OK Supreme Court: 10 Commandments must come down

[Jose Fly]

Being that you don't have a background in law, it's more odd that you'd question him. :think:

That's hilarious, given that I'm a biologist and this place is full of people who question me on biology. Or does this rule only apply to those on your team?

: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."

Um, are you even familiar with the 10 Commandments? The very first one is "You shall have no other Gods". Is that an acceptable message for the government to be telling its citizens?

You want to take down the latter and post a political rivalry

????????

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)

Then can I presume you'll defer to me on issues relating to biology?

 

[PureX]

The question about the depiction of the ten commandments in the Supreme Court Building has long since been settled, I thought. With the judgment being made in favor of them staying, based on the idea that there are other iconic (and secular) depictions of historical wisdom, there; thus nullifying the intent of any state-sponsored favoritism of religion. And that decision that was sensible, reasonable, and agreeable to most people, religious or not.

And I agree that in this particular case, the claim that this depiction of the ten commandments is somehow offensive to atheists, is disingenuous. And should be ignored.

However, in instances where religious groups are trying to place religious monuments on public property, or in public buildings, I agree with the complaints against them, and I do, likewise, find these attempts to be offensive (and I am not an atheist).

 

[Town Heretic]

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.

No, it isn't their point. That's disingenuous and we both know it. An atheist doesn't want to advance all religion, or any religion. What we're really talking about are anti-theists using that approach to deny a religion of historical and current importance a recognition, not an establishment.

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.

I don't think we're obligated to give everyone the same level of recognition. This nations owes very little to the efforts of Hindus and Muslims and atheists in terms of the sacrifice and effort in founding and continuing it. It owes its soul to the Christian faith and recognizing that disproportionate significance isn't denying anyone a blessed thing.

Then why do we keep winning in court?

Why did Courts once rule people were property? The wrong precedent and influence can lead to unfortunate and needless result and force the citizenry to take more drastic measures to undo it. The tail is attempting to wag the dog while pretending all it means to do is establish equality among the parts.

 

[Zeke]

Oklahoma Supreme Court orders removal of Ten Commandments monument



Seems pretty straight forward.



Um.....what? What historical event are they talking about? But then, as is happening all across the country...



Yep. So once again we see the continued erosion of Christian privilege. They're all for religious displays, as long as...wink, wink...we all know only Christian displays will be allowed. As soon as other groups say "Hey, us too!" the whole charade crumbles.

A mute point because they legally own all property, so they make the rules in that legal world of fiction. A Christian shouldn't even be involved in the legal system in the first place, or register their property or give up their unalienable rights from their Creator to another Magistrate/Lord.

 

[Lon]

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.

:nono: This is 'poor' association and shoddy. It has nothing to do with it. Let's make a list of what is required for setting up a moment so you can understand:

1) Expresses the values of all society (yes, we all believe it is 100% wrong to murder, even the murderers).
2) It accurately represents our history and heritage of the United states
3) It is something that the next generation should understand about us and that will benefit them in observance
4) Is related to our laws, constitution, or other important historical document and not merely a special interest icon having little or no benefit to the rest of society
5)

So, if it fits the requirements of said list, we can have it. Christianity often benefits all of society in expression like "love your neighbor." Atheism? No. It is counter society (anti-social). It misses on #1, #2 #3 #4

 

[gcthomas]

:nono: This is 'poor' association and shoddy. It has nothing to do with it. Let's make a list of what is required for setting up a moment so you can understand:

1) Expresses the values of all society (yes, we all believe it is 100% wrong to murder, even the murderers).

:noid:

As you noted later, this is not remotely true, unless you drop the first four Commandments. The other six get cross community support, but trivially so since they have been accepted as laws in more places and times than the 10 Commandments have as a whole.

You can do better than that with your 4.0 school average, can't you?

 

[annabenedetti]

:nono: This is 'poor' association and shoddy. It has nothing to do with it. Let's make a list of what is required for setting up a moment so you can understand:

1) Expresses the values of all society (yes, we all believe it is 100% wrong to murder, even the murderers).

You're setting up a moment all right, Lon. A circular reasoning moment.

2) It accurately represents our history and heritage of the United states

Especially Catholic heritage. Oh wait...

3) It is something that the next generation should understand about us and that will benefit them in observance

Understand about which us? The Catholics? Jews? Mormons? Quakers? Unchurched? Agnostics? Atheists?

4) Is related to our laws, constitution, or other important historical document and not merely a special interest icon having little or no benefit to the rest of society

Except what you're talking about is exactly that: it's a special interest icon meaningful only to a particular segment of the population. Speaking of icons: would you insist that a Jewish soldier buried at Arlington have a cross on his grave marker? If not, why not?

So, if it fits the requirements of said list, we can have it. Christianity often benefits all of society in expression like "love your neighbor." Atheism? No. It is counter society (anti-social). It misses on #1, #2 #3 #4

"Love your neighbor" is a human ideal which predates Christianity, and predates Judaism. Appropriating it for Christianity may serve your purposes but you're completely wrong if you don't think that humans have understood and lived the principle outside the precepts of Christianity. And for an example close to home, there are quite a number of atheists and agnostics on this forum who are far, far better at living the precept than many of those who so proudly wear the Christian label.

 

[Lon]

:noid:

As you noted later, this is not remotely true, unless you drop the first four Commandments. The other six get cross community support, but trivially so since they have been accepted as laws in more places and times than the 10 Commandments have as a whole.

You can do better than that with your 4.0 school average, can't you?

Petty, so no. I can't outdo petty or shallow. Never gonna happen. :nono: Take your lower grades someplace else or think they somehow compete.

You aren't even American, but a Brit, so aren't really an interested party in our affairs anyway. Somewhat of a busy-body trouble maker. You Brits need to mind your own business, England.

 

[Lon]

You're setting up a moment all right, Lon. A circular reasoning moment.

Not in the least. I'll see if you prove the point (you won't/can't) however and give you a moment of benefit of doubt...

Especially Catholic heritage. Oh wait...

You are an 'other' now starchild. Being 'other' which of the Ten Commandments personally offend you. Name it/them, please. If not, you are doing the circular reasoning. Cart out the offensive one.

I don't know of a Catholic one that would object to any one of the Ten Commandments.

Understand about which us? The Catholics? Jews? Mormons? Quakers? Unchurched? Agnostics? Atheists?

The United States, the way it works, and its history. Granted there are people living in the United States against the United States. That's too bad for them. They have a right to not like, but they don't have a right to change it.

Except what you're talking about is exactly that: it's a special interest icon meaningful only to a particular segment of the population.

Politically, you are talking about anarchy, there is no place else to go if we tilt to every contesting windmill. Rather, we embrace our Constitution or else we undermine it.

Speaking of icons: would you insist that a Jewish soldier buried at Arlington have a cross on his grave marker? If not, why not?

No, and whatever connection you are trying to make doesn't work here with this discussion. The difference: One is only and ever a Christian icon, the other was one document used in creating our Constitution, is quoted by the men who wrote it including word for word in our laws, etc.

"Love your neighbor" is a human ideal which predates Christianity, and predates Judaism.

So you have no problem with it as a monument. There's one down. Which of the other ten offends you personally? :think:

Appropriating it for Christianity may serve your purposes but you're completely wrong if you don't think that humans have understood and lived the principle outside the precepts of Christianity.

There's an 'if' there so it takes us beyond the immediate and allows me to skip it at this time.

And for an example close to home, there are quite a number of atheists and agnostics on this forum who are far, far better at living the precept than many of those who so proudly wear the Christian label.

