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> 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.

Yes, I'm not clear on how you think the court should
deal with an honest person who refuses to take
a religious oath before giving his testimony.

Please tell us.

> 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?

I'm firm in my belief that my religion is
none of the state's goddamn business
and will not take a religious oath at the
behest of the state.

Nor would I give false testimony.

--

FF

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> My grandparents? Both grandparents on both sides were born in the
> USA. My
>> great grand father on my mothers side came to the US from Germany
> when he
>> was 14.
>
> Sounds like you are a youngster<G>.

54 this year

>
> My grandfather, born in 1848, emigrated from Germany as a young man,
> on a dare from his sister, who was already here.

My grandmother was born in 1894, I suspect that you grand father was a few
years older than my great grand father. I do not recall when he was born
but he did live to be 99 and was still alive when my 66 year old sister was
a youngen. He was gone before I was born. He was a short fellow, 4'10".
One of his sons was 6'8", I'm a hair under 6'

>
> Rest of the grandparents were from the same period.
>
> My mother at 103, is the last surviving member of the 1st generation
> born in the USA

Geez I bet she has some stories to share.

"Kenneth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi again,
>
> Let me start by saying I very much appreciate your response
> to me question, but it does raise another:
>
> How might it feel for you if you were called into court as a
> witness, or perhaps even charged with a crime (just for the
> sake of my example <g>) and on entering the courtroom behind
> the judge you saw hanging on the wall some set of moral
> principles completely different from those with which you
> grew up?

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.

>
> Would you feel it appropriate were I to say to you at that
> point "You can ignore them if you find them offensive."?

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.

"D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 20, 4:12 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Sickening how the Muslims are slowly using our laws against us to take
>> over
>> the world.
>
> Can you 'splain that to me so you don't sound like a racist idiot?


Sure, but let me restate laws as being customs. Our laws are simply being
twisted and manipulated.

And keep in mind that when I say Muslims I did not and do not mean all
Muslims. But a group of Moslems played a large roll in the recons I list
below. I also realize that "all" races have their problems and are viewed
similarly in other countries. I judge individuals on an individual basis
but birds of a feather tend to flock together.

Can you simply get on board an airplane most anywhere in the US and the
rest of the world and not go through a line to be sniffed and scanned? Why
can't I wear a mask inside a bank? Why, in spite of dress codes, are some
people allowed to disregard the dress code and dress a certain way because
of their religion when GOD has supposedly been removed from most of our
public schools? Why are they exempt form having GOD removed from their
education?

Now there are "Special" hate crimes".
These have especially became up front and center since 911. Why does a
particular crime towards a particular race have a special upgrade in
punishment. Why is a crime against one race far worse in punishment than
when it is against another? Don't get me wrong, I think all crimes against
any one or race is a hate crime but apparently crimes against some people
are exempt from being classified a hate crime.

Why is there still a group called the KKK?

I don't believe in certain groups of people having special privileges and I
don't believe that all Muslims are evil or have hate in their hearts but
many do and right now because of what some Moslems have done, the rest of
the Moslems are cast in the same light. "Every" race has its skeletons
and every race has a reason for it's actions and beliefs.

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:18:38 +0000, Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> The Constitution was written to protect the minority from the majority.
> Failure to do so is mob rule.
>
>> That would be just fine with me. As long as the imperatives were of Good
>> morals.
>>
>
> And of course YOU would be the judge of that.

No, God is the judge of that.
>
>
>> 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.
>
> Leon, you're a lost cause. You just used a long-winded sentence to say
> "Love it or leave it".

Yeah.


> Age old ways? OK, you got me - I hadn't realized till now that you were
> trolling :-).

Well not really. ;~)

"George" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Swingman" wrote in message


> > IIRC, that is indeed why the word "affirmation" was added to the phrase
> > "oath or affirmation", to insure the secular nature of the process.
> >
> >
>
> "Solemnly swear or affirm" is the phrase.

Not in the context I used it as a "process", which I clearly stated in the
above. Go back and read your Constitution:

"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following
Oath or Affirmation".

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:aad36190-2f58-4769-a356-5562c2c26f28@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

> Society of victims. I just read a headline where a local columnist
> thinks the "victims" of the mortgage problems, i.e., those who took
> advantage of the breaks once available when they got a mortgage,
> should be helped by the government. The columnist presented it as
> support for the "American dream," whatever that is.

