TexasCHLforum.com

Purplehood wrote:I thought that Masons simply had to believe in a Supreme Being?

Still off topic, but yes, that is correct. However, what I was trying to infer was that the three I mentioned had used God in their writings, and they were Masons. So, that meant that they were not atheists and must have believed in God as their supreme being due to their writings. Others Masons may have a belief in a different supreme being; Allah or Buddha for example.

WildBill wrote:Way off topic guys. "Please Don't Feed The Trolls"

You're right WildBill, but it's so much fun if you can throw them off the bridge into the river.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled topic.

LOLWUT wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: I know exactly how to fix this, but atheists would have a problem with it, and it is probably unconstitutional anyway. As John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” So when you ban religion from the public square, and when you assign depravity as a constitutional right, and when you enable government to usurp the personal responsibilities of the individual, this is what you get.

Welcome to it.

Think before you speak, sir. Like any group, and/or religion there are good & bad that come out of each. I find it funny you don't bring up any of the Deist founding fathers of ours.

I can tell you that some of these men were NOT atheists. Atheism is a non-belief in God. Many people who want to try and portray Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin as atheists only do so in the fact that they rarely or never mentioned Jesus in any of their writings. However, you will find they frequently mention God. Neither did most other people of their time. So, while they may not have been followers of or espoused the mainstream Christan following of Jesus, they in fact DID believe in God. One example for is that Washington and Franklin were Masons, and I can guarantee you they would not have been members if they didn't believe.

OK everyone, keep this post on topic and drop the religion discussion.

PRO wrote:

cubbyjg wrote:The lack of PD support is really disturbing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/polit ... .html?_r=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is no law or statute that requires law enforcement to protect you, anyone else or your property.
The only thing close, is the oath taken upon swearing in.

While legally they don't have to protect you, we as citizens pay the taxes that fund these departments. IMO it is their responsibility to resolve issues like this. I do totally understand that as they cut more and more head count, the days of getting your cat out of the tree or helping you round up your lost dog are gone and will never be back. However, when you have problems with people harassing you or causing property damage, they should take the report and respond within a reasonable amount of time, pending more critical calls, and help rectify the situation.