OK Supreme Court: 10 Commandments must come down

[gcthomas]

:up:


Not sure what you mean. Other than cults, there is no control on how people live, but rather how people live, draws them together. Don't you find that to be true? Or were you talking about some of the harsher governments of the world? Or are you feeling oppressed as an atheist? :think:

This thread has been full of posts saying that everyone ought to follow and accept the Ten Commandments: that seems like a desire to control others' behaviour to me beyond what a civil legal code should require.

And no, atheism is an entirely accepted and socially dominant mindset here, such that any politician who expresses a firm religious belief is likely to rule themselves out of senior office. Why would I feel oppressed?

 

[Lon]

This thread has been full of posts saying that everyone ought to follow and accept the Ten Commandments: that seems like a desire to control others' behaviour to me beyond what a civil legal code should require.

I believe that is too far. For instance, we definitely have verses of scripture on rough drafts and final copies of state material. It is completely wrong to suggest that is forcing anything. Rather it is 'recognizing' something. There is no force to make you a Christian and the world isn't as oppressive against you atheists as you try to self-martyr. It isn't like an eye color, even if it were. The Ten Commandments don't oppress you. There is a lot of myopic 'me'-ism when one can't see the forest for the trees and is only concerned with 'what it means to me.' Because they genuinely are building blocks to the Constitution and states, they have a 'genuine' place among those states.
It actually doesn't make sense to try to eradicate something from history. It ALWAYS carries agenda rather than appreciation. Attacking values, beliefs, tradition is more often than not, the wrong thing to do in most cases (exception rather than the rule).

And no, atheism is an entirely accepted and socially dominant mindset here, such that any politician who expresses a firm religious belief is likely to rule themselves out of senior office. Why would I feel oppressed?

It's quite clear that the SCOTUS rulings apply to civil weddings, not church weddings, so they don't impact on religious communities, except for those communities who want to control how other people live.

Reading Pullman, I see that you Brits often view religion as 'control.' You have a long history of that being true. It is bad, however, that you are now oppressing Christians so much so that as a people you won't allow them in office (if that is indeed true). You've become the thing you hate, if such is the case and your government will likewise reflect that prejudice.

 

[Lon]

No. Thank you Lon.

Who needs Saturday toons and Sunday comics when they've got ToL! :up:

:doh: It's "Wednesday." ...And you are entertaining yourself lain:

Well Lon, surfer dudes; Silicon Valley and congress have been doing that for years. Do they wield such power?

Apparently not: Bad still means bad, though for some time it was slang for good, fell by the wayside.

Me thinks you need to adjust to constant linguistic change. It's either that....or go learn a dead language. :dead:

You are confusing fads with redefinition. We don't generally see major redefinitions, nor handed down definitions as law that forces the issue. It may eventually happen with the metric system, but this hand-me-down was more forceful than that. Surfer dudes don't redefine terms for the entire English speaking world.

 

[gcthomas]

You've become the thing you hate, if such is the case and your government will likewise reflect that prejudice.

That's not how it is. It is not thought about enough to be hated. Religion is generally tolerated with good humour, like you tolerate a dotty old aunt: she is loved and cherished, but not trusted any more to do the household finances or drive a car.

 

[quip]

:doh: It's "Wednesday." ...And you are entertaining yourself lain:

Yes I am....with your ample assistance, no less.

Apparently not: Bad still means bad

Says the guy who serves up a link with eight (count'em 8) denotations of "Bad". :banana:

You are confusing fads with redefinition. We don't generally see major redefinitions, nor handed down definitions as law that forces the issue. It may eventually happen with the metric system, but this hand-me-down was more forceful than that. Surfer dudes don't redefine terms for the entire English speaking world.

Here's an interesting read.

From the link: "..dictionaries are moving targets that are constantly changing, and it’s been that way since the beginning. In 1879.."

“What that demonstrates is that lexicography, the study of words and the creation of definitions defining words, is something that is imbued in the culture and the public ... How we get to the point where somebody codifies what a definition is, that has become a profession the last 200-plus years.”

Marriage, by the way, has 7. The one you seem piously partial to is 2a.

So, it looks like they didn't "redefine" any such thing (The opposite sexes may still wed.) rather they simply broadened the concept...much to your dismay.

 

[Lon]

That's not how it is. It is not thought about enough to be hated. Religion is generally tolerated with good humour, like you tolerate a dotty old aunt: she is loved and cherished, but not trusted any more to do the household finances or drive a car.

