State Senate Votes For 10 Commandments Monument

The Oklahoma Senate has voted overwhelmingly for a bill to allow a Ten Commandments monument to be placed on the Capitol grounds. Full Story
Reasonable Legal Mind

Broken Arrow, OK

#392 May 6, 2009
closetprotester wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a condescending attitude on every topic you post on and toward almost everyone you reply to.
Not always intended to be terse, but succinct.

We can not see each others expression when we post - that has a lot to do with impressions.

Much of the time that I find myself being derided for a "condescending attitude" you'll notice its in response to someones mean response to an opinion that I express.

Please notice those from now on, also. I respond in kind to some of those because I reason that's the way they want to be treated - "treat others as you would have them treat you".

Thank you.
hmm

Broken Arrow, OK

#393 May 6, 2009
Well, there is at one group on Earth that seeks a "theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments". Maybe we should open dialogue with the "Lords Resistance Army" in Uganda and find out how that's working out for them. I hear they are true role models for their child soldiers...
Reasonable Legal Mind

Broken Arrow, OK

#394 May 7, 2009
hmm wrote:
Well, there is at one group on Earth that seeks a "theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments". Maybe we should open dialogue with the "Lords Resistance Army" in Uganda and find out how that's working out for them. I hear they are true role models for their child soldiers...
They're just further proof of how flaky some humans can be; not the norm, agreed?
Bzar

Sand Springs, OK

#395 May 7, 2009
American wrote:
I'm a Christian and I am disappointed this is an issue. I don't believe we need any religious symbols on state property. This is a waste of time and money. How does it benefit the people of Oklahoma? Next someone will want to put another religious symbol. It's a bad trend to start.
So you are saying it is ok to not repsent your faith. Leave it alone so you will not have to defend it when someone gets mad at it? This country was founded on this religion! You use to be able to go to any school, goverment building, etc and see the 10 Commandments or something of that nature.
hmm

Broken Arrow, OK

#396 May 7, 2009
Reasonable Legal Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
They're just further proof of how flaky some humans can be; not the norm, agreed?
Ah, but what is the norm? Anyone that doesn't believe as you do? Does majority rule apply here? If 55% of the US believes that UFOs are alien spacecraft, is that the norm? Maybe, but does that make it true? At one time, the "norm" was to believe the world was flat...
Reasonable Legal Mind

Broken Arrow, OK

#397 May 8, 2009
hmm wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, but what is the norm? Anyone that doesn't believe as you do? Does majority rule apply here? If 55% of the US believes that UFOs are alien spacecraft, is that the norm? Maybe, but does that make it true? At one time, the "norm" was to believe the world was flat...
You are right ... the "norm" is sometimes just plain weird!
Esquire

Broken Arrow, OK

#398 May 11, 2009
Both the State House & Senate have now approved this bill by margins that are veto proof!!
Bonnie H Oakley

Claremore, OK

#399 May 11, 2009
Esquire wrote:
Both the State House & Senate have now approved this bill by margins that are veto proof!!
Oh Goody! Now let's see:
(1) I Honor my parents (Check)
(2) I haven't murdered anyone (yet)(Check)
(3)I don't covet my neighbors stuff (including his wife)
(4) I don't committ adultry (yet)(Check)
(5) I dont't worship any other God (because I'm an atheist)(Check)
(6) I keep the Sabboth holy (two bottles of red wine seem to suffice)(Check)
(7) I don't make any graven images.(I don't even own an etch-a-sketch)(Check)
(8) OK so I do use the Lord's name in vain (Busted)
(9) I don't steal (except candy from the office manager)(Busted)
(10) I bare no false witness (see #5 above)

Now can we just all get along? My life won't change a single iota if there is a monument. I just think we oughta get Mart Green to pay for it.
Free Nani Bones

AOL

#400 May 11, 2009
This is still a hot topic on here?
Esquire

Broken Arrow, OK

#401 May 11, 2009
Free Nani Bones wrote:
This is still a hot topic on here?
This is still a topic EVERYWHERE!
Esquire

Broken Arrow, OK

#402 May 11, 2009
Donít know if this is
true or not, but it is funny



In a Purdue college classroom, they
were discussing the qualifications to be President of the United States.

