• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Teacher punishes student for saying "bless you"

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
The Ten Commandments are not a 'Christian' thing. They're actually a Jewish thing. Christians and Muslims just inherited 'em through their common belief in the Old Testement.

After this, I'm done with the thread.
Wikipedia's article on the 10 commandments is a great place to start, because it shows that the specific version of the 10 commandments put up were, indeed, the christian version of his particular faith.

Beyond that, out of all 10 commandments, only three are considered law, certainly undermining the claim that "they are the basis of modern law" or whatever. Don't kill, don't steal, don't bear false witness. However, I can legally have whatever god I want (which is the biggest issue of the establishment violation), I can say farking jesus christ on a tapdancing pogo stick, I can work all day on sabbath, I can curse my mother and father, sleep with my neighbor's wife which I spent years coveting, and I can work really hard because I want all the nice stuff my neighbor has. All of those things are legal.

Putting this document up with no others of similar nature is, no matter how you try to slice it, an establishment of religion, and an expression of preference of christian religion over others.
 

frommycolddeadhands

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
448
Location
Knob Noster, MO
Have you discussed this perspective with your pastor? It would be interesting to hear verbatim, his point of view.

I don't have a pastor, and I never have. I've never done Bible camp or whatever it is that you call it, and I wasn't forced to memorize psalms as a kid. If you want a pastor's point of view you should pick the the phone and call one. I have no idea whether they would agree with me or not. I'm speaking for myself, as a Christian, without anyone else's words coming out of my mouth (or in this case typed on my screen).

I know that even to this day my last pastor would certainly reinforce the presence of the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse as appropriate. Whereas any other religious display of any sort would be "unacceptable". I think saying otherwise is certainly disingenuous to Christianity.

I'm not sure what your hang-up is with your pastor, and I have no idea what your pastor thinks or preaches. The Bible, and the New Testament in particular, teaches tolerance for others, and love for one another in particular, and responsibility for your own actions-- knowing that you have no power to control anyone else's actions. Pop quiz, how many people did the 12 Apostles stone to death? (Gasp!) Zero! How is that possible, I mean, there were so many Pagans and Orthodox Jews back then. They were surrounded by them! Oh, right, that whole tolerance thing. Preach the Word, hope they accept it, let the Spirit work, and keep youself on the right track. Got it. :)

I
am happy that you claim to not use your religion as a filter for equality. I find that extremely hard to believe as those of any faith tend to run their assessment of "equality" through their "faith filter" first. However, I cannot judge nor assess you from here.

I don't consider equality 'in spite' of my religion. I hold equality precious BECAUSE of my religion. I'm not sure who you've been talking with or hanging out with during Bible camp, but it seems a world different from the message preached in the Bible my friend.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
Do not lie in front of your God. You know that you would be completely against it as the Qu'ran is per your own doctrine an idol of another religion. You say "in your locale", but what you really mean is "globally"..

I answered your question. I said "locale". That's what I meant. Do you have a problem with understanding English? You don't know what my "doctrine an idol of another religion" is... Perhaps a bit presumtious??

The purpose for missionaries is to spread the word of God as instructed in Matthew 28:19, a verse supposedly containing a quote of Jesus as witnessed by the Apostle Matthew. God in fact instructs you to go out into the world and spread the gospel. The Ten Commandments are in fact religiously derived, and there is no fantasy that can be created around this fact. Rabbis would want you to know the Ten Commandments are expressly Judaic, while Christians and Muslims would similarly cast forth the argument that they are explicitly a product of their own religion. In any case, none would claim they are not religiously derived but an individual tap-dancing on a slippery slope of disingenuous intent..

I said "ANYTHING can be defined as a religious item". English isn't your thing, maybe??

Your religion commands it..

You have NO idea what my belief system commands.

So you have no problem with the emplacement of religious tenets or idols outside of your own religion, being placed outside of or within federal buildings.

It's a local issue... period.

One of us is being honest. The other is not.

You trying to admit something here?

I am far more historically learned than you possibly want to get into.

Well... good for you. I've noticed subjects like this extract an unusually high degree of modesty from people.

We can discuss the Sumarians and Babylonian history if you would like?
We can discuss the missing books of Mary of Magdalene, Peter, and Judas Icariot?

Your dismissing my view as "limited" is childish, and will be treated as such.

Lol!!! This has nothing to do with my original comment.