I don't have one of those! Where can I buy one? (aunt, not the car, although...)

I think even the humor has an Uncle Tom feel to it, however. A bit dodgy if you'll pardon me sayin' so.

 

[Lon]

Yes I am....with your ample assistance, no less.

I didn't say I wouldn't help.

Says the guy who serves up a link with eight (count'em 8) denotations of "Bad". :banana:

Well, your humor palate is easy to please so...

Here's an interesting read.

From the link: "..dictionaries are moving targets that are constantly changing, and it’s been that way since the beginning. In 1879.."

“What that demonstrates is that lexicography, the study of words and the creation of definitions defining words, is something that is imbued in the culture and the public ... How we get to the point where somebody codifies what a definition is, that has become a profession the last 200-plus years.”

Not that you ever miss the pertinent, however. Tangentials notwithstanding.

Marriage, by the way, has 7. The one you seem piously partial to is 2a.

So, it looks like they didn't "redefine" any such thing (The opposite sexes may still wed.) rather they simply broadened the concept...much to your dismay.

See here I already told you the tampering has begun. When was your's written? Last year? Last week?

That was the point. Keep up.

 

[quip]

See here I already told you the tampering has begun. When was your's written? Last year? Last week?

That was the point. Keep up.

"Tampering" (historically) is the point Lon. Get used to it.

Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Online Edition . . . . Lon: "Keep up" :chuckle:

 

[rexlunae]

I think a slightly abbreviated response is in order, given the season. I hope you don't mind. I don't think there's necessarily a lot left to say, but I appreciate your continuing a bit longer.

So I'm arguing that the mindset of our day is an understandable one, but mistaken and overreaching.

I see. I guess what I don't understand is how what you want could possibly avoid entangling the government in religious matters. Maybe you don't see the Ten Commandments as a necessarily religious, but I think you're going to find a lot of secularists objecting to that classification.

So, one monument to a relgious codification of controlling law is a threat, but...what number of representation sufficiently difuses that again?

And we're back to beauty and the context or bias of the beholder.

It has nothing to do with the number at all. The requirement is that it serve some secular purpose. That can be met any number of reasons. Marking some historical event of secular interest is one of them, in which case, a religious icon might stand alone, as long as it doesn't entangle state with church. Beyond that, creating a forum for cultural exchange would be another possibility, which would have to be open to all. If only Christians show up, so be it, but the government can't be the one providing the religious content, and they have to include anyone, hence the Baphomet statue.

 

[Lon]

"Tampering" (historically) is the point Lon. Get used to it.

Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Online Edition . . . . Lon: "Keep up" :chuckle:

That is your agenda, mine was to prove the point that marriage was redefined. Just to see if you aren't easily distracted, remember where it started?

:doh:
You are confusing fads with redefinition. We don't generally see major redefinitions, nor handed down definitions as law that forces the issue. It may eventually happen with the metric system, but this hand-me-down was more forceful than that. Surfer dudes don't redefine terms for the entire English speaking world.

Your attention span is off looking for egocentric puns.

 

[gcthomas]

That is your agenda, mine was to prove the point that marriage was redefined. Just to see if you aren't easily distracted, remember where it started?

Before Christianity started to spread, homosexual marriage was found in Mesopotamia, ancient Egypt and Rome and much of Africa. Emperor Nero, for example, had two marriages to men.

It was the first Christian emperors who passed laws to ban these marriages.

Marriage has always had a wide range of meanings, so if you are trying to exclude a variety of historical usages then you are guilty of changing definitions.

Marriage existed before Christian redefinitions and still exists outside it.

 

[kmoney]

It has nothing to do with the number at all. The requirement is that it serve some secular purpose. That can be met any number of reasons.

What about.....a monument that is about the founding fathers and the religion that formed them and includes the 10 Commandments as a symbol of that faith?

Marking some historical event of secular interest is one of them, in which case, a religious icon might stand alone, as long as it doesn't entangle state with church.

Example?

 

[Zeke]

Here!, Here!...

The Crown owns the surname so you and Lon are in the same boat as the Brits. Like I said this is a mute point based in fiction, Dorthy lose that ID.

 

[PureX]

Incorrect, I'll let you figure out why (because it is obvious).

Irrelevant nonsense.

You realize you aren't saying 'marriage' either?