It was pretty simple - the candidate
must be a natural born citizen of at least 35 years of age.

However, one girl in the class
immediately started in on how unfair was the requirement to be a natural born
citizen. In short, her opinion was that this requirement prevented many
capable individuals from becoming president.

The class was taking it in and letting her
rant, but everyone's jaw hit the floor when she wrapped up her argument by
stating,'What makes a natural born citizen any more qualified to lead
this country than one born by C-section?'

Yep, these are the same 18 year olds
that just elected the new President of the United States.
Reasonable Legal Mind

Broken Arrow, OK

#403 May 11, 2009
American Veteran

Broken Arrow, OK

#404 May 11, 2009
Reasonable Legal Mind wrote:
Amen!
Teasly McBagger

Tecumseh, OK

#405 May 11, 2009
Reasonable Legal Mind wrote:
Henry won't veto it. It would be political suicide. However, I do hope that a long, drawn-out court case begins and it is finally removed.
Reasonable Legal Mind

Broken Arrow, OK

#406 May 12, 2009
Teasly McBagger wrote:
<quoted text>
Henry won't veto it. It would be political suicide. However, I do hope that a long, drawn-out court case begins and it is finally removed.
Ah, but it won't be removed. Why? It is permitted by the U.S. Supreme Court(depending on intent & placement) & therefore (by implication) the U.S. Constitution!

The 1st Amendment was put in place (please keep an open mind for a minute - thanks)by members of the Constitutional Convention as a means to keep the GOVERNMENT out of religion, not religion of of government. Please read (for your own benefit) the writings of James Madison, George Mason, Henry Lee & the others involved in the writing of the Bill of Rights.

T. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury CN Baptists Asso. was an affirmation of the above. He agreed that a states and the federal government should STAY OUT of religion, not the other way 'round.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

Please note the redacted part of the "Wall" letter (linked above) which show his actual intent.

"The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion."

Please read & learn from the below link ... you do all yourself a disservice when you ignore facts.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1500...

It has been said that Conservatives argue with facts & Liberals argue with emotion. I tend to agree.
In My Sights

Broken Arrow, OK

#407 May 12, 2009
Nick Workman wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Please learn what "separation of church and state" means before spouting off about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_ch...
2) You sound just like hysterical European idiots blaming jews for the black death.
Read the "wall" letter for yourself, fool.
Teasly McBagger

Coweta, OK

#408 May 12, 2009
Reasonable Legal Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, but it won't be removed. Why? It is permitted by the U.S. Supreme Court(depending on intent & placement) & therefore (by implication) the U.S. Constitution!
The 1st Amendment was put in place (please keep an open mind for a minute - thanks)by members of the Constitutional Convention as a means to keep the GOVERNMENT out of religion, not religion of of government. Please read (for your own benefit) the writings of James Madison, George Mason, Henry Lee & the others involved in the writing of the Bill of Rights.
T. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury CN Baptists Asso. was an affirmation of the above. He agreed that a states and the federal government should STAY OUT of religion, not the other way 'round.
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
Please note the redacted part of the "Wall" letter (linked above) which show his actual intent.
"The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion."
Please read & learn from the below link ... you do all yourself a disservice when you ignore facts.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1500...
It has been said that Conservatives argue with facts & Liberals argue with emotion. I tend to agree.
We will see. I'm betting it will be removed within a few years. We live in changing times. The great men of the past that you love to reference are long gone. We are not bound by their opinions or beliefs.
Reasonable Legal Mind

Broken Arrow, OK

#410 May 14, 2009
Teasly McBagger wrote:
<quoted text>
We will see. I'm betting it will be removed within a few years. We live in changing times. The great men of the past that you love to reference are long gone. We are not bound by their opinions or beliefs.
You posted & no doubt have faith in:

"The great men of the past that you love to reference are long gone. We are not bound by their opinions or beliefs."