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
greed-mongers.
But that's just the cynic in me.
-
Dave in Houston

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:31:57 +0000, Leon wrote:
>
>> In many schools God has been stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance also.
>
> Good. The phrase "under God" was added by a conservative administration
> in 1952. Apparently the nation survived quite well for 175 years or so
> without it. It wasn't there when I went to school :-).

YOU were in shcool in 1952 ?????? ;~)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leon" <[email protected]>

> Let me explain where I was coming from. I do believe that the Bible
> should be involved in the oath process, no exceptions.

Why?

The bible is a printed book. Putting your hand on it is no different that
swearing on last month's issue of Popular Woodworking (keeping on topic).

If you believe in the words of the bible, you don't need it to swear to and
actually tell the truth. If you don't believe in the words of the bible,
laws at they are written, and have already committed a crime, putting your
hand on a book is not going to increase your morals and make you be honest.
The bible is a symbol, not a truth machine.

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:68bae744-6d28-4b23-96e5-1d4b3c48441b@q70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Am I to understand that in Houston students are not allowed to
> wear crosses, Jews headscarves and so on? IN Houston are
> the Jehovah's Witness children required to engage in activities
> contrary to their faith? Are children not allowed to write about
> their religious beliefs in their essays?

In the public schools that my son attended, most of that is pretty much
correct. Crossed could be worn under the uniform shirt. Dress codes were
enforced.



>
>> It is no longer acceptable for judges to
>> have the 10 commandments displayed in their court rooms or the Bible
>> displayed in from of the court house. Putting your hand on the Bible and
>> swearing to tell the truth is probably next.
>
> When it rains, didn't that Bible displayed in front of the courthouse
> get wet? Sounds impractical to me.

No, IIRC it was in some kind of protective display case, it may not have
even been real but there was a bit news week when certainpeople wanted it
removed.

>
> I certainly hope that in Houston as elsewhere, no one is required
> to take a religious oath prior to testimony, or for any other reason.

You mean I swear to tell the truth and the whole truth, so Help me God? Is
there any court room in the US that does not require that?



>
> Disallowing the use of religious icons to decorate a public building,
> is
> hardly tatamount to removing God from the building. Unless my
> childhood religious education was very much in error, no earthly
> power can remove God from anywhere. ISTM that if someone who
> insists on conspicuous displays of their religious icons by their
> government is a person who is without faith.

A constant reminder of God is no harm to anyone not is it a sign of lack of
faith.
A conspicous display of their religious icon by anyone, is not a sign of a
person who is with out faith. If you believe that, explain that to any
priest. It matters not, where the display is.

>
>>...
>>
>> > There is no edict saying children or teachers may not observe their own
>> > religious beliefs. What IS restricted is the teaching staff and
>> > administration leading or teaching religion during the public school
>> > hours -- if you want your children to learn and be led in their
>> > religious practices during the school day, send them to an appropriate
>> > religious school.
>>
>> In many schools God has been stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance also.
>
> "Under God" is not part of the Pledge of Allegiance. It was 'added'
> by
> a well-intentioned but ill-considered act of Congress in the 1950's.

Thats crap. The Under God IS a part of the pledge, not all the time but has
been for a very long time. If you want to argue, just say so.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Leon" <[email protected]>
>
>> Let me explain where I was coming from. I do believe that the Bible
>> should be involved in the oath process, no exceptions.
>
> Why?
>
> The bible is a printed book. Putting your hand on it is no different that
> swearing on last month's issue of Popular Woodworking (keeping on topic).
>
>

I'm an attorney, and so have been in court many times. I have NEVER
seen a judge require a witness to put his/her hand on a Bible (except in
the movies, but that's not an accurate portrayal of real life).

I personally am a Christian and believe in the Bible. James 5:12 says,
"swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any
other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall
into condemnation." I believe in that, and so when asked,I will
solemnly affirm that I will tell the truth under penalty of perjury.
But I will not swear an oath, because the Bible itself condemns it.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Swingman" wrote:
>
>> Au contraire ... it was the other way around. Not too worry, though ..
>> you're going to have to take it back from Mexico real soon now.
>
> My former barber (30 year Air Force) was fond of saying, "What they lost
> with the sword, they are taking back with the pecker."
>
> Of course, that seemed to fit in with Orange County, birthplace of the John
> Birch Society.
>
>
Not the Birch John Society? (getting back on topic, the Birch John
Society stands foursquare for the preservation of wood privies.)