Nor do they empower federal and local entities to display preference of one religion over another. This is the point you and others would lvoe to dodge, because, in fact, the display of the 10 Commandments is "ok" by your religious position.

No. Courts are given the authority to promulgate rules so as to properly administer themselves. I have yet to see a prohibition in any such rules that would regulate wall art. Most certainly not at the federal level or here in La.

Yet nowhere is it implied that preferential treatment may be given to a specific religion either.

There's no law that a court can paint it's walls. They get painted...

You can lie to me all you like, even in the face of your "God". You support the Ten Commandments being there, and would not support the placement of any other religious icon or idol being placed there. It is against your beliefs to do so.

I support a community deciding what is displayed on the walls of a court in their jurisdiction.

Calling me a liar isn't helping your argument. However, it does hint at your maturity level.

Furthermore, you would not defend the presence of any such idols, nor attend en masse the defense against removing said items. This is also against your beliefs.

One of us is being genuine. The other is not.

Again being presumptuous. I'll give you the benefit that you may have me confused with someone else.

It is interesting that you label "some very bright members" of being "bright" when it serves your purposes, but that their "brains fall out" when they are in conflict with your religious dogma. That's ok, I will clear this up for you.

We are bright all of the time, because our world view is not limited by Biblical instruction.

However, it is limited by an anti-Biblical instruction. Your apparent belief system hampers your ability to attain clear thinking in some areas. Of course, this has nothing to do with the original point.

Edit - Here's a GREAT example... You posted...
"The Code of Hammurabi was first."
You don't KNOW that. That's a theory... Your belief system ties you to the dogma of someone else's interpretation of bits of evidence thousands of years out of context.

Now, that being said. I will fight and die to support the American way of life, which includes, your freedom of religion. However, to conveniently paint the placement of the Ten Commandments outside of a courthouse as a harmless non-religiously derived activity is an outright lie. Furthermore, to claim that you would take no issue with other religions placing their texts or idols there, is also a blatant lie.

Keep it up though because it shows one of us as being raw, and honest. The other, not so much.

Have a good day.

...and I will fight along with you to defend your freedom of religion. However, as ANYTHING can be "painted" as religious, it is IMPOSSIBLE to create such a law without bias... which is why no such law exists.

There you go with the liar thing... try to stay on point without indicating your feelings have been hurt.

I'm having a great day:)
 
Last edited:

frommycolddeadhands

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
448
Location
Knob Noster, MO
The Code of Hammurabi was first. If we were to put that up in front of a courthouse, Christians would in fact take issue. As would many other faiths.

What is your point here exactly? The Hammurabi Code is a purely historical item with no religious tie into anything. It was the first real attempt to provide a system of justice that everyone could understand in the ancient world. I would have no issue with something like that going up in a courthouse as it seems rather fitting.

Also, I would love to believe what you are saying, but too many church gatherings across multiple state lines lead me to know, that in general, Christians would not fight en masse to have the tenets of another religion kept on display were they to come under persecution. Much for the reason you state below towards the end of this response. You cannot claim for it to be both ways and be honest with me or anybody else. It is like you saying you would be for Gay equality and marriage when it is expressly against Biblical teachings. You are being disingenuous, or inconsistent with your faith here.

Why WOULDNT a Christian fight for their brother's liberty? We are all equals in the eyes of the Lord, and to allow someone else's rights to be taken away, or for them to be persecuted, is reprehensible. If a Jewish kid was getting mugged in an alley by a couple of Baptists, who do you think I'm going to help? Have you never read of Daniel and the Lion, and how the law was changed so that he would have to pray to an idol statue, and yet he refused? Such laws are ungodly, no matter what form they take, and I will continue to be against them at every turn.

As far as Gay marriage is concerned, as a Christian, there is no such thing. Marriage is between a man and woman. Now, having said that, if two people want to go to the justice of the peace or a magistrate and get a piece of paper that says they get the same tax breaks as a married couple, I really don't care. They can move in next door, put on wedding rings, and go about their business. I'll still be a good neighbor to them, although I don't condone their lifestyle. It's their life choice, not mine, and I wasnt put here to condemn or judge anyone. I can like a person without condoning every faction of their life.

Now, how exactly is that disingenuous? I think it's pretty simple really.


When the government does it however, you wish to dismiss it as a "historical relic".

