Cincuenta!.......... :glugglug

If god is love why do we fear him? Why not revere? If god is infinitly wise than why does he get jealous? Why can't people see the truth of what's in front of them. Or perhaps you are confident in listening to the preacher instead of reading the book yourself with a truly objective opinion. Why do we say we have faith? Faith is to say you believe,but if you know god exists what is the point of having faith if you know god exists?

from wikipedia..

Additional objections settle specifically around the assertion that a seatbelt is a medical device, and because one is entitled to make their own medical decisions they should also be permitted to make their own decisions about wearing a seatbelt. [6]

baddog prolly knows better than constitution lawyers though. he's a webmaster!

That is life.. the hell:(

You religion says "nigga"?
< rant
Do you have communion with "Olde E "?
Do you have Proverbs written on the back of scratch-offs?
Got a picture of Flip Wilson over the altar? ( gotta be old to get that one)
Is the first commandment; "thou shalt only puff but twice, then pass to your brotheren?"
Does the choir have a Drum Machine? and is George Clinton the choir director?
Bootsy on base?
Is your New Testament titled "Big J's Street Creds"?
Does the reverend wear a Religious robe, or colors?
Do you know the burning bush was not the first STD?

The gospel according to "Luke", is not from the 2 Live Crew.
John 3:16 is not a hookers "Black Book" with a price list.
The Pope is not from Grenwich Village.

GFY is not a congregation?
end rant >

I dont believe in god, good people die and bad people survive

Every event has some meaning. May be dieing of a man is the best way out of some situation.

organized religion is a cancer of the mind. free yourself from mental slavery.

right on my brother :thumbsup

and how many of them are there? 10?

Objections are raised all the time, doesn't mean they are sustained.

Did you even read the Court's ruling?

Let me summarize for you (as a note, the case you are referring to was questioning whether or not forcing someone to wear a seatbelt in the State of Indiana was constitutional or not according to the state constitution, not the US Constitution.)

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that: (1) I.C. &#167; 9-19-10-2, along with its supporting statutory definitions, does not violate Article I, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution; and (2) I.C. &#167; 9-19-10-2 does not violate Kelver’s substantive due process right.
Affirmed.
DARDEN, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.

If you are so inclined, you can read the case at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...05.par&invol=2

I personally know the plaintiff in that case (he is the chair of the LP chapter that I belonged to when I lived in Indiana) and I can tell you that in that case the court was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! That opinion is bullshit if there ever was such a thing. If you want the real story, order the docket and read the entire thing (or wait until I find it, its on my server somewhere... I drove all the way to Indianapolis and paid $0.25 a page to copy the entire fucking file) and you'll see exactly why the court is wrong. I begged him to appeal, he didn't want to spend another $50,000 on the case.