1) Conjecture. You want to believe that is true, yes. They have treated you nicely. Don't mistake your single personage where the rest of us are not granted it. You once blamed me for not seeing attacks against you and failed to thank me for times I actually came to your defense (not that I needed it, but you placed blame rather). 2) I know I out-give many of them and generally believe talk is cheap. 3) I also volunteer at a food bank and try to give to my community in other way. So I'm not sure you have much but blinders on because, most specifically, you are concerned about yourself and projecting what you were looking for in comfort as if it applied to others, beyond TOL walls, was more than talk, etc. Some of the very people that you felt attacked by were attacking your Catholicism, not you, in hopes that you'd see God's grace (some). I'm simply trying to say you received a comfort and are projecting it beyond your personal need and take at the moment. That's myopia. And I began saying you simply asserted circular reason without a shred of evidence for the blind assertion. I'm not sure why you said it, perhaps cognitive dissonance.

 

[Town Heretic]

it's a special interest icon meaningful only to a particular segment of the population.

I'd disagree in this respect, if it commemorates the beliefs upon which and the people through which our compact was founded, beliefs that were an integral part of both and commemorating that should be meaningful to all. Without that approach you could make the same judgement regarding a veterans memorial, a monument to Suffrage, etc.

"Love your neighbor" is a human ideal which predates Christianity, and predates Judaism.

Depends on what you believe. That is, in a literal sense yes, in the larger, no.

 

[gcthomas]

Take your lower grades someplace else or think they somehow compete.

You have no idea about my grades, so, like most of your comments, that is either wishful thinking on your part or another psychologically defensive strategy.
Good luck with that.

You aren't even American, but a Brit, so aren't really an interested party in our affairs anyway. Somewhat of a busy-body trouble maker. You Brits need to mind your own business, England.

The US is something like a cultural experiment , so I'm interested in us avoiding the most egregious mistakes that you've made on your side of the pond. ToL isn't reserved for Christians or Americans or even just Evangelical Americans, so if you don't like that you should experiment with more suitable forums, perhaps. :wave:

 

[annabenedetti]

Not in the least. I'll see if you prove the point (you won't/can't) however and give you a moment of benefit of doubt...

I already did. You said the 10 commandments express the values of all society, because... they express the values of all society. Well, no they don't. Take the first almost half of them and try to apply them to all of American society, because, well, they express their values.

You are an 'other' now starchild. Being 'other' which of the Ten Commandments personally offend you. Name it/them, please. If not, you are doing the circular reasoning. Cart out the offensive one.

I'm talking about the 'all society' that you've specifically stated that the 10 commandments represent. Let's focus on all society.

I don't know of a Catholic one that would object to any one of the Ten Commandments.

Catholic heritage. For good or for ill, there's a lot of American history that didn't originate in the 13 Puritanical colonies.

The United States, the way it works, and its history. Granted there are people living in the United States against the United States. That's too bad for them. They have a right to not like, but they don't have a right to change it.

You were talking about what "the next generation should understand about us and that will benefit them in observance." Should that be the Quakers who don't believe in wars started by misguided Christian presidents? Or native Americans who didn't want to be forced into Catholic worship? Or Japanese Americans forced into internment camps by another misguided Christian president?

Politically, you are talking about anarchy, there is no place else to go if we tilt to every contesting windmill. Rather, we embrace our Constitution or else we undermine it.

The Constitution doesn't need, or advise, monuments to the 10 commandments. Plain and simple.

No, and whatever connection you are trying to make doesn't work here with this discussion. The difference: One is only and ever a Christian icon, the other was one document used in creating our Constitution, is quoted by the men who wrote it including word for word in our laws, etc.

Oh, it works. You just can't see it.

There's an 'if' there so it takes us beyond the immediate and allows me to skip it at this time.

No, you just allowed yourself an easy out.

1) Conjecture. You want to believe that is true, yes. They have treated you nicely. Don't mistake your single personage where the rest of us are not granted it. You once blamed me for not seeing attacks against you and failed to thank me for times I actually came to your defense (not that I needed it, but you placed blame rather). 2) I know I out-give many of them and generally believe talk is cheap. 3) I also volunteer at a food bank and try to give to my community in other way. So I'm not sure you have much but blinders on because, most specifically, you are concerned about yourself and projecting what you were looking for in comfort as if it applied to others, beyond TOL walls, was more than talk, etc. Some of the very people that you felt attacked by were attacking your Catholicism, not you, in hopes that you'd see God's grace (some). I'm simply trying to say you received a comfort and are projecting it beyond your personal need and take at the moment. That's myopia. And I began saying you simply asserted circular reason without a shred of evidence for the blind assertion. I'm not sure why you said it, perhaps cognitive dissonance.

