To: Southack
Are you doing that crap again? Why do you insist on running from the real issue?
The SCOTUS display you SELECTIVELY post from includes MOHAMMED. And Solon. And Hammurabi. And Justinian. And Confucious.
Moore REFUSES TO ALLOW other "sources of law" in his rotunda because nothing can be displayed in a way that might imply that it is on a par with God's Word.
One of these is religiously neutral. One is not. Can you figure out which is which?
352 posted on
08/20/2003 3:12:21 PM PDT by
lugsoul
To: lugsoul
"Why do you insist on running from the real issue? The SCOTUS display you SELECTIVELY post from includes MOHAMMED. And Solon. And Hammurabi. And Justinian. And Confucious. Moore REFUSES TO ALLOW other "sources of law" in his rotunda because nothing can be displayed in a way that might imply that it is on a par with God's Word."
Because, dear child, words mean things.
And you claimed that there was not a SINGLE INSTANCE of the Ten Commandments being on display in any courtroom.
So go check out Post #344 again. You'll find evidence that the 10 Commandments, or some semblance of them, are indeed on display in American courtrooms.
356 posted on
08/20/2003 3:15:14 PM PDT by
Southack
(Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: lugsoul; Southack
"The SCOTUS display you SELECTIVELY post from includes MOHAMMED. And Solon. And Hammurabi. And Justinian. And Confucious."
Oh my goodness! They are establishing all those religions?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson