|
|
 | | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) And my point is only this, don't read anything else into it: If this one example of historic law had a major influence, where others didn't, I don't think it's wrong. The constitution forbids legislating in favor of or against any religion - (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| Law just changed. A seat belt infraction, if spotted, is enough reason for you to get pulled over in Michigan now. Sorry about that (I think it may have been March 1 that it changed) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) I'll again go back to what was written in the federalist papers. I plowed through them a few months back, so it's a fairly recent memory... I can't deny that there may have been other motives than the final check but that was the biggie, by a (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) Well said. Would that everyone were as reasonable as you. My theory is that in many issues we see convolution being used as a tool to usurp, because proponents on one side or another fear that a straight up and down question might: - resolve (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) I've not been there, so I can't say what the circumstances are. But if they're posted in a way that implies primacy, rather than as one of many examples of laws, that's wrong. (...) Feel free to do so on your private property, but there's a (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
