Page 2 of 2

Re: Alabama Judge

Posted: October 31st, 2009, 8:37 am
by Jumptrout51
God works in mysterious ways.

Re: Alabama Judge

Posted: October 31st, 2009, 7:09 pm
by Juan
salty tiger wrote:10-4, I grew up in Henry Co (Headland/Abbeville). Saw and played some good football teams from there back in the 80's.
Roger that... I know Headland well...nice little town.... spent some time at the National Guard Armory back in the 80's.

Re: Alabama Judge

Posted: October 31st, 2009, 7:14 pm
by Old Dog
Don't you mean Hetland? :-D
OD

Re: Alabama Judge

Posted: November 1st, 2009, 9:23 am
by Juan
Always a stickler for perfection. salute1

Re: Alabama Judge

Posted: November 1st, 2009, 11:52 am
by Dubble Trubble
I think the constitution was developed with the freedom of religious choice in mind. Where the problem is now is not about religious choice, now they want to be able to attack any religion freely, because they are not of that religion, or are atheists. That is NOT what our forefathers meant.

To me freedom of religon is the right to practice that religion without fear of being attacked for doing it...

By the way, I agree, the judge is using this as a political stepping stone.

While I agree with the premise of the Ten Commandments( which is basically a moral guideline), I also will not try to force it on anyone else. I am also religious, but do not attend church, and I do not want any hypocrite telling me I am going to hell because I do not go to church. I feel much closer to God when I am out on the flats fishing or in the woods hunting than I ever have in any church. I am not a big socializer, and quite frankly, today, church is a social event for most.


And remember, Hitler claimed to be a Christian, Kim Jong Il is an atheist, and Osama Bin Laden is Islam, so there is no "good" or "bad" religion. Just good or evil people.

Dubble :thumbup:

Re: Alabama Judge

Posted: November 3rd, 2009, 10:56 am
by captkeyser
Dubble Trubble wrote:I think the constitution was developed with the freedom of religious choice in mind. Where the problem is now is not about religious choice, now they want to be able to attack any religion freely, because they are not of that religion, or are atheists. That is NOT what our forefathers meant.

To me freedom of religon is the right to practice that religion without fear of being attacked for doing it...

By the way, I agree, the judge is using this as a political stepping stone.

While I agree with the premise of the Ten Commandments( which is basically a moral guideline), I also will not try to force it on anyone else. I am also religious, but do not attend church, and I do not want any hypocrite telling me I am going to hell because I do not go to church. I feel much closer to God when I am out on the flats fishing or in the woods hunting than I ever have in any church. I am not a big socializer, and quite frankly, today, church is a social event for most.


And remember, Hitler claimed to be a Christian, Kim Jong Il is an atheist, and Osama Bin Laden is Islam, so there is no "good" or "bad" religion. Just good or evil people.

Dubble :thumbup:
Very well put. I am in complete agreeance. :thumbup:

Re: Alabama Judge

Posted: November 3rd, 2009, 12:25 pm
by Sir reel
Mr. Dubble
I also agree with some of your opinions. I will now express a couple of my own thanks to some hard won liberties.

Webster's defines "religion" in a couple of ways. One of them is "The service and worship of the supernatural." I'm troubled if we are saying that description falls in with "The service and worship of God" as being neither a "good" or "bad" religion? In addition, I don't believe I would want to be in the position on the day when every knee will bow and tell God that his ten commandments were "basically a moral guideline." ... they certainly are....but much more (imo of course). Just needed to go on record. Thanks.