I didn't 'dismiss' anything as a historical relic. I pointed out that there are multiple meanings to any symbol, whether it is religious, contemptuous, historical, or otherwise, and why EXACTLY would one view be more important than another? I could say that homicide laws are grounded in religion, as are laws against adultery. Heck, MARRIAGE and DIVORCE are grounded in religion. Want to get rid of those too?
 

frommycolddeadhands

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
448
Location
Knob Noster, MO
Ah so you certainly wouldn't support putting the items up yourself.

No, I wouldn't put them up myself as I am not a believer in that particular faith. However, if someone else wanted to put up a sign of their faith I wouldn't have a problem with it. They've got a 1A right as well.

Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp?!


So where, within scripture, do you justify going down to town hall and fighting the revocation of religious icons displayed that are not Christian?Wouldn't that be explicitly against this?:

Ex 20:3-4 (NIV) "You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below."

2 Ki 17:15 (NIV) They rejected his decrees and the covenant he had made with their fathers and the warnings he had given them. They followed worthless idols and themselves became worthless. They imitated the nations around them although the Lord had ordered them, "Do not do as they do," and they did the things the Lord had forbidden them to do.

Psalms 97:7 (NIV) All who worship images are put to shame, those who boast in idols....

No. Because there is a HUGE difference between worshipping idols, taking part in pagan rituals etc, and simply allowing another human being to have the same rights as I do.

Let me put it to you this way- Lets say for a second that we had a Church of England type thing going, and everyone had to attend Catholic Mass and pray at 4pm SHARP every day, or risk getting carted away by the police and having the tar whupped off of you.

Now, how many true, God-loving Christians do you think that would produce? And how many people would simply go to the Church and Pray to avoid getting a beating yet truly reject Christianity in their heart?

So trying to FORCE any religion on someone is counter-productive. A person cannot be forced to believe, and they cannot be bullied into loving God. That's all part of having a FREE WILL (a concept I'm sure you're familiar with as every good Baptist should be) and by denying the free will that God gave to men, you are effectively destroying one of his most precious gifts.

Make sense? Again, pretty simple stuff here. I'm not sure why you think Christianity is so hell-bent on ruling the world.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
SNIP
Beyond that, out of all 10 commandments, only three are considered law, certainly undermining the claim that "they are the basis of modern law" or whatever. Don't kill, don't steal, don't bear false witness. However, I can legally have whatever god I want (which is the biggest issue of the establishment violation), I can say farking jesus christ on a tapdancing pogo stick, I can work all day on sabbath, I can curse my mother and father, sleep with my neighbor's wife which I spent years coveting, and I can work really hard because I want all the nice stuff my neighbor has. All of those things are legal.

Smartest guy on the internet and a hell of a sense of humor to boot.

Putting this document up with no others of similar nature is, no matter how you try to slice it, an establishment of religion, and an expression of preference of christian religion over others.

No. That is NOT the way the law reads. Read it again...

I consider the color "blue" to be religious. We better have rainbow walls... or white walls... wait that could be racist... black walls??? Got it... no walls... That way we can't hang anything on them that MAY be considered "religious".
 

frommycolddeadhands

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
448
Location
Knob Noster, MO
Beyond that, out of all 10 commandments, only three are considered law, certainly undermining the claim that "they are the basis of modern law" or whatever. Don't kill, don't steal, don't bear false witness.

Actually adultery is still a crime in some states (and is a felony under the UCMJ), and it's basis for a legal divorce in all states as far as I know. So 4/10 are laws. As for coveting, that's something that only the person would know if they're doing. (Thought crime!) which is unenforcable. The rest is prettymuch covered under our 1A rights.


Putting this document up with no others of similar nature is, no matter how you try to slice it, an establishment of religion, and an expression of preference of christian religion over others.

I still don't see posting the 10 commandments outside of a courthouse as establishing a religion. Just like I don't see posting the pillars of Islam out front as establishing a religion. The first few words in the 1A are "CONGRESS shall make no LAW..."

Doesn't say court-houses can't decorate themselves with commandments, koran exerpts, crucifixes, stars, hearts or moons. That's up to the good citizens whom the court serves.
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
georg jetson, thanks for your support and advocacy of open carry. Your historical knowledge and ad hominem stupidity is pretty apparent though.

The Bible says certain things, and doesn't say others. What I have said is completely in tune with Biblical command.



frommycoldeadhands, I will respond in great detail to your posts, but you could have simplified and kept them in one. Repeated double or triple posting is actually less efficient than one articulate, large post. I assure you however that I have read all of them regardless, and do intend to respond.

