Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Ticomaya wrote:

Are you suggesting, with a straight face, that the ACLU is not "anti-religion"?

What are you suggesting? If the ACLU brings lawsuits to enforce the First Amendment, it must be a fanatical anti-religious organization? If so, then I guess you must also characterize people like Foxfyre who demand the satisfaction of prayer before a football game as religious fanatics.

Are you suggesting there are only two categories: Religious fanatics and Anti-religious fanatics?

I don't get your post . . .

As a lawyer, I represented people who were accused of crimes. I even represented people who were accused of sexual abuse of children. That doesn't make me a criminal or an abuser. The ACLU may represent an atheist. That doesn't make the ACLU a fanatical anti-religious organization.

The ACLU is even willing to support Rush Limbaugh in his fight concerning his right to privacy protected by the Constitution. The ACLU supports the Constitution.

Foxy:-

What's the problem with getting psychoanalytical?
You might risk spending your whole life on the surface of things.When somebody buys you a present haven't they psychoanalysed you?If I want to keep in tight with Foxy I'll buy her a present.Now what would she like?A DIY toolbox or a new frock.But she already has a lot of frocks.But she likes a new one.Why does she like a new one and another new one.So she can display herself.Why does she want to display herself when she's married.No-that makes no sense.The tool box is the best bet surely.Or maybe a deep fat fryer.But then she would think I was hinting that she could make me some improved chips and I would be buying myself a present and then I wouldn't be in as tight with her as I would be if I bought her a new frock.I could buy her two presents.A new frock and a deep fat fryer.Then I could get improved chips and she could display herself cooking them.That sounds okay.But suppose she doesn't want to display herself cooking chips because it's no fun for her to display herself before a man she has already caught and prefers to have little harmless fantasies about displaying herself in front of the unexplored field.
Oh-now I see the problem.Better stay on the surface of things.

Letty:-

I got the name slightly wrong.
Tyndale or Tindale.William.1494-1536.Gloucester born.Oxford and Cambridge.A Church reformer.Wanted a vernacular version,a blasphemy at the time,because they suspected the priests of using the Latin for their own purposes as a secret language.Charged with heresy in 1522 but flew the coop.Visited Luther in 1524.Whilst there translated New Testament.Published translation of Pentateuch in 1530.Executed in Vilvorde near Brussels.Strangled before being burnt so it wasn't too bad.Left translation of Joshua through second Chronicles.Mainly from Greek and Hebrew texts with bits from Latin.
After that comes Wycliffe 1329-84.The Council of Constance condemned his work in 1415 and his books were burned and his bones dug up.They didn't do things by half.

Then Miles Coverdale 1488-1568.Best known for Psalms.

Other versions-
The Great Bible 1539
Geneva Bible 1560 for Protestants.
Bishops Bible 1568.
Roman Catholic Douas-Reims 1582-1609.

James 1 organised the Authorised Version in 1604.
A panel of 54,some say 47, translators in 6 groups.2 in Westminster.2 in Oxford and 2 in Cambridge.All work revised by committee of 2 men from each group.Revision done by reading aloud every verse.There's a division here too between a "He Bible" and a "She Bible" stemming from different readings of Ruth 3:15.
Main sources were Tyndale (mainly),Coverdale and Geneva with bits from Wycliffe.Finished in 1611.
This is THE BIBLE.It was meant to be read or declaimed from pulpits etc to provide a guide to conduct and truth.Not as literature.
Jonathon Swift thought that THE BIBLE kept the language intact over generations.Without it we may not be able to enjoy Shakespeare today so the Authorised Version can be defended on that score alone.
Coleridge said-"without this holdfast,our vitiated imaginations would refine away language to mere abstractions.(see many threads).

