[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.11.02.1951)]
Tone: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ < sine wave holding close to 0 = "even".
> [Kenny Kitzke (2005.11.01)] <-- just about the whole post references this one.
Swearing: I might say dang, yikes, and oops, but I try to refrain from the level of the language we have talked about that is not professional. BTW, recently I think it was Marc again, not Rick, who used the gutter once again in the initial "BJ in the White House" ref.
Personal: Sometimes what flies in an oral conversation gets people offended in a written one. Rick used "I think" where you used "might". So what is the difference? Hedges, dodges, ducks and mitigating phrases are often used in convos without offense.
Tone: This needs to be settled. Tone means shades of voice:
Tone (American Heritage� Dictionary):
"...Manner of expression in speech or writing..."
1. The quality or character of sound.
2. The character of voice expressing an emotion.
Thus, while I am not writing a scholarly article, the tone is still scholarly, I assure you.
Recall when I first turned to respond to this thread, where this statement was posted:
"I might be for allowing the child's father to just murder the molester and let the government worry about other things..."
This kind of digression would allow for lynching for horse-rustling and "other things". It would let the headman order the cutting off of hands, feet, noses, and ears for theft. It would allow ostracism, stoning, and death for those who violate a leader's perceptions of correct behavior. It would allow torture in prisoner of war camps, prisons, dungeons and secret gulags. Allowing such local standards means a return to a rule of MAN, not a rule of LAW. We have judges and juries for that here, based in the rule of LAW. The common law system was begun by Henry II to curb the power of the Church over law, but it was not perfected til the US and other former British colonies created their formal versions of the common law.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law>
<Civil law (legal system) - Wikipedia;
We have a Federal government that has withstood tyrants, bigots and traitors. We should not want Constitutional LAW to be conflated with Biblical, Shariah, or any law of MAN that is based in the revenge vendetta. It is dangerous to even think that this "might" be a good idea. It is safer for an accused under Constitutional Law than with Biblical/Shariah Law, because of presumed innocence until proven guilty. I just don't want anyone to be stoned, have "something" cut off, or burned at the stake. We find a reference in the Bill of Rights:
"Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and *unusual punishments inflicted*. [my emphasis]"
<U.S. Constitution | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute;
Galilean: Please let's get this spelling thing settled once and for all. The spelling Galilean is used where e = eh = � which is the special little Latin letter that made the schwa sound, "eh" or the first part of the dipthong "eh-i" as in Fate. It is in the dictionary referring to Jesus himself in the third definition below, and the spelled "e" is considered equal to "ae" and "�" in pronunciation.
American Heritage: also Dictionary.com: Search: Galilean.
Gal�i�le�an also Gal�i�lae�an also Gal�i�l�an n.
1. A native or inhabitant of Galilee.
2. A Christian.
3. Jesus.
Galilean IS used, and more, it is used by *well-known authors*. Some texts that make reference to Galilean are:
Albert Nolan (2001). Jesus Before Christianity.
Gerd Theissen (1987). The Shadow of the Galilean: The Quest of
the Historical Jesus in Narrative Form .
Bernard J. Lee, (1988). The Galilean Jewishness of Jesus:
Retrieving the Jewish Origins of Christianity (Conversation on
the Road Not Taken, Vol. 2). Paulist Press.
Sean Freyne (). Jesus, A Jewish Galilean: A New Reading Of The
Jesus Story.
John Shelby Spong (). Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A
Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture.
John Shelby Spong (). Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A
Bishop Speaks to Believers In Exile.
John Shelby Spong (2005) The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the
Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love.
There are tons of other data on this...
Galilean is also used in the literature of literary criticism (lit-crit for short) or higher criticism. This theory seeks to deconstruct texts, including the bible and other biblical sources, to their original meanings, stripped from contemporary, modern, 18th century, renaissance and even early Catholic/Christian meanings.