Robatoy wrote:
> On Feb 24, 10:42 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>The English version of the
>>Bible is an interpreted version of the originals. When translated
>>phrases/words were not always done so to capture the intent of the message..
>
>
> At the wedding in Canaan (Luke 3) water was changed into grape juice,
> according to the Greek text.
> Not wine.
> That makes a big difference to those who take that as a nod from Jesus
> that you can catch a buzz if you feel like it.
>

<snip>

The wedding at Cana where Jesus changed water into wine is John 2:1
through 2:9. The Strong's Concordance list the original Greek word as:



G3631
οἶνος
oinos
oy'-nos
A primary word (or perhaps of Hebrew origin [H3196]); “wine” (literally
or figuratively):—wine.

The Hebrew [H3196] cross references to:

H3196יַיִ
yayin
yah'-yin
From an unused root meaning to effervesce; wine (as fermented); by
implication intoxication:—banqueting, wine, wine [-bibber].


It often debated but the with the custom of the time it is doubtful
unfermented grape juice was served at the wedding.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Muslims ain't gonna make it. The Chinese will turf 'em out. Talk about
> long term...they're still bragging about being a civilized society
> back when 1% of the population lived off the efforts of 99%, so the 1%
> could grow fingernails that curled into their palms and proved they
> did no physical work. Oh, wait. That hasn't changed, except for the
> fingernails.

Well, you probably have a good point there. The Muslims will probably take
us down and then the Chinese will take them down.

I agree God has been removed from our schools. Not only has God name been
removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, put some schools have stopped saying
it all together to keep from offending those who are not Americans. My
reply to that is they needn't be receiving a free public education then.

--
Mike
Watch for the bounce.
If ya didn't see it, ya didn't feel it.
If ya see it, it didn't go off.
Old Air Force Munitions Saying
IYAAYAS
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> God has not been removed from public schools.
>
> Actually God HAS been removed from public schools, perhaps not the ones
> that you are familiar with but the big cities are witnessing this.
>
> Teachers and children, at
>> least in my little conservative town in Oregon, may wear symbols of
>> their religious beliefs; two which come to mind immediately are gold
>> crosses and Jewish headscarves. The Jehovah's Witness children are
>> engaged in alternate activities during certain celebrations such as a
>> birthday party in the classroom or holiday activities. Frequently
>> children speak of God in their essays.
>
> I wish that were true in Houston. It is no longer acceptable for judges
> to have the 10 commandments displayed in their court rooms or the Bible
> displayed in from of the court house. Putting your hand on the Bible and
> swearing to tell the truth is probably next.
>
>>
>> There is no edict saying children or teachers may not observe their own
>> religious beliefs. What IS restricted is the teaching staff and
>> administration leading or teaching religion during the public school
>> hours -- if you want your children to learn and be led in their
>> religious practices during the school day, send them to an appropriate
>> religious school.
>
> In many schools God has been stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance also.
>
>
>
>

In article <2d645eed-aaf2-4f55-9733-
[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Leon:
>
> I don't think anyone here believes you are a racist for what you
> said. You are being baited.
>
> BUT... good sir...
>
> Lemme give you all the ammo you could want to defend your statement
>
> >Sickening how the Muslims are slowly using our laws against
> >us to take over the world.
>
> About 6 - 8 months ago PBS had a 12 hour series called "America At the
> Crossroads". Knowing that the world would not trust anything produced
> in America as factual, it was a co-production with the BBC.
>
> I watched every episode, every minute. Some episodes more than once.
>
> I would highly suggest anyone that actually had any kind of interest
> beyond name calling and screaming about civil rights take a long, hard
> look at this series. There was quite a bit if talk in the series
> about just that - using our own laws against us.
>
> Then the worst part. They had a couple of high ranking Muslim leaders
> that headquartered in the Philippines that openly sneered at the US
> and our system of laws. They despised the US for fact that they could
> come into our country, preach anarchy, overthrow of the government and
> could actually get a police escort to protect them in their efforts.
> He commented on our weak minded stupidity to let them come into the
> country and do those things out in the open.
>
> That one particular leader made it clear: if we don't have enough
> pride in or appreciate enough to protect what we have as a nation and
> as a culture, then we don't deserve to have it.
>
> That made it pretty easy to understand.
>
> Watch or rent the show. It is a lot deeper than your one sentence
> comment. Until you see it, you won't appreciate the gravity of your
> comment.
>
> Robert

So you are saying you were baited by extremists on tv
who made you skeptical of freedom. Well done.

