• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About YODA

  • Rank
  • Birthday November 15

Helpful Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    North Carolina, USA

Friendly Details

  • Doctrine /Affiliation

Other Details

  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

2,196 profile views
  1. You must have missed the point. It wasn't about topic meandering. I said what I meant to add, but since it was missed, To wit: Must every topic devolve into a political diatribe? ... There is enough of that elsewhere without having it everywhere.
  2. And, here we go again. Must every topic devolve into a political diatribe? Here, I thought this thread was about the differences between Humanist vs. Atheist, not about how much one hates the President. There is enough of that elsewhere without having it everywhere.
  3. To see you is good, Yoda.

    welcome you are.

  4. Is that the exception that proves the rule? DoD marches to its own drummer. Most of the UCMJ would be unconstitutional if asserted in civilian life, but those who enlist are free to waive their rights, I suppose. Thank Providence, and the founding fathers, for the principals of the posse comitatis act. At least until the administration declares marhsall law (or will a declared state of "emergency" suffice?) the rest of us civilians are not subject to government approval (and accreditation?) of our religious beliefs and practices.
  5. I believe your confusion must be due to a misinterpretation of the text... The "religious body" to do the accrediting accredits the "clergyman, priest, minister, rabbi, or practitioner of (a) religious denomination." ULC is a religious body. The wording is apparently very specifically avoiding limiting the term to "denomination" or to any type of "religious body" that has to be defined by statute (anything else would be unconstitutional) and not specifically limited to any specific term ("clergyman, priest, minister, rabbi, or any practitioner of any religious denomination"). You are a clergy(
  6. While I am not aware of cases brought, there have been at least two legal opinions brought by two different Attorneys General of South Carolina. Both are consistent, and apply the Constitutional principal as is appropriate, and without bias: 1971: (WestLaw Citation as: 1971 WL 22331 (S.C.A.G.)) Attorney General Daniel R. McLeod 1973: (WestLaw Citation as: 1973 WL 26680 (S.C.A.G.)) Assistant Attorney General James C. Harrison, Jr. (I will attempt to attach copies of both A.G.opinions.) I will quote the 1973 opinion, as it is the more recent, but as I said is consistent with the earlier: "It has