You're out in the weeds on this. This isn't about me, so don't make it about me, and I'm not going to follow your line of thought on anything related to my personal experiences.

I'm talking about the "Christian" behavior you and others ignore because they're on the "right" side of your issues and/or beliefs. I'm talking about the many, many times that nasty behavior by "Christians" is not only tolerated here, but celebrated. Celebrated, Lon. That's on you, and any Christian who doesn't speak out against it. Is that where the next generation will "benefit" by observance?

Also. This also isn't about how much you "out-give" and volunteer. Do you realize how many times you've told us how wonderful you are about giving? Do you realize how self-serving it sounds? I have no doubt there are those here who've done and given more than you have and never breathed a word about it. I asked you once about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing but I don't think you answered.

 

[rocketman]

You aren't even American, but a Brit, so aren't really an interested party in our affairs anyway. Somewhat of a busy-body trouble maker. You Brits need to mind your own business, England.

Here!, Here!...

 

[Lon]

You have no idea about my grades, so, like most of your comments, that is either wishful thinking on your part or another psychologically defensive strategy.
Good luck with that.

Heads up: You brought them up, champ. For me, neither here nor there because you were shallow and petty.

The US is something like a cultural element, so I'm interested in us avoiding the most egregious mistakes that you've made on your side of the pond. ToL isn't reserved for Christians or Americans or even just Evangelical Americans, so if you don't like that you should experiment with more suitable forums, perhaps. :wave:

I just told you to mind your own English business. As such, learn, but be quiet while you are learning. This thread doesn't concern you, busy-body.

 

[rocketman]

The US is something like a cultural element, so I'm interested in us avoiding the most egregious mistakes that you've made on your side of the pond.

What egregious mistakes? Coming across the pond to keep you from speaking German? Those Americans are so egregiously bad....:devil:

 

[annabenedetti]

I'd disagree in this respect, if it commemorates the beliefs upon which and the people through which our compact was founded, beliefs that were an integral part of both and commemorating that should be meaningful to all. Without that approach you could make the same judgement regarding a veterans memorial, a monument to Suffrage, etc.

Do you agree with the court decision to remove the 10 commandments from the courthouse in Alabama a dozen or so years ago?

Depends on what you believe. That is, in a literal sense yes, in the larger, no.

I'm going by the words of the Constitution.

 

[annabenedetti]

Heads up: You brought them up, champ. For me, neither here nor there because you were shallow and petty.


I just told you to mind your own English business. As such, learn, but be quiet while you are learning. This thread doesn't concern you, busy-body.

:chuckle: Wow.

 

[Lon]

I already did. You said the 10 commandments express the values of all society, because... they express the values of all society. Well, no they don't. Take the first almost half of them and try to apply them to all of American society, because, well, they express their values.

They express 80% of us, are included in our Declaration (see my sig) and are expressed publically many times by Presidents and Statesmen. Would you erase our history to simply favor a bias?

I'm talking about the 'all society' that you've specifically stated that the 10 commandments represent. Let's focus on all society.

Again, as you now claim 'other' I've no idea what you now embrace, but is it a bad thing to tell you to love the Lord your God? Yes or no? Is it a 'bad' thing to tell an atheist to love the Lord his/her God? The answer is no.

Catholic heritage. For good or for ill, there's a lot of American history that didn't originate in the 13 Puritanical colonies.

Doesn't that tell you why they are on our properties in the first place then? Why are we trying to 'undo' America? To what end?

You were talking about what "the next generation should understand about us and that will benefit them in observance." Should that be the Quakers who don't believe in wars started by misguided Christian presidents? Or native Americans who didn't want to be forced into Catholic worship? Or Japanese Americans forced into internment camps by another misguided Christian president?

