To: Southack
Let's be real clear, so your limited grey matter can grasp it. I don't care if you never mentioned them. What you call my "wild-eyed" claim that there were no Ten Commandments displays in courthouses was a reference to the time of the Founders. I don't care if you can't read, that's the context of the exchange which you purposefully took out of context to try to post the same crap you've posted about 40 times already. Your post proves NOTHING. It proves that in the 1930s, the US government put the ten commandments and a bunch of other religious and secular sources of law on a wall. That's all.
385 posted on
08/20/2003 3:32:16 PM PDT by
lugsoul
To: lugsoul
"What you call my "wild-eyed" claim that there were no Ten Commandments displays in courthouses was a reference to the time of the Founders."
Then you should say what you mean. Instead of claiming that no courthouse displays the ten commandments, you should have claimed that no courthouse at the time of our Founders displayed them.
Words mean things.
390 posted on
08/20/2003 3:34:47 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
"Let's be real clear, so your limited grey matter can grasp it."
LOL. Amazing. Lugsoul, is it really worth talking to southack that way? I realise your argument is difficult and frustrating, but it doesn't help to take your frustrations out on southack.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson