OK Supreme Court: 10 Commandments must come down

[Lon]

This is you bringing up your alleged grades:


And this is you lying about bringing them up:


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

You are hasty, I'll give you that. First was I talking to you? :nono: so it is in fact you that brought it up. Was I using it as a club? :nono: In fact, I was saying despite having a 4.0 in educational law, I didn't think that made me a candidate to challenge Town Heretic on law! :noway: (egg on your face yet, Brit?) NOW, let's revisit false accusation :think:

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

I believe you misread 'I just told you' as I "JUST" told you! It was rather "I simply said (just told)." Anna took it your way too, as a command rather than commentary, so I'll own that to some degree, but try to be less hasty and careless in the future? Thanks.

You are still distracting in a thread that doesn't have anything to do with you and you have no stake in. You are still being a nuisance and busy-body. They aren't your monuments. Start an English monument thread. Do the Ten Commandments exist in Parliament?

 

[gcthomas]

You are hasty, I'll give you that. First was I talking to you? :nono: so it is in fact you that brought it up.

:chuckle:
Did you really think that public posting on a forum counts as a private communication? You are sillier that I realised. (And I already thought you were pretty silly.)

 

[annabenedetti]

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?

You're using the 10 commandments as representative of "all of society," because "all of society" believes the 10 commandments are representative of "all of society." That you're down to 80% doesn't help your circularity.

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.

What I believe isn't germane to the discussion, since we're talking about "all of society" and the ten commandments and the constitution and American government-sponsored icons.

Yes, it's a bad thing for the government to tell an atheist to love the Lord. Yes.

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?

Does your faith require public governmental affirmation?

They all have monuments and museums btw.Do you want the oriental district to remove it's icons and monuments remembering it?

Do they have government monuments representing their religious beliefs or monuments commemorating the injustices done to them?

AgainWhy 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.

Because as time goes on, changes are made to reflect progress. Think the 13th. amendment, for example. That's why there's an amendment process to begin with.

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.

I'm not so sure you wouldn't if you had the chance.

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

Mine's not assertion, it's fact.

:nono:


:nono:



:think:

Easy outs. I understand.

About 5, but "I'm wonderful" was never part of the conversation.

Oh, it most certainly was. :chuckle:

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.

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.

Pride and hubris, sorry to have to be so blunt, but I don't think anything other will sink in with you. It's incredibly off-putting but if it makes you happy, if you do things with the understanding that you will receive a "crown" from the approbation of others then you're doing it for the wrong reasons. As for what I do, I'll keep that to myself, and will respect more the atheists who do their works without looking for the praise of others. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt.

 

[gcthomas]

They aren't your monuments. Start an English monument thread. Do the Ten Commandments exist in Parliament?

The English legal system, including the US, is based on statute and case law, and not the Christian equivalent of sharia law. Why should a secular court of law need to remind everyone to worship a particular deity?

 

[Lon]

The English legal system, including the US, is based on statute and case law, and not the Christian equivalent of sharia law. Why should a secular court of law need to remind everyone to worship a particular deity?

This is getting us off the beaten path, but read our Declaration and Constitution. There are references to Christianity, Christ, and God in all of it so we "can't" have a secular base like you Brits without next, erasing the Declaration and Constitution eventually as well.

 

[annabenedetti]

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.

Okay. Views can evolve, but I think you were right at the time.

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.

In the grand scheme of things, we're a young country. There were errors which were rightly amended. There were laws that were enacted and then repealed. The constitution isn't a holy thing, inviolate, it's a civil thing. A pretty good civil thing, but written by men and subject to review. I know I'm speaking to the choir, though. Right?

 

[Town Heretic]

Okay. Views can evolve, but I think you were right at the time.

In the grand scheme of things, we're a young country. There were errors which were rightly amended.

I don't think they didn't understand their laws. I think our expectations about what should be law changed. I understand baring establishment, but I believe it should be a case by case, monument by monument examination. I'd have a very different response to someone replacing the state seal with a representation of a cross, Menorah or crescent moon, by way of, than I do to efforts to pull down a monument of the Ten Commandments.

There were laws that were enacted and then repealed. The constitution isn't a holy thing, inviolate, it's a civil thing.

Not a point I've ever contested and certainly not a point I'm resting on in my examination. We agree.

A pretty good civil thing, but written by men and subject to review. I know I'm speaking to the choir, though. Right?

You ruined it with the inquiry, but it's nearly Christmas so. :chuckle:

Right, which is why I spoke to the examination of established notions as a good thing. We have to disinguish between attempts to establish religion and an attempt to recognize and honor its contributions to our compact. If we can't manage that then we're making another sort of mistake.

 

[gcthomas]

This is getting us off the beaten path, but read our Declaration and Constitution. There are references to Christianity, Christ, and God in all of it so we "can't" have a secular base like you Brits without next, erasing the Declaration and Constitution eventually as well.

We don't have a secular base, but have built a secular structure on top of a constitutionally Christian base.

And I have read your declaration of independence and constitution (it is a much quicker read than our accumulated law and practise) and I don't recall any use of the words "Christianity" or "Christ" in either of these documents.

