OK Supreme Court: 10 Commandments must come down
- Thread starter Jose Fly
- Start date
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
The problem with striking these symbols commemorating the foundational truth at the heart of the peoples who did most of the building and dying to establish and preserve our compact is that it isn't leveling the field. It's giving it to anti-atheists, who lacking an equivalent, desire to destroy the peace of everyone else. Who create an offense for themselves that's needless, reckless and pointlessly divisive in a way the monuments aren't and never really have been here.
If the Ten Commandments offend you then you're either evil or an idiot. And that will do you much more harm (and do much more harm to others) than any monument.
Suggesting that every sort of jackassery cobbled by humanists to mock religion should have equal weight and consideration is part of the problem of that crowd. It's an irrational, hostile nonsense packaged in the name of rationality and sobriety.
Humbug.
If the Ten Commandments offend you then you're either evil or an idiot. And that will do you much more harm (and do much more harm to others) than any monument.
Suggesting that every sort of jackassery cobbled by humanists to mock religion should have equal weight and consideration is part of the problem of that crowd. It's an irrational, hostile nonsense packaged in the name of rationality and sobriety.
Humbug.
gcthomas
New member
Well, the first four commandments are a bit duff...
Maybe you could all compromise on the Five or Six Commandments?
Lon
Well-known member
Badp did. You. Didn't. I wasn't talking about 2% of the population, but the problem with them trying to promote a 2% sexual theme (yes, we are talking about a people not just attracted (they'd be 'celibate' like the rest of us who were chaste 'til marriage, but wanting to be identified purely by their homo-activity -odd that, but another thread perhaps), over and above common law and values. You completely missed the point. It is not against 2% of people, but against an agenda that isn't appropriate by those 2%. It isn't a percentage game but that 2% want to usurp the values of a country and ONLY promote their sex with a pole (again, celibate, not homosexual if you don't have premarital sex). The mention of the 99% was to make it clear that they themselves identify only with promiscuous sexual activity and so the pole would represent a selfishness, nothing that should be good for all society. That is why TH is right and you are wrong, but you continuing on blindly is also why I wonder why I bother. Think long and hard on TH's next comments to you.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
POTY imho.
Jose Fly
New member
It's odd to see folks like you saying that the people who are breaking the law aren't the ones being divisive, but rather the ones who dare call them on it are.
You don't think it's at all "divisive" for the government to put up a monument to one religion, while excluding everyone else? Or are you one of those folks who thinks the government only represents Christians?
It's sad to see you descend to the "you're an idiot" level of argumentation.
Fortunately, the law isn't on your rather emotional side of the issue.
lighthouse99
New member
yeh, let's ban all history from everything -- forget about that dumb saying that whoever forgets the past is condemned to repeat it. What dummy came up with that one?
yeh, let's ban all historical buildings as well, anything over 50 years old, get it outa here
seems pretty straightforward
We've had the letter/spirit of the law conversation. I think people like you have used a confused age to further blur the line between the two, to insist the letter is the spirit when it never demonstrably has been and I think arguably shouldn't be for any number of reasons.
I don't think that's been its function. And I don't think that honoring one individual, especially if he's had a disproportionate impact on the compact, inherently slights everyone who did something and didn't get a medal.
Is that it? You want a participation medal? Or is it that you just can't stand the recognition for a group you hold in contempt that earned it?
No, but you seem like one of those folks who think the government should only represent those without a particular principle or faith. I think you already have that monument. It's the Congressional Record.
That's not an argument, it's a valuation. I think people who've dedicated themselves to this sort of narrowed hostility are at best acting idiotically. My argument against them is separate and stated.
That's another dull tactic. Passion runs with most arguments worth holding. Provided those passions are rooted in and supported by reason, it's an aid and a natural alliance. Most things worth your time and energy are worth caring about. If you think only arguments devoid of that particular are worthy then you're missing something important.
Jose Fly
New member
And I think people like you are just reacting to having a previously rigged game now being played on a level field. We see that sort of reaction across history.
I'm sorry, but I have no idea how that relates to the issue here.
Nice straw man, but no....I think the government should represent all its citizens as equally as possible. So when the government puts up a monument to one religion, and excludes all others, that's a violation of that principle.
I can see how those on the losing side of the law would think of appealing to the law as such. I guess that's one of the ways in which you cope.
We see all sorts of things across history. One group trying to remake the face of a thing to suit it in the name of equality, by way of.
The only substitution is in medal for statue or monument. The same underlying observation attaches.
No, you demonstrably don't. You want it to look like you, free of religious trapping or recognition of the values that framed our founding and the people who gave you the freedom to mock them.
It erected monuments to ideas that found their wellspring in Judiasm, which wasn't the actual religion of the makers of this country or those monuments. It was, however, a shared value and one as true for the Christian as for the Jew.
I can see how those overreaching and altering the intent of the law would seek to obscure that with the sort of approach you're taking.
Keep telling yourself that if it helps you, well, you know.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
ah, now you're referring to gay "marriage" and your support for its legalization, right?
It's a different animal from what's happening here. With homosexuals the legal principles in play were being ignored. My argument with this particular is that there's no violation of principle, that the sort of separation he's arguing for isn't present except in his desire. There's no establishment of religion by recognizing the Ten Commandments. No one is being forced to take up Christianity. No one is being denied the right to their own conscience or different faith by it.
What do you lose by that recognition? What right is denied anyone? Nothing.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
only because you support perversion
Lying is a perversion of truth and that's your meat.
Lon
Well-known member
Being that you don't have a background in law, it's more odd that you'd question him. :think:
:nono: That's why I said you weren't 'bright.' You can't seem to understand one is "I'm the greatest! No I am!" vs. "Treat others as yourself." You want to take down the latter and post a political rivalry rather than a socially beneficial statement to all. I have no problem, for instance, posting a great saying from someone who is gay, that supports society at large and encourages them. You blindly misunderstand the difference in hatred and not-to-bright vitriol. Town Heretic is absolutely right, about needing to be condescending in his next sentence:
:nono: It is sad that you descended to that level in your thinking and personal life, that he had to make the comment. He and I aren't trying to be mean, but you attack with hatred and no discernment. Such necessarily calls into question that you even think before you act.
Again, a guy with a biology degree arguing with a lawyer? :think: Do you really think you know law better? I definitely don't. :nono: (and I had an 4.0 A in my schools and the law class)
I agree.
However, everyone that does this, is a Democrat.
Humanists aren't ever Republicans.
Supreme Court: 10 Commandments must come down
Conservatives are the first to claim their commitment to the Constitution
(ie 2nd Amendment), but conveniently close their minds when it attempts to be remain neutral on religious matters.
Conservative Christians only undermine their credibility when they attempt to "cherry pick" as to which parts of the Constitution that should be enforced.
Conservatives are the first to claim their commitment to the Constitution
(ie 2nd Amendment), but conveniently close their minds when it attempts to be remain neutral on religious matters.
Conservative Christians only undermine their credibility when they attempt to "cherry pick" as to which parts of the Constitution that should be enforced.
Last edited:
Jose Fly
New member
Then you don't even understand the atheists' position on this. Their point was, if the government is going to put up a monument to one religion, it has to include other religions as well. Oklahoma refused to do that. They wanted to put up the 10 Commandments, and then deny any other religions the same access to public space. IOW, they wanted the government to endorse and promote Christianity, and Christianity only.
That's the very definition of special privileges, and is quite illegal.
And told citizens of other faiths they weren't allowed the same access to public space. Are you supportive of the government telling citizens "Christians and Jews only"?
Then why do we keep winning in court?