Walter,

This just makes no sense whatsoever. You're saying that in order for Muslims to receive equal treatment before the law, then they should have to condemn terrorists attacks simply because they share the same religion with the attackers.

If a certain Christian bombs an abortion clinic, then should the Bible be removed from the courtroom until all Christians publicly condemn the attack?

The right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" came from Thomas Jefferson, a non-Christian. I believe he pinched the words from Rousseau, a (gasp!) French philosopher.

In fact, the Christian Bible states that humanity has no rights at all, other than to choose between being a slave of God or a slave of Satan. I know of no place where liberty can fit in that paradigm, much less any "pursuit of happiness."

As to the "right to life..." I seem to recall that the Christian definition of this term is "being saved," something no one has at birth, which is what I think of when I hear the words "inalienable rights."

But getting to the heart of the matter of the letter, I think the simplest solution would work best -- get rid of all "holy scriptures" in the courts and simply use secular affirmations that everyone can agree to use.

Walter Sperko says that the muslim leadership should publicly and unequivocally condem the muslims who were resposible for the 9/11 attacks and the london bombings. And the muslims should endorse a system that allows worship of ALL faiths. This,as I read it is the main thrust of his letter. I agree. But good luck finding much support here,Walter. They will take each word you write and break it down letter by letter and try to make it sound as if you are just another ignorant religious zealot out to make christianity the "official government mandated religion".

Jon, he might not be an ignotant zealotm but he surely sounds like a bigot who would deny equal treatment for a Muslim on the grounds of actions she or he was not responsible for. That just doesn't seem fair to me.

I think MOST Christians would condemn the actions of Eric Rudolph without any qualms. It's not an apology, it's a condemnation.

I think the fact that many powerful muslim religious leaders and local muslim leaders did not take a vocal stance against the actions of the terrorist on 9/11 is still a sore spot with many Americans. Yet they had no problems getting up in arms about an incident at Wal-mart. From that perspective, I agree with Mr. Sperko.

Acknowledging that this is a Christian nation before having use of the Quran in a courtroom is a bit of a stretch, I think. Acknowledging the constitution and agreeing to those principles before becoming a United States citizen is another thing.

I'm not about throwing out the Holy Scriptures in any case. I do agree that those who prefer should be given the option to simply affirm.

My question is what was the original intent of the law? Did the lawmaker(s) mean the Bible when the law was enacted? Then to change the law, the same procedure should be followed instead of looking for a "loophole" in the law. Not by lawsuit by the ACLU or anyone else. This should go through the legislature if they were the original body who gave this requirement for oaths in court. If they were not and it was set by a judicial policy, then that body should be petitioned for the change. I'm not arguing for or against the change, just how the change should take place if it should be changed at all.

ECUMAN says:

"Did the lawmaker(s) mean the Bible when the law was enacted? Then to change the law, the same procedure should be followed instead of looking for a "loophole" in the law."

I agree with you here. I think that in this case, the laws regarding court procedures should be updated for today's society, and reflecting the reality of wide religious diversity. I think I'll have to write my representitives in Raleigh on this. Who knows? It might make a difference...

Eric, I disagree with you on a lot of matters, but I agree with you that change through the legislature is the desired path no matter what your political persuation is. Group hug?

Sure, mon. Long live the democratic process!

ECUMAN: Eric, I disagree with you on a lot of matters, but I agree with you that change through the legislature is the desired path no matter what your political persuation is. Group hug?

ERIC: Sure, mon. Long live the democratic process!

Brave new world! Now I can sleep soundly again! ;-)

I would like all of the readers of this forum to know that I received a letter today from steve.

He has been booted from this website. When he went to comment on a letter, he received the message “you are not allowed to comment".

It seems the N&R nazi’s have banned Steve from posting because he got under their skin.

Sue, you got your way. Steve is gone. Hope you are happy. Allen will sleep better tonight, won’t he?

With Steve goes the freedom to post what you think. Steve’s opinions were sometimes controversial and his humor was often dark and dry, but it was intelligent. That’s why I liked it so much.

But Steve didn’t play the game. He didn’t stick to cookie-cutter responses. And SOME people (you know who you are) can’t stand to argue with someone they can’t outsmart. They can’t stand when someone has an opinion that differs from their own and can defend it. That might mean questioning their own views. So, they misuse their power and influence to get their way. Anything can be justified to smash out individuals who dare confront their insecurities and weaknesses.

Whatever it takes, huh?

You can hide behind words, you can hide behind power, but you can’t hide from the truth.

You can just ban him.

Interesting, truth. Did you know that "steve" sent abusive, obscene e-mails to a friend of mine who posted here? If a person violates the terms of service, as spelled out at the top of every blog, why should she or he expect to continue to be allowed access here? The News & Record has a right to enforce its rules for its web site, doesn't it?

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

It would appear that steve is worse than me!!! How can that be??? I thought I was the ultimate badboy!!!

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Does the link to the "terms of service" work now?
Gee I never could get it to come up.
Seems kinda unfair to ban people when the link to the rules of the game are broken.
As for your friend getting obsene emails from steve.. LMAO, well, Eric, that's the way the drop falls. Your friend will recover. I did.

Yeah, I just tried to look at the terms of service, got a 404 error. Interesting.

I would expect, at any rate, that a ban would follow a warning message. If not, it would be unfair.