The Revised Version (1881-95) came out along with many other new versions tailored to fit the needs of a wide collection of nuts a few of whom you have no doubt heard of.The whole caboodle may be equally nutty.If you were King you would get a translation that made you look good wouldn't you?
I would.This is one of the reasons for all the loggerheading.They are not singing from the same hymn sheet and even when they are they have different interpretations.
There's also the Breeches Bible and the Vinegar Bible.The Breeches was an English version of Geneva which took its name from Gen3:7-"They sewed fig leaves together,and made themselves breeches."The Vinegar 1716-17 had a misprint or alteration of "vineyard" to "vinegar" in Luke 20.
As far as my sparse knowledge goes you should only treat with the Authorised Version and The Book Of Common Prayer.The Prince Charles/Mrs Parker-Bowles controvesy results from loggerheading.She is already married and what God has put together etcetc.There's trouble brewing.

The oldest OT is Hebrew fromAD 916.The Masoretic.
There's a Samaritan text of the Pentateuch from 5 century BC.And Jerome's Latin Vulgate.
And the Greek Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus of the 4th Cent.There's others too.From Africa,Spain,Ireland and England (Lindisfarne).
The Convocation of Canterbury had another go in
1870.Published the NT in 1881 and the OT in 1885 but neither well received.Others arrived sensing lucre.Rev Moffatt(1924),R.Knox(NT 1945 and OT in 1949).Then a committee of all churches minus the RCs (naturally) produced the New English Bible
NT in 1961 and the OT and Apocrypha in 1970.

So-there you go.Confusion galore.There are other confusions but I'll save them.As you probably know confusion isn't good.We could discredit the lot and start again.But it's all too embedded for that.The only thing that makes sense to me is for us all to learn to respect each others confusions much as we do with home decoration.If the anti-Bible brigade think that the Bible is not deeply embedded in their own hearts they are having themselves on.

Will that do Letty?No Shakespeare I'm afraid.

Can someone psychoanalyze that post?

Speaking for myself, it is not a question of being offended by religious symbols. I just want government to be neutral. I would prefer that governmental institutions avoid even the appearance of endorsing religion.

wandeljw wrote:

Speaking for myself, it is not a question of being offended by religious symbols. I just want government to be neutral. I would prefer that governmental institutions avoid even the appearance of endorsing religion.

I agree with you Wandeljw.

In addition, I feel that the government simply doesn't need all the additional claptrap decorating its buildings and property. Courthouses don't even need to show us the history of law or any other damn thing. All they have to do is to do their job and stop wasting our taxes on stuff we don't need. The very fact that people want to put "stuff" in government buildings for everyone to see means that they are trying to "tell" us something. If they want to put something in the courthouse hallway, put the Constitution there. It's the only thing which matters.

Hell ... I'm going to repeat it for him, if for no other reason that I find it amusing, admittedly in an odd sort of way:

Quote:

Foxy:-

What's the problem with getting psychoanalytical?
You might risk spending your whole life on the surface of things.When somebody buys you a present haven't they psychoanalysed you?If I want to keep in tight with Foxy I'll buy her a present.Now what would she like?A DIY toolbox or a new frock.But she already has a lot of frocks.But she likes a new one.Why does she like a new one and another new one.So she can display herself.Why does she want to display herself when she's married.No-that makes no sense.The tool box is the best bet surely.Or maybe a deep fat fryer.But then she would think I was hinting that she could make me some improved chips and I would be buying myself a present and then I wouldn't be in as tight with her as I would be if I bought her a new frock.I could buy her two presents.A new frock and a deep fat fryer.Then I could get improved chips and she could display herself cooking them.That sounds okay.But suppose she doesn't want to display herself cooking chips because it's no fun for her to display herself before a man she has already caught and prefers to have little harmless fantasies about displaying herself in front of the unexplored field.
Oh-now I see the problem.Better stay on the surface of things.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1194891#1194891


Can someone psychoanalyze that post?

Ticomaya wrote:

Can someone psychoanalyze that post?

spendius has repressed feelings about foxfyre

(only a joke, i hope i haven't offended spendius)

Lola:-

How sweet!

But Tico's okay.He plays football.

Tico:-
...

The translation covers what you might call the ref. when he has awarded a penalty for one of your perfectly legitimate tackles.You are a defender I presume.It carries power when you get your nose nearly up to his and pronounce the "2" emphatically.You add adjectives if he sends you off.