S.

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 02:07:14 +0000, Leon wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I want a jury of my peers! All agnostics!
>
> Too many religious people think it's their right to force their moral code
> on others.
>

So you would prefer to be judged by wishey washey types, those that cannot
decide one way or the other if they believe in a God or not? I guess it you
murdered some one they may find that it is OK.

"Tanus" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Fly-by-Night CC wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Well, this thread's Subject line has been pretty well hashed out and left
> behind. I'm always amazed at how far a thread can go from its original
> subject line.
>
> 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.

LOL.. The darn hook just wont come out. But FIY I am not a racist. ;~) I
simply believe that every one should have to stand in the same line, so to
speak. If a person does not like being treated differently he should not
bring attention to himself by acting or dressing differently.

"Kenneth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:54:48 -0600, "Swingman"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Kenneth" wrote
> >
> >> Are you of the opinion that the 10 commandments should be
> >> displayed in the courts? If so, does that not imply "certain
> >> groups of people having special privileges?"
> >
> >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?
>
> Howdy,
>
> 'Happy to...
>
> It advantages that group that supports, or believes in,
> those particular principles. (But, I truly suspect you knew
> that <g>.)

> 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.

"Advantages", "privileges diminished"? ... in what way, specifically?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

>
> My bank has a "please remove your helmet" sign for the benefit of
> snowmobilers.

Mine bank's a little more direct. They just instruct you to leave your
weapons at the door.

Seems to be working.

jc

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 22, 9:07 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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?


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?

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Like ANY ONE else, he gets tossed in jail for contempt.
>
> Well we probably made a mistake letting you Texicans join the Union
> in the first place.

Grow up Fred, no need to get snotty about it. If you are frustrated talk to
your wife.

"D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 20, 4:12 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Sickening how the Muslims are slowly using our laws against us to take
>> over
>> the world.
>
> Can you 'splain that to me so you don't sound like a racist idiot?
>
> D'ohBoy

He didn't come across that way to me.
Tom

"Puff Griffis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My common since says to shut my mouth but oh well here it goes. First
> people in this country blamed the Indians for their problems. Then the
> Germans then the Irish then the Italians then the Jewish then the Blacks
> then the Asians then the Mexicans, well some still blame the Blacks and
> Mexicans, now it's the Muslims. When will fools quit blaming races or
> religions for moronic behavior and start blaming the individuals. Now here
> is an original thought lets stick with woodworking in this woodworking
> news group and take your juvenile prejudice to a news group better suited
> to the purpose.
> Puff


I confess, when I was younger and lived in a city with only a sprinkle of
minorities except for Mexican Americans, I too wondered what all the fuss
was about. Then I moved to Houston 34 years ago and that is when my
perception changed. Remember I started out thinking, what's the problem.
I continue to judge an individual that I meet with a clean slate. I draw
the line when laws are broken and unfortunately some nationalities tend to
break the law more often than others. This casts a bad light on the group
as a whole when you seldom hear anything good about a particular race.
Houston is a very diverse group of races. Predominately, Mexican, Black,
White, Asian, and Middle Easterners.
With out a doubt the race that complains the least, tries the hardest to fit
in, and the one that you do not see as often on the news involved in a
crime, are the Asians. When they first started arriving in numbers there
was resentment towards them for a very brief period of time however they
have earned respect and IMHO are some of the best neighbors.
Most all the other minorities in Houston want to take back Texas,
reparations, or be exempt from our laws.
And then there are those, "all races", that want to remove "God in public
places and Government buildings, from all of our lives.

<snip>
> Tom

Neither did Leon come across to me that way.

And if he sounded like a racist to someone, maybe that someone should
try to hear what is being said, not what that someone wants to hear.

Some people hear...but they don't listen.

Tom Watson hit it on the head... read on down.
T

"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The person who refuses to say the words because of their moral beliefs
> is actually truer and of higher moral character than the one who says it
> to get along with the majority rule and rescinds it mentally later.


That is your openion and are certainly entitled to it. But refusing to say
the oath for what ever reason does not make a person truer and or of higher
moral character. He can just as easily lie later also.




