OK Supreme Court: 10 Commandments must come down

[Jose Fly]

Only in your misdiagnosis of the clause.

Mine, and the federal court system's.

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. 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.

Again, when you get near a coherent point, let us know.

 

[Lon]

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 84.2% of those in the Republic identifying themselves as Catholic.

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 religious at arms length for constitutional reasons, we are not that far removed from the religious intolerance that forced millions to leave Europe!

To me, it is a remote unrelated example. Ronald Reagan embraced and steered government toward Christian unity. It was very unifying, even for the nonChristian. The fear-mongering is misplaced and unfounded, as well as wrong-headed imho.

 

[Lon]

Again, when you get near a coherent point, let us know.

Since you engaged me, you are being ingenuine and discourteous, disrespectful. Go back to your conversation with Town and leave me out of your horrid pointless baiting/switch then bash. Why bother? And by that, I mean you this time.

 

[Lon]

Spoiler

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.
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.

You do the 'because I said so' a lot, even and especially when you are blatantly wrong. This diatribe is no exception. Do a little reading on the topic. You are being dishonest or inept, and/or likely both as is your modus operandi. You make stuff up then shove it as fact as a tyrannical despot. I can post links all day. You? :nono: Just your own despotism.

That's usually the case between you and I, I support what I say and am not, in fact lying, and then you play assertion queen or king.

 

[gcthomas]

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.

Wriggling much? You were being dishonest, and so up yourself you'll never see it.

And while Knight and the Mods (sounds like an eighties pub band!) tolerate my presence, you'll just have to suck it up. If you don't like me pointing out your less likeable personable characteristics, then stop posting snide, superior and disingenuous comments. Your call, here.

 

[Lon]

Wriggling much? You were being dishonest, and so up yourself you'll never see it.

You are wild with that lying/dishonest accusation and foolish. Just above I gave one (of many) links. Because of this, and your decided lack of U.S. citizenship, I'm going to ignore you for the rest of this thread. You have nothing I want.
Instead of apologizing for your false accusation, you simply moved on to try feebly again to justify your ill. Shameful. Both are inept and you are found wont.

And while Knight and the Mods (sounds like an eighties pub band!) tolerate my presence, you'll just have to suck it up. If you don't like me pointing out your less likeable personable characteristics, then stop posting snide, superior and disingenuous comments. Your call, here.

You are the arrogant snide, and audacious ship-jumper. I'm not talking about TOL but this specific topic that you have absolutely NOTHING to do with and so I'm very comfortable, given your hubris and Green Card, to relegate you to ignore for the remainder of this thread, your "Self appointed representative of the reality..." notwithstanding.
:wave:

 

[gcthomas]

You are wild with that lying/dishonest accusation and foolish. Just above I gave one (of many) links. Because of this, and your decided lack of U.S. citizenship, I'm going to ignore you for the rest of this thread. You have nothing I want.


You are the arrogant snide, and audacious ship-jumper. I'm not talking about TOL but this specific topic that you have absolutely NOTHING to do with and so I'm very comfortable, given your hubris and Green Card, to relegate you to ignore for the remainder of this thread. :wave:

I don't have a Green Card. Why would you think I had one of those?
:idunno:

So where does the Constitution mention Christianity and Christ (you said it did, remember)

 

[Town Heretic]

The fact is, the organizations who take legal actions against these sorts of government endorsement of religion are not just limited to atheists.

While disagreeing with your characterizations for the reasons given prior I'll note that your expanding the initial remark to include other organizations changes nothing in the nature of my response to the disingenuous notion that atheists were concerned for or acting in any part for other religions, which remains stuff and nonsense.

For example, Americans United for Separation of Church and State includes members from many faiths, including Christianity.

I can see it. Depending on the particulars I might even agree, but not as a blunderbuss approach.

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

No, you can say the course of rulings is with your desired outcome, but if that's all anyone was talking about there'd be little conversation and nothing that is moving now would have begun when the state of affairs ran contrary to your desire on the point.

Rather, we have at least three different positions running through this thread. One seeks to continue along the line of what I characterize as a largely well intentioned overreaching. The second runs contrary to any interference. The third, my own, believes it is entirely possible to have a monument reflecting the beliefs of the people who established protections for every belief without running afoul of establishment.

Again, it's not just atheists who take action against these displays.

Again, you advanced it singularly, though my argument doesn't require the opposition to be outside of any orthodoxy.

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.

And more than a few who would suggest you've gone from establishment to promotion, which is a bit more like beauty and would allow you to eradicate any semblance of recognition, which I'd imagine is rather the end game for the antitheist.

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.

No, that's not it. Rather, I spent decades as an atheist without seeing as you do and spent a few years agreeing with you after my conversion, but I no longer do, at least not entirely or in every case.

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.

I don't. We had them and more for much of my life. It never offended me and I tended to think of them as just what they were, not an attempt to establish a Christian litmus. I mostly agreed with efforts made in recent years on the point because people like Moore were advancing the wrong flag, were self-evidently and by declaration attempting to move that margin and I'd always resist that as an attempt to establish more than a conferred honor.

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

So said slave owners for quite a while then.

 

[genuineoriginal]

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.

There has been a lot of effort to remove recognition and honor of the contributions of Christianity and white Europeans from the history of the United States in modern history books, so many of the people growing up today have no idea what role Christianity has in the founding of this United States.

 

[Jose Fly]

While disagreeing with your characterizations for the reasons given prior I'll note that your expanding the initial remark to include other organizations changes nothing in the nature of my response to the disingenuous notion that atheists were concerned for or acting in any part for other religions, which remains stuff and nonsense.

What "initial remark" are you talking about? I don't recall ever limiting the separation side of this to just atheist groups.

No, you can say the course of rulings is with your desired outcome, but if that's all anyone was talking about there'd be little conversation

You're on one side of this issue, I'm on the other. Clearly neither of us finds the other's arguments compelling. So what do we do? Well, that's what the court system is for, and we all know how they've ruled on this case.

and nothing that is moving now would have begun when the state of affairs ran contrary to your desire on the point.

That doesn't make sense.

Rather, we have at least three different positions running through this thread. One seeks to continue along the line of what I characterize as a largely well intentioned overreaching. The second runs contrary to any interference. The third, my own, believes it is entirely possible to have a monument reflecting the beliefs of the people who established protections for every belief without running afoul of establishment.

That's why we have a court system...to resolve such disputes.

Again, you advanced it singularly

Where?

And more than a few who would suggest you've gone from establishment to promotion, which is a bit more like beauty

Again, that doesn't make sense.

and would allow you to eradicate any semblance of recognition, which I'd imagine is rather the end game for the antitheist.

That may be the case for some. They can speak for themselves.

No, that's not it. Rather, I spent decades as an atheist without seeing as you do and spent a few years agreeing with you after my conversion, but I no longer do, at least not entirely or in every case.

Let's see now....when I pointed out the stated motivations of some of the groups on my side of this issue, you waved them away and declared them to be acting disingenuously. I suppose I can do the same with you, right?

I don't. We had them and more for much of my life. It never offended me and I tended to think of them as just what they were, not an attempt to establish a Christian litmus.

It's not a question of a litmus; it's a question of the government telling its citizens "We value and promote Christianity to the exclusion of all other faiths".

I mostly agreed with efforts made in recent years on the point because people like Moore were advancing the wrong flag, were self-evidently and by declaration attempting to move that margin and I'd always resist that as an attempt to establish more than a conferred honor.

Could you be a little more vague please?

So said slave owners for quite a while then.

So I guess this is what some folks do whenever the legal system rules against them...."Yeah, well, they ruled in favor of slavery 150 years ago, therefore.......something".

I guess it doesn't occur to you that maybe, you're just wrong on this one.

 

[annabenedetti]

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. 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. 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.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.

Well now. You must feel ten pounds lighter, at least.

Any time you want to address the points I made regarding the OP in my post (which you completely ignored), do let me know.

 

[annabenedetti]

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.

The 10 commandments didn't belong there in the first place, so I don't see them as being "pulled down" so much as removing them as a way of rectifying an establishment symbol. (At least Moses on the Supreme Court building is joined with Confucius and Solon, now there's a line of thought to consider.)

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

I know.

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.

Except that seems more a matter of semantics than anything else. Honoring isn't a neutral term.

 

[Town Heretic]

What "initial remark" are you talking about? I don't recall ever limiting the separation side of this to just atheist groups.

Happy to be of assistance:

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.

You're on one side of this issue, I'm on the other.

I'd be against you as you advance too broadly. On a case by case basis I might agree with you.

Clearly neither of us finds the other's arguments compelling.

I find arguments against establishment compelling, but I don't find all of them applicable in every case where public land contains a whisper of a religious thought.

So what do we do? Well, that's what the court system is for, and we all know how they've ruled on this case.

The courts are one avenue. The legislative branch is another. Sometimes they both fail and time or other tides move the point, as with the Civil War.

Also, while the case for new religious monuments is momentarily settled, the issue relating to those already existing is less standardized (see: Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005).

That doesn't make sense.

You didn't understand it, but it made sense. I wrote:

"No, you can say the course of rulings is with your desired outcome, but if that's all anyone was talking about there'd be little conversation [Current court rulings support you, but if that was all there was to be said we wouldn't be talking about it] and nothing that is moving now [changing legal holdings]would have begun when the state of affairs ran contrary to your desire on the point [when the legal precedent and law supported what you object to]."