Sorry. What you referred to as "not bound" is a gross misconception. In the legal world what you dismiss is called precedent, which is what we in the legal profession refer to as controlling (meaning BINDING).

Federal Judges are appointed for life, in part to keep from changing the interpretation of the laws willy-nilly as society does.

We have to have a consistent court so that we can all live in a relatively consistent world, knowing what to expect from the courts so that we can abide by & rely upon what the law says/means.

Sorry to be the bearer of "bad news" for you.

LOL
Esquire

Broken Arrow, OK

#411 May 14, 2009
Reasonable Legal Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
You posted & no doubt have faith in:
"The great men of the past that you love to reference are long gone. We are not bound by their opinions or beliefs."
Sorry. What you referred to as "not bound" is a gross misconception. In the legal world what you dismiss is called precedent, which is what we in the legal profession refer to as controlling (meaning BINDING).
Federal Judges are appointed for life, in part to keep from changing the interpretation of the laws willy-nilly as society does.
We have to have a consistent court so that we can all live in a relatively consistent world, knowing what to expect from the courts so that we can abide by & rely upon what the law says/means.
Sorry to be the bearer of "bad news" for you.
LOL
D a m n ; you sure took HIM to school!

What a simpleton!

LOL
Teasly McBagger

Fitzgerald, GA

#412 May 14, 2009
Reasonable Legal Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
You posted & no doubt have faith in:
"The great men of the past that you love to reference are long gone. We are not bound by their opinions or beliefs."
Sorry. What you referred to as "not bound" is a gross misconception. In the legal world what you dismiss is called precedent, which is what we in the legal profession refer to as controlling (meaning BINDING).
Federal Judges are appointed for life, in part to keep from changing the interpretation of the laws willy-nilly as society does.
We have to have a consistent court so that we can all live in a relatively consistent world, knowing what to expect from the courts so that we can abide by & rely upon what the law says/means.
Sorry to be the bearer of "bad news" for you.
LOL
I just re-read Jefferson's letter you linked in one of your earlier posts. The wording is so ambiguous that judges can read almost anything into it.

As far as precedent goes, do you agree with the Supreme Court upholding the right for women to have an abortion for any reason? I doubt if you do. If that "precedent" were challenged, I believe you would side with the pro-life advocates and try to have abortion-on-demand banned.

The word "precedent" can be very subjective. The lives and words of the founding fathers can be very subjective. So, you can argue legal precedent all that you want. A liberal-minded Supreme Court could easily reverse that decision and eliminate the Ten Commandments from any State or Federal property.

From your posts, you must have already noticed that times are changing. Personally, I'm pleased with where this country is going. I'm pleased with President Obama.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Owasso Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Okla. teacher fired for snack run with 11 kids ... Dec 23 Casual Observor 1
Diesel Prices Slowly Falling At Oklahoma Gas St... Dec 23 eve 1
Mysteries At Oklahoma Lake Remain For Families ... Dec 21 hollywood here we... 3
lets have fun tonite Dec 21 wow 1
Meet the teenage sex swap lovers (Jul '13) Dec 19 hey 183
Balls of Fire Dec 18 Ryan Johnson 1
DHS Workers Speak Out On Agency (Jul '08) Dec 18 lynn 1,491
Owasso Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Owasso People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Owasso News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Owasso

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 7:00 am PST

Bleacher Report 7:00AM
Updated 2014 Analysis for Final Week of Season
NBC Sports 2:57 PM
DeMarco Murray out sick on Thursday
NBC Sports 4:00 PM
Rookie Martin makes quick impression in Dallas - NBC Sports
Bleacher Report 4:15 PM
What Experts Are Saying About Washington
Bleacher Report 8:11 PM
Breaking Down Chargers Game Plan vs. Chiefs