|
Illiad +anyone else.... | by tesla_koil | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
| A link to the actual Constitution: |
by NOLAWitch |
2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
| Constitution and to the Declaration of Independence. I defy any of you to find any references to Christianity in either. For those of you unable to meet my challenge, I will dismiss any additional lame@$$ed assertions by you that our law is founded upon Christianity unless you can adequately prove otherwise in this thread. Others are welcome to use the same criteria in roasting your genitals over hot coals in the future. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
It would be interesting to hear your counter- | by adiplomat | 2004-03-17 10:08:52 |
|
The sentence... | by nelzie | 2004-03-17 10:13:12 |
|
Given when Scientology was founded, | by adiplomat | 2004-03-17 10:26:42 |
|
She's already given it to you. | by Naruki | 2004-03-17 10:43:11 |
|
You are right... | by nelzie | 2004-03-17 11:05:23 |
|
I've already given it in posts past, however, I'll | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 10:13:14 |
|
Well, that's not really what I was asking for. | by Adiplomat | 2004-03-17 11:31:57 |
|
That is my assertion. They PURPOSEFULLY | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 11:44:46 |
|
Sorry. I did my (obviously inadequate) best | by Adiplomat | 2004-03-17 12:58:51 |
|
I don't understand your question either. | by quilting_kitty | 2004-03-17 13:04:43 |
|
Never mind that. Let HIM answer for a change. (n/t) | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 13:15:03 |
|
While you won't use the words, the smell of | by Adiplomat | 2004-03-17 13:33:18 |
|
The counter-evidence is clear: they didn't cram | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 13:41:14 |
|
You were warned. I'm done. (n/t) | by Adiplomat | 2004-03-17 13:50:00 |
|
Well, you did offer your genitals up for roasting. (n/t) | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 13:51:00 |
|
Oh, and I believe I stuck to the points in your | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 13:54:03 |
|
Ahem. | by Naruki | 2004-03-17 14:05:51 |
|
Cabbage of course. It's cooking right now. | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 15:01:07 |
|
For good, or just this thread? | by Naruki | 2004-03-17 13:54:51 |
|
If you don't like Historical Revisionism... | by Naruki | 2004-03-17 13:41:55 |
|
My only comment here is that you seem to think | by quilting_kitty | 2004-03-17 13:45:40 |
|
YOU are the one who should be answering | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 13:14:10 |
|
That is an unfounded assertion. | by BloodyViking | 2004-03-17 12:09:39 |
|
If you insist on referring ONLY to the documents | by Adiplomat | 2004-03-17 13:14:35 |
|
BZZZT! You're off the track again. | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 13:17:25 |
|
Got proof? Didn't think so. | by Naruki | 2004-03-17 13:23:43 |
|
Many perhaps but not most. | by BloodyViking | 2004-03-17 13:32:24 |
|
just a question | by gibuu | 2004-03-17 10:35:23 |
|
That's a good thought, actually. | by abstrackt | 2004-03-17 11:03:22 |