So, revisiting and differing has value. It moved some opinion in favor of a policy you find acceptable and I find debatable on a case by case basis. It may well move that margin and opinion again.

Again, that doesn't make sense.

Again, it does. A couple of particular qualifications on points I think are reasonably inferred might help. You wrote:

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.

And more than a few [Christians and others] who would suggest you've gone from establishment [as the defining issue/point] to promotion, which is a bit more like beauty and would allow you to eradicate any semblance of recognition, which I'd imagine is rather the end game for the antitheist.

Or, promotion is an easy term to stretch. Is recognition promotion? And is promotion, using it in the mildest sense, establishing a particular religion? The Ten Commandments belong to two religions that rather disagree with one another on fairly important points if we're going to split hairs. Is a monument with that establishing either?

Let's see now....when I pointed out the stated motivations of some of the groups on my side of this issue, you waved them away and declared them to be acting disingenuously.

No. I illustrated why claiming that atheists would be acting for religion is a disingenuous advance. Then I noted the practical impact of the effort was to curtail the public notice of one religion, not advance any or all of them.

I suppose I can do the same with you, right?

Setting aside that I didn't actually do that, unless by waved away you meant set out reasons for why it wasn't a serious advance, you could declare anything. But you'd be wrong. I spent three decades as an atheist and all of it unoffended by religious monuments on public lands. And after my conversion, which came in the middle of my legal training, I took an exception to it. I think both positions were underthought for the best or reasons.

It's not a question of a litmus; it's a question of the government telling its citizens "We value and promote Christianity to the exclusion of all other faiths".

Except that it doesn't do that and has no practical impact that sustains the notion. Again, if it did, if we were talking about an actual litmus and a real impact (like Christians being given preferred treatment in procuring jobs, contracts, etc.) it would be a different story.

Could you be a little more vague please?

It isn't vague. The problem is twofold. First, you have to understand Moore refers to a seminal case on point involving a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama, Roy Moore, and his attempts to maintain a monument containing, among other things, the Ten Commandments. If you aren't aware of it then you aren't as knowledgeable as you should be on the point considered. The name alone would trigger recognition among those who are... Secondly, I write on the fly and when I am engaged by a topic my language can become too densely packed for the good of the setting. That happened here, where my response in question registered at 20.8 on the Flesch-Kincaid scale and 23.4 on the Gunning-Fog. To give you an idea of scale if you're unfamiliar, a graduating senior in HS would likely write and read at a level between 10 and 12 on those scales, and it's better, as a rule, to aim for 8 when you're speaking to an audience outside of very particular academic circles.

My apologies. I thought you were being difficult, but the fault was mine. It simply wasn't the fault you were looking for...this place needs a Star Wars smiley.

So I guess this is what some folks do whenever the legal system rules against them...."Yeah, well, they ruled in favor of slavery 150 years ago, therefore.......something".

No, it's where a rationalist is capable of understanding there are issues that change in terms of both popular perception and the law that reflects it often enough. You seemed to suggest the current state inferred an absolute and that the matter was settled. I was noting that few things are settled with that sort of permanence and I believe this is among the more fluid variety, in part because of what seems to me an understandable but mistaken excess.

I guess it doesn't occur to you that maybe, you're just wrong on this one.

A question you could as well ask a mirror.

 

[Town Heretic]

The 10 commandments didn't belong there in the first place, so I don't see them as being "pulled down" so much as removing them as a way of rectifying an establishment symbol. (At least Moses on the Supreme Court building is joined with Confucius and Solon, now there's a line of thought to consider.)

I think most of that is answered in my latest response to Jose. If I miss a point let me know and I'll happily engage it.

I know.

Isn't it wonderful?

Except that seems more a matter of semantics than anything else. Honoring isn't a neutral term.

I certainly hope not, or why hand out medals. But if I give a man who has earned one a gold medal am I in that recognition giving him advantage over you or simply recognizing something that warrants it?

 

[quip]

But if I give a man who has earned one a gold medal am I in that recognition giving him advantage over you or simply recognizing something that warrants it?

I supposed that depends upon the "earned" context.

 

[Town Heretic]

I supposed that depends upon the "earned" context.

Sounds like an interesting avenue. Take me down it. I'm game.

 

[quip]

Sounds like an interesting avenue. Take me down it. I'm game.

There's only one seat...and you're in it. Enjoy.

 

[Town Heretic]

There's only one seat...and you're in it. Enjoy.

Well...if you change your mind then. :cheers:

 

[Jose Fly]

Happy to be of assistance

Then allow me to revise my statement to "The position of those on my side of the issue", which includes both theists and atheists.

I'd be against you as you advance too broadly. On a case by case basis I might agree with you.