Literary criticism is about removing the "gloss" that is generally assumed to be fundamental to traditional texts. Gloss means that a presumed context and interpretation is given out of context with events suggested to really have occurred by cultural arch�ology and history. Arch�ology = artifacts, history = writing. One can refer to the locale in which Jesus grew up and became a man, dissatisfied with the way the religion around him was treating others. It's like saying "first American" to refer to Geo. Washington, or "noblest Roman of them all" to refer to Brutus, who ended the dictatorship of Caesar. Most educated people in the audience know the intended reference. "Galilean" highlights a upbringing and cultural development, and is not a duck or hedge of shame or disrespect etc. :))
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_criticism>
For example, when the perception of the Constitution that it held the words "God", "Creator," but not Jesus (and certainly not 
Galilean) became an issue, rather than saying, "no no no" I just went back to the source. I went to a dot.gov source for the text of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Amendments. I did a text search for "God" and "Creator" and found none. Case closed. QED (quod erat demonstrandum). 
The US Constitution therefore does not reference and/or contain citations from: Code of Hamurabi, Plato, Aristotle, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Roman Law, writings associated with the names Paul, Mark, Mathew, Luke, John, Revelations, Nicene Creed, Apostles Creed, Justinian Code, Benedictine Rule, suras of the Qur'an or the Shariah (I am rusty here), Magna Carta, English Common Law, Iberian Civil Law, Pearl of Great Price, Book of Mormon, Watchtower, Fundamentalist or Revivalist tenets, Ammish/Mennonite precepts, or any other "collected" or "revealed" codes of law. Just not there.
Yet the Constitution can grow to the ideals that the Founders had for this country. So that as voting rights of people of color were added, voting rights for women, and voting rights for those were called to serve in the armed forces were added to constitution and as amendments modified elements that were either short-sighted or limited by the age, amendments will increase, not take away, the rights of citizens, residents, and visitors. It was written in general language to allow for specific enactment of laws by the legislature.
<http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution>
Finally, while I do think that those poor Founders would never have dreamed of 19th-21st Century events and issues, I have a sneaking suspicion that Franklin would surely be a Linux-guru today and that Jefferson would be in line for the new Apple iPod video. They would not be among those still trying to patch up their old 8-track and VHS players. Founders were what we now call early adopters, given both their non-constitutional writings and the Constitution itself. Not on that basis, but I think that the winners in the Constitution were progressives, not conservatives.
Regarding State governments. I cannot vouch for this, but I do
believe that many state governments orignally set up after 1789 have changed constitutions several times since their incorporations. As for the 13 colonies/states, which existed before the Federal Government, they signed to be limited by the Federal Government and have since modified their constitutions accordingly. Once a State becomes part of the United States, there is no going back, and there is no dissolving the Federal Government as spelled out by the Constitution. Lincoln, the first Republican, btw, decided that once and for all.
(Recall, Lincoln was a progressive in his era, even a liberal on some issues when Southern Democrats were bigots. The descendants of these Southern Democrats became dissatified with the events of the 60s, and became Dixiecrats then Republicans to hijack Lincoln's legacy. He was a conservative, of course, when it came to pre-/con-serving the Union.)
Neither is PCT in the Constitution. Does that make it a wrong
idea? You touted that "God" is NOT found in the Federal
Constitution. That's right, just the Creator is referenced
there.
PCT is about control of perception. But it is not invalidated
since it is not referenced by the Constitution at all, as electricity, radio, TV, genetic research, astrophysics... etc. are not referenced, and they are not invalidated.
<U.S. Constitution | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute;
Re: reading the Constitution with second-source interpretations.
Kitzke: "This is personally insulting. It is not scholarly or respectful."
Many people read second-source writing called "glosses" of the
Constitution, and presume that those words are in the US
Constitution, for example that "Creator" is in when it is not. Therefore it is entirely possible to import some gloss of the Constitution (from a book or sermon) that takes material from other sources to suggest that the government is the PEOPLE (the way many dictatorships like to conduct things), rather than LAW (the way we are bound to by our Constitution to conduct things). The easiest seconds-source to reach these days is Wikipedia, but the main source about the Constitution should be the Document itself.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloss>
I hope this helps in understanding the seriousness of pushing back against the original quote.
--B.
Galilean) became an issue, rather than saying, "no no no" I just went back to the source. I went to a dot.gov source for the text of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Amendments. I did a text search for "God" and "Creator" and found none. Case closed. QED (quod erat demonstrandum). 