Oh, and Satan might as well go bother some other blog. We're discussing grown-up things at present...

I get obscene emails every day. For everything from Viagara to Women who want to show me their HOTT BODDIES (mispelling intentional).

I delete them.

As far as your friend goes (I'm assuming this is Alice since she mentioned something about it a few days ago on one of the blogs), that sounds like a personal feud between her and Steve. Which, in my opinion, falls outside of what the News & Record should be monitoring. That's just my personal opinion, anyway.

Personally, I don't email people, I make my comments here. My statements are just about Steve's comments here. Whatever happened with your friend is NOT the reason why Steve got booted.

Eric, "he sounds like a bigot"? Why because he calls for the muslim leadership to denounce the 9/11 and london bombings? As I said, I think this is the thrust of his letter, not to insult muslims.
Ps: I don't agree with the "blog police"booting anyone either.

Truth, it seems to me that until someone tells you the reason steve was booted, you can't really say. If he was sending abusive notes to alice, he may have done the same to others. Someone may have complained that he was sending abusive e-mails off-line for all you or I know. That was why I mentioned it.

Personally, I had come to ignore nearly all of what steve posted here, and I had nothing against him. I merely figure that I don't know enough of what passed between him and the N&R staff to try and set up a protest at the present time.

What the legal state of all this is, I have no idea... I'm no lawyer. But I do value the blogs and hope that if anyone gets banned, it's for a good reason.

I wish the N&R wouldn't ban anyone, but they own this blog, and therefore they can ban whomever they wish.

I would like to ask them not to reverse their decision, however.

I agree with that. I guess the $64,000 question is: Why?

I'm guessing that legal issues will prohibit us from getting any answers to that question, though.

I'm not defending one individual as much as protesting the way things have been handled. Satan is still running loose, Orchid blasted about 100 insults in a row several weeks ago, and others continue with insults after insults.

So, yeah, I'd like an explanantion into what, when, and why because I haven't seen any consistency in the way problems are dealt with here.

When I said "I agree with that", I mean agreeing with Eric's statement "But I do value the blogs and hope that if anyone gets banned, it's for a good reason."

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Okay, so I don't tell the exact truth sometimes!!! What, other than that, is wrong with me??? I've been running loose since God kicked me out eons ago!!!

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

I have been working all day, fixing DNS issues, and just got to look at this blog. I'm not glad that "steve" sent abusive email to anyone; I am glad that it was a N&R decision based on their TOS and AUP. I can respect that. Kudos, Allen. I hope you never have to enforce that policy again.

This is a public forum, albeit moderated by the owner, the N&R. Nonetheless, it is out here for everyone to see, and the content and conduct reflects on the owner..
It would not be appropriate for "Steve" to stand in the public square and shout obscenities and call people names without the risk of criminal prosecution for disorderly conduct.
Same thing should apply here, you need to have some rules of conduct in a public place.

Tom, thats cool and all however, if the link doesn't work to tell the players what the rules of the game are, its hardly sportsman-like to kick a player out of the game without being able to read/know the rules.
I have mentioned SEVERAL times the link to the terms of service does not work. Not that would of mattered so much to steve, but in all fairness.. SOMEBODY FIX THE LINK.

Lilly it's too bad about steve. Just like the rest of us, he did add to and detract from the conversation at times.

As far as the terms of service link, it did work up until they changed the page around the other day. I have looked at it several times.

To single Steve out and boot him is a discriminatory act no matter how one tries to justify it. I have read many things more vulgar and disrespectful in this forum from people other than Steve.

This fued between Steve and Sue bagan several months ago and Sue has perpetuated it also. She has harped to Allen until he finally caved. Allen sacrificed a member of the general public in favor of a colleague, IMHO.

I have not liked or approved of a lot of the hate-filled, disrespectful, condescending, arrogant, sanctimonious posts in this forum but I would never whine to the N&R about them. I simply scroll past most of them. These posts reflect badly on the person posting them and should be ignored. As I said to Joe recently, if you don't participate in their games, they'll get bored and move on. If Sue or anyone else is offended by what someone posts, they have the choice to scroll past, ignore or take the higher ground. Then again they can choose not to participate in something that causes them discomfort.

This is an open forum and we all participate voluntarily. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen but don't trample all over people's right to express themselves in the way they see fit. I did not and do not condone some of the things that were posted by Steve, just as I have disagreed with many of the people who post here. On the other hand, some of the ones I have disagreed with on one issue are the ones I find myself in agreement with on others. I think, as adults, we can move on if our objectives for participating in this forum are not being met.

Yvonne,

That was very well put. I have seen you attacked more times than I count for your views. (Heck, I probably even took part in some of them early on.)

I've learned from you, Steve, and MANY others and have grown in many ways from this experience. I can see that this has changed you, as well.

Many have risen above the petty name-calling and insults. None of us are perfect. But only ONE of us has been booted, so far.

Well said Yvonne. You certainly nailed the source of the situation. Ed Cone said much the same thing about ignoring remarks that you do not wish to read and move on. I,for once agreed with Ed on this subject. It is so sad when a small minority can so influence power that the rights of many are endangered.
Truth, you are correct, we all, for the most part, have grown and have learned from each other regardless if we agreed or not. Most have gotten over the name calling and hopefully those who have not will soon mature enough to rise above kindergarten behaviour.

Of course, Steve could always come back incarnate.