And what about this case, which was decided at the state level? Specifically, the Oklahoma state constitution says no public money or property can be used either directly or indirectly for the "benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion."

In light of that, how is erecting a 10 Commandments monument while simultaneously denying other religious viewpoints the same access to public resources, not a violation of Oklahoma's constitution?

I find arguments against establishment compelling, but I don't find all of them applicable in every case where public land contains a whisper of a religious thought.

A stone monument to religious laws, including "You shall have no other Gods", right in front of the state capitol, is hardly a "whisper", especially when done while simultaneously denying other religious viewpoints the same access to public resources.

The courts are one avenue. The legislative branch is another. Sometimes they both fail and time or other tides move the point, as with the Civil War.

And other times rulings are made, precedent is set, and the issue is settled for good. Therefore.......?

Also, while the case for new religious monuments is momentarily settled, the issue relating to those already existing is less settled (see: Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005).

Yep.

nothing that is moving now [changing legal holdings]would have begun when the state of affairs ran contrary to your desire on the point [when the legal precedent and law supported what you object to]."

So, revisiting and differing has value. It moved some opinion in favor of a policy you find acceptable and I find debatable on a case by case basis. It may well move that margin and opinion again.

No one is saying you shouldn't be able to relitigate if you want. But I'd say you probably should come up with a new line of argumentation that hasn't already been considered and rejected.

Or, promotion is an easy term to stretch. Is recognition promotion? And is promotion, using it in the mildest sense, establishing a particular religion? The Ten Commandments belong to two religions that rather disagree with one another on fairly important points if we're going to split hairs. Is a monument with that establishing either?

I don't think there's any doubt that the government erecting one religious monument that says "You shall have no other Gods", while simultaneously denying the same access to public resources to other religious viewpoints constitutes promotion and endorsement.

No. I illustrated why claiming that atheists would be acting for religion is a disingenuous advance. Then I noted the practical impact of the effort was to curtail the public notice of one religion, not advance any or all of them.

Atheism--the belief that there are no gods--is a religious viewpoint (it's a viewpoint on the question of religion). When an atheist group requests the same access to public resources as has been given to Christianity, they typically put up displays that express their view that there are no gods. That's not "acting for religion"; it's expressing their genuinely-held views on religious matters.

Setting aside that I didn't actually do that

Yes you did. You even appealed to "and you know it".

I spent three decades as an atheist and all of it unoffended by religious monuments on public lands. And after my conversion, which came in the middle of my legal training, I took an exception to it. I think both positions were underthought for the best or reasons.

You missed the point. If you get to unilaterally declare a group to be disingenuous, by the same token why can't I do that to you?

Except that it doesn't do that and has no practical impact that sustains the notion. Again, if it did, if we were talking about an actual litmus and a real impact (like Christians being given preferred treatment in procuring jobs, contracts, etc.) it would be a different story.

Of course it does. The government erecting a monument of the laws in the Christian Bible, including one that says "You shall have no other Gods", while simultaneously denying the same access to public resources to all other religious viewpoints, is a textbook definition of preferential treatment.

That anyone would argue otherwise is rather bizarre.

No, it's where a rationalist is capable of understanding there are issues that change in terms of both popular perception and the law that reflects it often enough. You seemed to suggest the current state inferred an absolute and that the matter was settled. I was noting that few things are settled with that sort of permanence and I believe this is among the more fluid variety, in part because of what seems to me an understandable but mistaken excess.

It's no different at all from when creationists say "Science used to say the earth was flat". Neither are actual arguments, but are merely vague appeals to "things change" as justification for wishful thinking.

A question you could as well ask a mirror.

If I were wrong, I would expect some indication of such. But I just can't envision a situation where multiple courts would rule that the government erecting a monument of laws in the Christian Bible that says "You shall have no other Gods", while simultaneously denying the same access to public resources to other religious viewpoints, is perfectly legal.

 

[Lon]

Well now. You must feel ten pounds lighter, at least.

Any time you want to address the points I made regarding the OP in my post (which you completely ignored), do let me know.

I won't. The moment you made it personal (first engagement with me), it became something more important in exchange. You are losing your Christ. This thread is a symptom of you losing your religion. Treating the symptom won't address your falling. You started calling good evil, and evil good, Anna:

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.

Rather than fighting, you are fulfilling their accusations against you and wholly embracing it. I'm sadder for you than I've ever been and believe just because the godless are civil, you mistake that for 'far far better at living.' It is egocentric and without verification, conjecture. If wrong, an evil conjecture and I believe it is, and thus trotted my own giving once again to combat what I believe is a lie. Worse, you then questioned my 'reason' for doing so and this is it. I was responding to what I believe is wrong at best (I've asked, no response or "no I don't give" have been the answers), and an evil lie, at worst.