I never once implied Christianity. I purposely steered clear of the word. I solely used the word 'reigion' (in various forms) but never said 'christianity', it was you who brought up Christianity, not I.
I am glad the Senate rejected a ploy to make the US 'Christian'. I am pretty sure all the major religions talk about not killing, stealing etc. so, as I said not all laws with a basis in religious beliefs are a bad thing. If there were bills trying to be passed as law that had a basis in a single religion, and maybe even went against other religions or belief systems, THAT would be bad. Trying to take away someone's civil liberties based on religious beliefs THAT would be bad. And if that was ever to happen, you would bet your ass I would be standing right next to you fighting it. On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >You do realize that a lot of our current laws (theft and murder, for > >> >example) are based on religious beliefs? > >> > >> Nope you're simply wrong here. Its a combination of English Common Law, > >> which hearkens back to the pagan Anglo Saxon tribal laws, and Roman > civil > >> law. > > > > > >Religions existed long before either of these. > > You implied Christianity. BTW the US as a Christian nation was rejected by > the senate and the house in the very first treaty ever signed and ratified > by the nation, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_tripoli. Article 11 > states this quite clearly: > > Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any > sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character > of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as > the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any > Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising > from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony > existing between the two countries. > -- > > > > >I am not sure how a Deist could not be cnsidered a 'man of faith'. > > > > But not Christians which you implied. > > > > > > >A) Yes, you did. You can split hairs if you like, but if I said you should > >comapre Obama's 'redistribution of wealth' with the writings of Karl Marx, > I > >am pretty sure some of the Obama supportes in here would have called it > >offensive.. > > And you've been splitting hairs so much I suggest you may want to go to a > professional hair restorer. > > >B) Where has it been proven that she is a Dominionist? Has she come out > and > >said this? Or is it that some of hers beliefs may be, in some way, > related > >to Dominionism, kind of like some of Obama's beliefs may be, in some way, > >related to socialism or marxism? > > I'm not going to do your research for you. Look it up. Show some reading > comprehension. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:278058 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