I think that, and by that, I mean you, speak for yourself that I don't need to redress it. However, lest you make a mess in the future, even 'pair' is a bit restrictive :think:

I was using the more accurate term for the phenomena we were discussing. And yes, rarely, more than a 'pair' of us will bond in this way, but it's quite rare and the rare exceptions do not disprove the norm.

You realize, that SCOTUS requires a rewrite of every dictionary in the English speaking world? Do justices actually have that power?

The term "marriage" in the dictionary has multiple meanings. And the specific attachment of male and female shouldn't have been imposed on the term in the first place, unless it's a religious dictionary. Nevertheless, dictionaries change words and definitions every printing because language is constantly morphing through use.

I don't think they are supposed to, but do a quick Google search on the term 'marriage.' They have all changed. It was a world concern, not simply a religious concern. The problem is much larger (and inept) than the small view here. Those 9 men were imperializing, dictating terms not to small groups, but to historical redefinition (encyclopedic), world trampling and etc. The decision was inept in that it did not count the costs and repercussion, nor see it coming, or were so arrogant that they didn't care (doubtful).

The Supreme Court does not set laws or standards for the U.S. or anyone else. It's purpose is to interpret the constitution and make specific determinations, accordingly. Your argument is with the U. S. Constitution, not the courts. And what other nations and peoples think about marriage is their own business.

The problem here is that the U.S. has been struggling to separate religion from government since it's inception. And each time we succeed in it a little further, you religionists perceive it is a loss of power. Which it is. But it was power you were never supposed to have in this country. Because this country was founded on the principal that the government does not endorse nor enforce any religious ideology. The government was wrong to have defined marriage via religious ideology in the first place, but it did, and it has done since the beginning. And it is just now coming to realize it, and finally stop doing it. And this is good for everyone. You just can't see that because you liked it when religion was being enforced and endorsed by the government, because it was your religion being favored. And sadly, that's all you care about.

 

[PureX]

Pair bonding?

You bigot.

Why does marriage have to be between two people?

It doesn't. And occasionally it isn't. But the rare exceptions do not negate the overall phenomena.

Who are you to limit the freedom of three people to marry one another?

In what way do you see me limiting the freedom of anyone?

 

[ok doser]

In what way do you see me limiting the freedom of anyone?

:think:

you limit the freedom of the denizens of TOL to be blissfully unaware of your nonsense :idunno:

 

[rexlunae]

What about.....a monument that is about the founding fathers and the religion that formed them and includes the 10 Commandments as a symbol of that faith?

A monument...to a religion. Sounds dubious. I can't categorically rule it out without knowing a little more, but it sounds more like an excuse to endorse a religion on the sly than anything else.

Example?

By way of example, what I have in mind would be something like if General Custer had quoted Exodus before he rode off to battle and his death, I would have no problem with finding that quote in a state-sponsored historical remembrance. There's a definitive historical significance, and a particular secular purpose. Or, suppose Thomas Jefferson kept a copy of the Koran on his desk while in office. I'd suggest that displaying that, or a facsimile of it would serve a legitimate, secular, historical purpose. Or, an old Spanish mission might be turned over to the state for historical preservation, and it contains a large crucifix at the alter. I would see no need to remove that.

The more specific the connection to a specific bit of history, the less dubious it is. Just a general monument to a religion with a claimed and debatable historical significance is a very long reach for me. It seems pretty clear that the purpose is other than to remember history.

 

[ok doser]

A monument...to a religion. Sounds dubious. I can't categorically rule it out without knowing a little more, but it sounds more like an excuse to endorse a religion on the sly than anything else.

the first amendment doesn't say anything about "endorsing a religion"

it restricts the "making of any law respecting an establishment of religion"


how is erecting a monument to a religion the "making of any law respecting an establishment of religion"?

 

[rexlunae]

the first amendment doesn't say anything about "endorsing a religion"

it restricts the "making of any law respecting an establishment of religion"


how is erecting a monument to a religion the "making of any law respecting an establishment of religion"?

See my post several back to TH describing the Supreme Court precedent on the meaning, including the Lemon Test.

 

[Lon]

The Crown owns the surname so you and Lon are in the same boat as the Brits. Like I said this is a mute point based in fiction, Dorthy lose that ID.

It 'appears' you have lost track of the conversation, points, and counterpoints. At the time, we were talking about the U.S. Constitution...