| Jump to bottom |
Drew, your 2:00 P
Could it be that you own so many books you are unsure if a praticular one is or is not on your shelves?
Fundie, I'll review your posts..
...but please spend a few minutes on the site for which I provided the URL... There is a connection between that site and what you have been telling me. It will take time.
Directing person "A" not to bear false witness, as the OT does, not necessarily assure person "B" of individual rights.
But again, the quesiton is: Where in scripture do I find plain language that assures my rights, Jefferson's "inalenable rights," as an indiviudal -- particurlarly rights that shield me from the unfettred power of the state?
BTW: Did you know Kwamie took "The fifth," and refused to answer the court last week? Despise Kwamie as I do, he has protection against self-incrimination. That's the kind of right I mean.
Fundie...
In exchanging posts with you,8 and Elder I'm not sure if it was to you or others that I suggested:
first checking this site: http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/the-bible-and-government
and second, looking up Thomas M Cooley on Wikipedia..
You will see there a paragraph entitled: The Development of Constitutional Law Jurisprudence as to Due Process of Law
If you take just a few minutes -- less than five for sure --you can get the drift of what's there.
If you are going to reject Cooley's defintion of DPOL, might might you do well to learn about him and his contributions?
Drew, your 8:22....
I, too, have complimented Lynn for her rpeated Hoffer quotes.
I have a copy of Hoffer's book and Shermer's "Why People Belive Wierd Things." Both are relevant today as the man tells us we will have vastly increased access to medical coverage without increasing deby or taxing those with less than $250m/ year or what ever the numnber is. Watch for in increase in capital gains that will hit mutual funds and pension funds penalizing us all.
Another dandy is "Extraordinary Popular Beliefs and the Madness of Crowds," by MacKay, about 1848... hard to find, but I got it through library interloan.
HTML codes...
I think I have inverted the proper order of control characters in HTML closing codes... will check and shape up.
Fundie, your 9:41 A
MacBadgre says: Now this is more like it, Fundie!
This from you: definitions from third parties of your choosing, which I've already rejected. end; itlic mine
Since I'm neither an attorney or an expert on history and the constitution, meaning my unsupported opinion on thses matters means little, I DID consult and use from a third party a defintion central to this subject.
"Black's Law Dictionary," is a good place to start on any such effort, as I did with this discussion.
Surely our readers are impressed that you -- A. Fundie Sinner -- sumarily REJECTS that definiton.
Time is short now, but I continue this line of patter in the next couple of days.
And, BTW please don't regularly write stuff I agree with -- it spoils my fun.Missed In The Mainstream Press
First with 8, now I'm agreeing with you, Fundie. Horrors!!!!
Gore estimated the rise of water in New York harbor, giving an incerased level of 20 feet it memory servs. It may have been only 10, but it was a nice tidy round number. I DO know that he has been unable to or has refused to give ANY support or source for this claim.
Moreover he has declined to share any stage with anyone who oppose his views and many do.
I have long wrestled with the global warming issue, which has two distinct pieces: Is warming happening? Is human activity a meaningful contributor to any warming taking place?
There are dogmatic charlatans and bellowing, table-pounding, know-nothings on both sides of the question. Clearly Gore is a poor fact-checker and I have to rip him for that. Just yesterday I got steered onto the video with Colin O'Brien where Gore says the center of the earth is "several millions of degrees" hot. Again, no source given.
8, your 10:56
We agree on something.
Queue the trumpets!
Good news in what has been deleted from the health care bill.
The Christian Scientists have lost one.
The mandate requiring insurance companies to reimburse for "religious or spiritual health care" is NOT in the merged health care reform bill that Senators Reid, Baucus, and Dodd have constructed to go to the Senate floor.
The bill is HR3590 and may be seen at democrats.senate.gov.
8,
From you: What? All the pictures of Drew persecuting Christians lost? Drew will never be able to prove he has persecuted anyone. end....
Oh, no -- can't happen. I have them duped, kept with Carbonite, hard copied in the safe dep box with extras under the sofa... I DO care about security of valuables, you know!!!!!
Win 7....
Be cautious in upgrading to win 7...
Installation may require a full rebuild with removing all your user files and stuph...
All photos get redated and tag designations are lost.
Music tags are lost.
My HP printer with brand new King-sized ink cartridge will not work with 7 and HP wants 35$ to send me an updated driver. My 35$ went towards a new non-HP printer.
I'm SORRY I did it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Grump, grump, grump!!!!!
Marion....
I too, am puzzled about your coments to the effect that some quotations from Koran, or Saria are not authentic.
How do we sort this out?
NT scholars readily admit the last few chapters of Matt were added later. How can we get similar clarification on your holy books?
Oops II
Can't seem to close the italic code. I give up.
Fundie, your 12:56 P, re-post
From MacBadger:
First I'd like to say I'm impressed with the disclosure in your amended sub-title, "judgmental, egotistical....." but I may exceed you by far in being dependably grumpy and crabby, but that's for another day.
From you: Wasn't your question about hearsay evidence? End.
Yes it was and still is but as I respond to your questions, I think my most recent comment on the power of judges is all-inclusive and mercifuly more concise.
Keep in mind W. A. Criswell's advice to Bill Moyers that "God didn't write enigmas, and unintelligible things, he wrote them plainly...". Thus if He made no clear mention of rights of the individual we should not infer them. Likewise, if He made no mention of limitations on the power of judges, we are not to infer them.
Your judges of Deut have no express duty to allow the accused to "mount a defense" (words from Cooley's definition of due process) and the power and discretion of the judge is unlimited, not subject to objection or appeal. Thus should he choose to admit and convict from hearsay, that's his rightful prerogative and the accused has no recourse.
Bang! Goes the gavel. "Next case," says judge.
Expressed in arithmetical terms, it's like this:
From the infinite unlimited power of your judges of Deut.
Subtract the finite limited power of judges of western civilizations.
The remainder is Jefferson's "inalienable rights" of the individual.
Fundie, your 9:04 P
By MacBadger:
From you: You mean except for that part where there must be at least two or three witnesses, and that a malicious witness must stand present before the accused, God, the priests and judges. End
So the witnesses you have often described, two or three in number, serve to assure a proper defense of the accused, we are to believe?
It's an adversarial system of justice we are discussing. Duet 17:6 along with 19:15-19 make it plain those witnesses are present to convict, not to defend the accused. Nothing suggests the court has called witnesses in defense of the accused. To expect adversaries of the accused to mount his defense is to be hopelessly confused, sir.
And judges, you say, are restrained by God? 'Round these parts it's "We the people .. (who) establish justice.." and God did not make the roster. If indeed God is a restraint as you say, he's doing a pretty lousy job with all the liberal, "activist" judges hiding under every bed as I hear and read almost daily.
| Jump to top |