Could you point out the occurrences for me please? Ctrl-f on the full texts isn't finding anything.

 

[Lon]

Oh, it most certainly was. :chuckle:

Like ivory towers do you? You are just being punkish here, Anna. I see no point to continuing a conversation that you started simply because your atheist friends were being slighted in your estimation. You have little interest in the topic.

Pride and hubris, sorry to have to be so blunt, but I don't think anything other will sink in with you.

Ivory tower and mind-reading. What good are you doing in the world that you'd call another's hubris and 'pride.' :dizzy: You are 'starting' to become a 'wicked' person, Anna. I'm sorry for you.

It's incredibly off-putting but if it makes you happy, if you do things with the understanding that you will receive a "crown" from the approbation of others then you're doing it for the wrong reasons.

Give two seconds to look at yourself, Anna. 1) what are you doing, that you'd cast stones. 2) why do you include 'we' when I'm talking to atheists? 3) Why would you think a challenge and comparison must/necessarily always be done in pride rather than confronting facts with platitudes of indifference? Bluntly, I'd rather you make sure a child is alive tomorrow than try and argue with me on TOL about stupid stuff like removing Ten Commandments off a lawn. Those Commandments are instrumental to causing 'me' to do good things to others. I HATE that they are an offense to you and have not caused you to be that kind of person also. Instead, you rail against them, probably hating them, embracing self-interest and self-love and then sitting in judgment on my motives and efforts instead of letting them be the beautiful thing they are to other people who are alive today, or blessed because they were done. If you aren't doing them, I suppose you are hating yourself more than me, and thus this angst. I'd hate myself if I too were a leech on society. If not, knock this crud off. I don't appreciate it, especially if you espouse the same love for humanity that I do, and do the same thing. If that were the case, you should have readily praised the love of fellow human beings. No, you are disdaining it as if me saying it is the praise because I do it. You are missing the recipients, iow, and disdaining 'them.' That's a genuine shame.

As for what I do, I'll keep that to myself, and will respect more the atheists who do their works without looking for the praise of others. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt.

Because you do nothing and judge as if you do? :think: I don't respect dishonesty and hypocrisy. I'd rather be foolish than to not have done what I have done and then allow self-interested self-elevating, self-imposing people to ruin others' for their selfish gains. You've crossed a line when you changed to 'other' to no longer be other interested, but rather self-serving, self-indulgent, and self-imposing, and then have audacity to judge me as if you know my reason for doing those thingw (and I assure you TOL nor 'bragging' was on my mind while I was going about in self-abnegation to genuinely love others).

No, I challenge selfish people with it, rather, to challenge them from being selfish jerks who let others die, and remove monuments of benefit for their own selfish ends. So now, you know those monuments are instrumental in people living because I've embraced them. What do you and other selfish people want? To remove them that another child might die because that next person wasn't encouraged to love by them. What do you want in it's place? Selfishness. Self-serving monuments to "me." Anna, you are deeply lost in this shame. I have charity toward you but you are traversing swiftly to a dark place that love cannot reach.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, it isn't their point. That's disingenuous and we both know it.

You'll understand that I don't find your "Nuh uh, and you know it" response at all compelling.

I don't think we're obligated to give everyone the same level of recognition.

That may be your opinion, but the law mandates otherwise.

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.

Your desire to relegate non-Christian citizens to second-class status is noted.

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.

Yeah, this is the sort of lame response people usually give when they're on the wrong side of the law. Again....not the slightest bit compelling.

 

[Jose Fly]

What message do people think the government is telling its citizens when it puts up a monument that says "You shall have no other Gods before me?

 

[Lon]

We don't have a secular base, but have built a secular structure on top of a constitutionally Christian base.

And I have read your declaration of independence and constitution (it is a much quicker read than our accumulated law and practise) and I don't recall any use of the words "Christianity" or "Christ" in either of these documents.

Could you point out the occurrences for me please? Ctrl-f on the full texts isn't finding anything.

There are no less than three references including Year of "Our" Lord. No, it wasn't just a colloquial mention, but a purposeful one to a people that embrace it. You aren't American so I really don't want to argue over such matters nor give more fodder for inane banter that mean nothing to you anyway. You aren't American, you can have no part in what we do next.

 

[PureX]

There are no less than three references including Year of "Our" Lord.

That is not a reference to Christ, except by the most obtuse stretch of imagination. That was simply a common way to express a date, at that time.

No, it wasn't just a colloquial mention, but a purposeful one to a people that embrace it. You aren't American so I really don't want to argue over such matters nor give more fodder for inane banter that mean nothing to you anyway. You aren't American, you can have no part in what we do next.

This is just plain dishonest gibberish. And you should be ashamed of yourself for spewing it.

 

[jgarden]

I toured Ireland a few months ago and that country is a graphic example of what happens when politics is affiliated with one religious group.

The Church of Ireland is Protestant - despite the fact that 92.6% of those in the Republic identifying themselves as Catholic when Ireland achieved statehood.