>
> As a juror I would place more credence in the testimony of former than
> the later (if I was aware of their deception).
>
> By the way, the last time I was a juror (5 years ago-ish) the oath went
> as follows (in Oregon): "Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or
> affirm that the testimony you will give here today will be the truth
> under penalty of perjury?"

That is just sad.


> --
> This Administration begs the question: WWJT?
>
> _____
> Owen Lowe
> The Fly-by-Night Copper Company

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:b80db4c3-7271-4022-ab0b-ed39c586a1fa@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hold on a second there.
>
> When the POTUS swears on the Bible that he will uphold his
> office...yadda, yadda...
>
> The I think that everybody on down from him has to do the same..


Let me explain where I was coming from. I do believe that the Bible should
be involved in the oath process, no exceptions. The judge that I was
talking about had the 10 commandments displayed openly in the walls of the
court room. Some people wanted those removed. I say too bad.

On Feb 21, 10:30=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Feb 20, 4:12 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Sickening how the Muslims are slowly using our laws against us to take
> >> over
> >> the world.
>
> > Can you 'splain that to me so you don't sound like a racist idiot?
>
> Sure, [snip]

You don't owe anybody any explanation. It's not your fault some people
can't read.
Fukkum, I say.

Every ethnic group has its flavours. Good ethnic flavours and bad.
Gangsta Rap has done a wonderful job erasing the black stereo-type for
instance. </sarcasm>
Do I get my panties in a knot when in a demographic analysis I am
referred to as a white male?

Look, when *I* go 20 clicks over the speed limit, I get a ticket for
speeding.
When <insert ethnic group here> goes 20 clicks over the speed limit,
*THEY* get a ticket because they are <insert ethnic group here>.

It's just another example of certain people 'working' the system for
all they can get for free. That makes them assholes...and they come in
all kinds of colours....

r

On Feb 22, 11:34 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:9b1f4dbf-b943-4887-a875-24c0919748a5@q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Yes, I'm not clear on how you think the court should
> > deal with an honest person who refuses to take
> > a religious oath before giving his testimony.
>
> > Please tell us.
>
> Like ANY ONE else, he gets tossed in jail for contempt.

Good trolling.

I went to the trouble of finding a person who sat on a jury in
Texas who took a secular juror's oath, and said a secular
oath was also permitted for witnesses, though they are
assumed to no object to the religious one unless they speak
up.

> ...
>
> > I'm firm in my belief that my religion is
> > none of the state's goddamn business
> > and will not take a religious oath at the
> > behest of the state.
>
> That is good to know.
>
> Better not get caught in court in Texas.

Well we probably made a mistake letting you Texicans join the Union
in the first place.

--

FF

On Feb 22, 1:43 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:31:57 +0000, Leon wrote:
>
> >> In many schools God has been stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance also.
>
> > Good. The phrase "under God" was added by a conservative administration
> > in 1952. Apparently the nation survived quite well for 175 years or so
> > without it. It wasn't there when I went to school :-).
>
> YOU were in shcool in 1952 ?????? ;~)

He may well have been. I was in junior high then.

On Feb 22, 7:06 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
>
> > On Feb 22, 5:54 pm, "Swingman" wrote:
> > > "Kenneth" wrote
>
> > > > Are you of the opinion that the 10 commandments should be
> > > > displayed in the courts? If so, does that not imply "certain
> > > > groups of people having special privileges?"
>
> > > 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?
>
> > I know more than one Jew who finds the term "Judeo Christian" to
> > be offensive, regarding it as yet another attempt by Christians
> > to blame Judaism for their own shortcomings.
>
> I'm quite aware of those who oppose the term because they feel it was
> conceived to celebrate commonality instead of differences ... but there's
> never been any shortage of jackasses more than willing to slobber in the
> public trough.

Society of victims. I just read a headline where a local columnist
thinks the "victims" of the mortgage problems, i.e., those who took
advantage of the breaks once available when they got a mortgage,
should be helped by the government. The columnist presented it as
support for the "American dream," whatever that is.

And we probably will get that help passed, so once again, the greedy
grabbers win, the tax bill goes up, and we'' hear about tax and spend
Democrats, because that's who is going to be in office when this 'un
gets pushed through (party affiliation is irrelevant, though, as no
politician wants a bloc the size of that made up by homeowners down on
his ass).

One has to wonder why the hell everyone starting out these days seems
to need at least 2,800 SF with 10' ceilings.