They all have monuments and museums btw. Do you want the oriental district to remove it's icons and monuments remembering it? Why must we 'erase' whatever isn't liked and put up incredibly small special interest groups. They already have their own icons without trying to usurp what is on government lawns. I am not at all demanding crosses replace them. I'm saying we shouldn't be removing any of them willy-nilly. If it offends, that's too bad, because it isn't being 'Christian' to embrace them, but American. I think everyone in the US should embrace Christianity but that's not political and I wouldn't post John 3:16 in the Whitehouse halls.

The Constitution doesn't need, or advise, monuments to the 10 commandments. Plain and simple.

I disagree. This is just going back and forth in assertion now.

Oh, it works. You just can't see it.

:nono:

You're out in the weeds on this.

This isn't about me, so don't make it about me, and I'm not going to follow your line of thought on anything related to me.

:nono: Look:

I'm talking about the "Christian" behavior you and others ignore because they're on the "right" side of your issues and/or beliefs. I wasn't thinking about myself, but about the many, many times that nasty behavior by "Christians" is not only tolerated here, but celebrated. Celebrated, Lon. That's on you, and any Christian who doesn't speak out against it.

:think:

Also. This also isn't about how much you "out-give" and volunteer. Do you realize how many times you've told us how wonderful you are about giving?

About 5, but "I'm wonderful" was never part of the conversation. Rather, 5 kids living in third world countries IS wonderful. I am humbled (and obedient) to have been used to do it. My point always has been: Talk is cheap (and often disgusting with self-indulgence while others are in need).
I don't care about me, I care about them, and their neglect. I rarely start the comparison game, but surely want to be the one to end it with "put your $ and time where your mouth is" to them). The self-centered are often criminal in their hypocrisy and ivory tower judgements. It is a sin against all men and God in every literal sense.

Do you realize how self-serving it sounds? I have no doubt there are those here who've done and given more than you have and never breathed a word about it. I asked you once about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing but I don't think you answered.

Yes. Paul too said he was foolish for tipping his hand. His point and mine, is that at times such is necessary to help another rightly weigh their own wrongness and hasty conclusions. Does it strip me of joy or a crown? No, it just places it in your hands. If you see the good of it, that's my crown. If it is thrown with the swine, that is my offering, then. It was no waste of expense, but well-thought-out as to the loss. What volunteer work are you doing, Anna? What children are alive today because you gave (rhetorical)? The atheists were silent, and disdainful. Sad that, these are the men you've come to love.

 

[Town Heretic]

Do you agree with the court decision to remove the 10 commandments from the courthouse in Alabama a dozen or so years ago?

Has it been that long? At the time and for some time thereafter I agreed with the decision. Now? I don't, for reasons briefly touched upon in my last. I was taking a very narrow view of Moore's intent as the decider. I do think they were wedded in a way that approached establishment as he conducted himself and given the rhetoric he choose to embrace. That said, on the larger consideration, to quote the old song, "It ain't necessarily so."

I'm going by the words of the Constitution.

No, you're following a more revisionist approach to how those words and the separation of church and state is viewed. It's a more recent spin than was intended or applied by the men who actually wrote the words. Don't mistake me, I'm not advancing in that an argument from authority, only rebutting your own on the point. I think it's good to reexamine and discuss things like this and to consider both our motives and the impact of shifts in the law relative to rights and privileges.

But I don't see the state establishing Christianity by recognizing its fundamental contribution to the framing and establishment of the compact.

 

[gcthomas]

This is you bringing up your alleged grades:

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)

And this is you lying about bringing them up:

Heads up: You brought them up, champ. For me, neither here nor there because you were shallow and petty.

Bearing false witness there, Lon. You should be ashamed, but your who is to big to allow that.

I just told you to mind your own English business. As such, learn, but be quiet while you are learning. This thread doesn't concern you, busy-body.

Calm down Lon - don't get your britches in a twist.