Under English rule, Irish Catholics were not allowed to own property or receive an education and many of their cathedrals were given to the Church of Ireland.

During the Irish Potato Famine, Catholics were imprisoned and sent to Australia for "stealing" food to feed their families. Food was still being exported from Ireland by the English landowners even as 1.5 million Irish Catholics starved to death.

When conservative Christians complain about the government keeping religion at arms length for constitutional reasons, we are not that far removed from the religious intolerance that forced millions to leave Europe!

 

[Town Heretic]

You'll understand that I don't find your "Nuh uh, and you know it" response at all compelling.

I find your mischaracterization even less so. I noted a bit more than that. If you can't answer it, fine. But you should credit it instead of stepping around it for that bit of nonsense. Rather, it is self-evident that the point of the exercise isn't remotely to advance or consider other religions but to remove a symbol associated with the one. Were there no monuments associated with religion you will not convince anyone that atheists would be supporting a movement to produce a number of public commemorations.

Or, as I put it in the part you omitted: 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.

That may be your opinion, but the law mandates otherwise.

All we're discussing here is opinion, so...

Your desire to relegate non-Christian citizens to second-class status is noted.

Thanks for stating a thing no reasonable person would suggest. It rather frames you nicely at this point.

Yeah, this is the sort of lame response people usually give when they're on the wrong side of the law.

Where this is the sort of comment people make when they're on the wrong side of an argument.

Again....not the slightest bit compelling.

Silly way to restate that you differ. Par for the course in this one.

 

[Jose Fly]

There are no less than three references including Year of "Our" Lord.

Then that totally trumps the establishment clause and the no religious test clause, and means we are supposed to be a Christians only theocracy!

Makes total sense.

 

[Lon]

That is not a reference to Christ, except by the most obtuse stretch of imagination. That was simply a common way to express a date, at that time.

:doh: WHY was it common? Think a little.

This is just plain dishonest gibberish. And you should be ashamed of yourself for spewing it.

I don't give an ounce of credence to your oft and vapid imaginings. He jumped in, the Brit, as if he owned the place and this was 'his' fight. It isn't. That's plain enough and you are inept, once again. :dizzy:

 

[Lon]

Then that totally trumps the establishment clause and the no religious test clause, and means we are supposed to be a Christians only theocracy!

Makes total sense.

Only in your misdiagnosis of the clause. It was NOT to stop religion from influencing government, but to stop government that 'serves the people' from hindering religion. A rewriting of history was necessary for a lot of this current poor thinking. Don't be dupe to those who would dupe you or you are their dupe. There is no way our country can survive serving as an oligarchy for the few. It 'can' survive being an oligarchy for the many*(not called an oligarchy) but that isn't what I want, just to stop you few from your designs. We'd either be ruled by atheists or Muslims, or gays, or Mormons if that happened. All bad for our Constitution and 80% of society (as well as against the other 18%). You wouldn't/couldn't be as benevolent and accommodating as we have been. History has ever/only proved that out. Town is doing a sufficient discussion with you that I'd not want to get you overtly distracted by me.

 

[Jose Fly]

I find your mischaracterization even less so.

The fact is, the organizations who take legal actions against these sorts of government endorsement of religion are not just limited to atheists. For example, Americans United for Separation of Church and State includes members from many faiths, including Christianity.

So I have a choice....that set of facts, or your say-so. It should be obvious which is more compelling.

Rather, it is self-evident that the point of the exercise isn't remotely to advance or consider other religions but to remove a symbol associated with the one. Were there no monuments associated with religion you will not convince anyone that atheists would be supporting a movement to produce a number of public commemorations.

Again, it's not just atheists who take action against these displays. There are plenty of Christians who also agree that the government should not be promoting one faith over others, even when it's their faith.

Thanks for stating a thing no reasonable person would suggest. It rather frames you nicely at this point.

That's because you're only looking at this from your perspective/faith, which just happens to be the one that you want the government to promote, to the exclusion of all others.

If you were say, a Hindu citizen of Oklahoma, and you went to the state capitol and saw a stone monument out front that said right at the top "You shall have no other Gods", you might view this a little differently.

Where this is the sort of comment people make when they're on the wrong side of an argument.

Except my side of this argument has been consistently winning in court for a while now.

 

[PureX]

:doh: WHY was it common?

Because people spoke english, and England had been controlled by the church. You know … England … the country that we were breaking free from, because we felt they were oppressing us.

I don't give an ounce of credence to your oft and vapid imaginings. He jumped in, the Brit, as if he owned the place and this was 'his' fight. It isn't. That's plain enough and you are inept, once again.

Well, I'm a U.S. citizen, and I'll tell you for him that you're full of you-know-what. Because there is no mention of Jesus Christ in ANY founding U.S. document. Not in the Declaration of Independence. Not in the Constitution. And not in the Bill of Rights. And the fact that they expressed dates by writing "the year of our lord" is nothing but a linguistic holdover from when England was controlled by the Church. It had no intended effect whatever on the founding documents of the U. S. A.

And you're being dishonest and absurdly for trying to infer that it does.