On Feb 21, 1:38 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Leon" wrote:
> >Another 60 homes for the
> > Asians, 60 homes for the Mexicans and the rest of us probably have
> parents
> > that were born in the US.
>
> How about your grandparents?
>
> Lew

How far back does the white side of my family get to count, with a
Selfe landing here, supposedly, in 1654. I would guess not too much
later, one of his female get got jumped by a Choctaw or some such, so
there's the "native" American side, too. Been around a bit. That's 17
generations since the Brits ran one of my ancestors out, so I'd guess
great, great, great, great...it ain't worth it!

One of the things that seriously disturbs me about Islam is the lack
of encouragement by the more moderate religious leaders of any kind of
learning outside their own schools. Some of those schools are pretty
good, but, for the most part, far too many seem to be devoted to
extremist Muslim theology. That worries me even more than screwball
fundamentalist Christians, who, at least most of the time, run into
limits imposed by those who are more moderate, something I have yet to
see happen in the modern Islamic world. I find it hard to imagine even
Jerry Falwell calling jihad on Larry Flynt, with five million bucks
for his death. If something like that were tried, say by the still
living Pat Robertson who is as close to a true nut as there is on the
public scene today, it wouldn't take long for him to be shouted into
oblivion.

On Feb 20, 5:12 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sickening how the Muslims are slowly using our laws against us to take over
> the world.
>

The Muslims are using our laws to slowly take over the world? How does
that work?

Thank you Robert, My comment was not a shot from the hip response. I have
heard and seen the similar interviews and comments as those that you have
referred to. The apathy and the twisting of our laws is dragging this
country down. Home of the free does not mean every thing is free and you
are free to do what you want. We need to start defending our country and
quit being limp. We have to demand more from our leaders and make them
accountable for their actions.
The old saying united we stand divided we fall has never rang so true. I
don't mind a mixture of culture, what I do mind are cultures that feel they
have a right to change out country to suite their needs. These new people
coming to live in our country need to respect the country that they have
chosen to live and work in. Unfortunately the attraction, the once all
mighty dollar, is what they are after. Many are after freedom but do not
realize that freedom comes with a price.


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:2d645eed-aaf2-4f55-9733-a4c298cc643e@t66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Leon:
>
> I don't think anyone here believes you are a racist for what you
> said. You are being baited.
>
> BUT... good sir...
>
> Lemme give you all the ammo you could want to defend your statement
>
>>Sickening how the Muslims are slowly using our laws against
>>us to take over the world.
>
> About 6 - 8 months ago PBS had a 12 hour series called "America At the
> Crossroads". Knowing that the world would not trust anything produced
> in America as factual, it was a co-production with the BBC.
>
> I watched every episode, every minute. Some episodes more than once.
>
> I would highly suggest anyone that actually had any kind of interest
> beyond name calling and screaming about civil rights take a long, hard
> look at this series. There was quite a bit if talk in the series
> about just that - using our own laws against us.
>
> Then the worst part. They had a couple of high ranking Muslim leaders
> that headquartered in the Philippines that openly sneered at the US
> and our system of laws. They despised the US for fact that they could
> come into our country, preach anarchy, overthrow of the government and
> could actually get a police escort to protect them in their efforts.
> He commented on our weak minded stupidity to let them come into the
> country and do those things out in the open.
>
> That one particular leader made it clear: if we don't have enough
> pride in or appreciate enough to protect what we have as a nation and
> as a culture, then we don't deserve to have it.
>
> That made it pretty easy to understand.
>
> Watch or rent the show. It is a lot deeper than your one sentence
> comment. Until you see it, you won't appreciate the gravity of your
> comment.
>
> Robert
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On Feb 22, 9:45=A0am, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
>
> Take for instance two words which sound similar, "microcephalic", and,
> "microphallic".
>
> Whilst it may be argued that the OP demonstrates symptoms of both,
> this does not mean that they have a necessary connection, and one may
> be present without the other, even though by appearances they would
> seem to be in etymological lock step.
>
Not to be confused with entomological lock step, that when used
together with microphallc, makes for the origin of 'needle-dick-the-
bug-fucker'.

On Feb 20, 6:36 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:ac284014-04ca-4cdd-93bc-12fc455d4f95@b29g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 20, 5:12 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Sickening how the Muslims are slowly using our laws against us to take
> >> over
> >> the world.
>
> > The Muslims are using our laws to slowly take over the world? How does
> > that work?
>
> Apparently very well, haven't you noticed?

If they're taking it over they're saving my neighborhood for last. I
see maybe ten muslims a month. They have an odd sense of fashion but
so do NASCAR fans and Amishmen.

On Feb 23, 8:19 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message

> Christianity seems to be quite at odds with the intellectual
> > crowd at this time. I have even heard it debated on NPR as to whether
> > it is actually a religion or maybe a cult.
>
> > Sigh.

>
> This is a consequence of a youth that has had a lot handed over on a silver
> platter and gets immediate gratification.

The kiddos are being taught that claptrap by their teachers and
professors that are in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. Certainly the
chatterboxes debating Christianity's actual definition were in their
50s and 60s.

Wait... we could be about the same folks. Same crap, different day
kinda thing.

Robert
Robert

On Feb 21, 11:52 pm, samson <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> So you are saying you were baited by extremists on tv
> who made you skeptical of freedom. Well done.

Ahhh... another poster savaged by illiteracy. Read the post over and
over... don't give up... it is possible you may eventually understand
the post with careful study.

I can't help with your comprehension, but this might help you some:

http://tinyurl.com/3qe7

Robert

On Feb 22, 6:37 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Kenneth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:31:57 GMT, "Leon"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Leon,
>
> > Perhaps you can help me to understand more about your views.
>
> > In one of your posts in this thread, you wrote:
>
> >>It is no longer acceptable for judges to
> >>have the 10 commandments displayed in their court rooms or the Bible
> >>displayed in from of the court house.
>
> > but at another point you wrote:
>
> >>I don't believe in certain groups of people having special privileges
>
> > Are you of the opinion that the 10 commandments should be
> > displayed in the courts? If so, does that not imply "certain
> > groups of people having special privileges?"
>
> 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.

Hold on a second there.

When the POTUS swears on the Bible that he will uphold his
office...yadda, yadda...

The I think that everybody on down from him has to do the same.

On Feb 29, 11:30 pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Mar 1, 1:06 am, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Charlie Self wrote:
> > > On Feb 29, 6:42 pm, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> > >>> On Feb 29, 1:57 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>> ...
>
> > >>> Freedom of belief coupled with free speech is
> > >>> the FRONT door of political change.
> > >> <http://www.dotsub.com/films/moredemands/index.php?autostart=3Dtrue=
=E2=8C=A9...>
>
> > > He doesn't much like Bush's Buddies does he? Sensible man.
>
> He clearly knows how to use that front door.
>
>
>
> > The Clintons don't seem to mind them:
>
> >http://www.nysun.com/article/5137
>
> Every American Administration since WWII has been good buddies
> with the Saudis.
>
> --
Something of a "have to be" to keep oil flowing. The Bush family,
though, seems to consider the Saudi monarchy (if that's what it is)
family friends.

My common since says to shut my mouth but oh
well here it goes. First people in this country
blamed the Indians for their problems. Then the
Germans then the Irish then the Italians then the
Jewish then the Blacks then the Asians then the
Mexicans, well some still blame the Blacks and
Mexicans, now it's the Muslims. When will fools
quit blaming races or religions for moronic
behavior and start blaming the individuals. Now
here is an original thought lets stick with
woodworking in this woodworking news group and
take your juvenile prejudice to a news group
better suited to the purpose.
Puff


"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:[email protected]...
> Wal-Mart Stores Inc. apologized to a Muslim
> woman who said she was
> mocked because of her face veil.
>
> "Please don't stick me up," a cashier told the
> shopper on Feb. 2,
> according to The Council on American-Islamic
> Relations.
>
> Wal-Mart apologized Monday in a letter signed by
> Rolando Rodriquez, a
> vice president and regional general manager. It
> was released Tuesday
> by the council's Nevada chapter.
>
> "I can assure you that the associate in question
> was disciplined in
> accordance with our employment policies as a
> result of the situation,"
> Rodriguez said without disclosing details.
>
> Rodriguez said employees at the Riverdale store
> would undergo
> "sensitivity training," specifically in the
> Islamic faith and Muslim
> culture.
>
> At Wal-Mart headquarters in Bentonville, Ark.,
> spokesman Phillip Keene
> confirmed the letter and declined further
> comment.
>
> "We applaud Wal-Mart for taking appropriate
> action to resolve this
> incident," said Yasser Moten, executive director
> of the council's
> Nevada chapter. The group doesn't have an office
> in Utah.