One thing to consider though:

Those who wholly and completely follow every word of the Bible could be considered closer to their faith than those who pick and choose like its a Chinese menu, or, alternatively, deflate the meaning or intent of verses. I have more respect for the devout follower who reads verses like Psalm 14:1 and understand the clear and concise instruction, than the half-a** "follower" who picks and chooses his or her belief from what they like about the Bible as opposed to what is "too strong" for them to follow.

It is extremely distasteful to say, "Hey everybody I'm a Bible believing Christian! The Bible is the word of God!", then omit clear and concise instruction.

In this case, Tawnos and I very clearly are, "Corrupt individuals who do abominable works, and who do no good." There is no "perspective" you can attempt to apply to Psalm 14:1, which makes it really clear and concise in its instruction. That's why I chose this particular verse. It highlights very specifically an enormous problem with the "casual/Sunday Christian" approach to modern society.

Homosexuals will burn in hell.
Atheists are "corrupt fools who do abominable works, with which, there is not one that doeth good".

and the list keeps going...

Then there is the concept that the Bible is the "Supreme Law". In this vein, it is wholly appropriate to support the erection of Christian monuments as well as the tearing down of "pagan" (i.e. any other monument, text, or other physical object) idols.

This is just real life, and I wish more fundamental, "Bible Believing" Christians were honest to this point.

Do you want a Christian president? Yes.
Do you want the entire world to be Christian? Yes.
Would you support the erection of other religious totems or monuments? No, be real. You would not.

There is no equality because religious doctrine commands certain things, and not others. That is real life. That is real Christianity.


As to the commentary about my "pastor", there have been many. It is not solely aimed at any single individual. To claim that a Christian man or woman does not want this nation to be run by Christian people, under the Bible as the basis for all law, is a complete and utter lie.

Here is a stellar, shining example of what I am relaying to you, and pointing out as fact amongst the overwhelming majority of the Christian community:

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0516_Terry_-_Gods_Law_is_.html


An Excerpt:

"Let us be just as bold – no, more bold – than God’s enemies. Not only is God’s Law above man’s law, but it must undergird man’s law. For man’s law to be legitimate, it must be founded on biblical law.We want our nation and all its institutions to be self-consciously built on the laws and principles of God’s Word. Any other foundation will crumble. God’s Law is over all human authority. And God’s Law is the only unchanging, transcendent law from heaven, the only set of moral absolutes upon which human authority can rest.


Those Christian leaders who insist that we not enter the cultural fray with the Ten Commandments as our spoken foundation are misguided, and they are leading the church astray. Not only are many Christian leaders unsure of the supremacy of God’s Law over man’s law, but they question whether or not we should even discuss human law in connection with biblical law. They feel it’s out of bounds for us."


Hrmmmmmmm.......
 
Last edited:

frommycolddeadhands

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
448
Location
Knob Noster, MO
Those who wholly and completely follow every word of the Bible could be considered closer to their faith than those who pick and choose like its a Chinese menu, or, alternatively, deflate the meaning or intent of verses. I have more respect for the devout follower who reads verses like Psalm 14:1 and understand the clear and concise instruction, than the half-a** "follower" who picks and chooses his or her belief from what they like about the Bible as opposed to what is "too strong" for them to follow. It is extremely distasteful to say, "Hey everybody I'm a Bible believing Christian! The Bible is the word of God!", then omit clear and concise instruction.

Granted, I feel the same way.

In this case, Tawnos and I very clearly are, "Corrupt individuals who do abominable works, and who do no good." There is no "perspective" you can attempt to apply to Psalm 14:1, which makes it really clear and concise in its instruction. That's why I chose this particular verse. It highlights very specifically an enormous problem with the "casual/Sunday Christian" approach to modern society.

That's a little much. I don't consider you a corrupt individual. I have no idea if you do 'abominable works' and I have no idea whether you 'do no good'. I'm almost certain that you and Tawnos do good things when nobody is looking. :) individuals who do no good (to me) is more along the lines of Jack the Ripper, or sociopaths who have no conscious. One thing to keep in mind is that all men are sinners, so there truly are none of us who are Righteous in the eyes of the Lord, which is why we needed the redemption of Christ. And just to clarify, I'm not a casual/Sunday Christian. I'm a Christian all the time, and I live my beliefs as best I can. Do I screw up sometimes? Sure. Being human is a b*tch, but then we aren't perfect.

Homosexuals will burn in hell. Atheists are "corrupt fools who do abominable works, with which, there is not one that doeth good".
and the list keeps going....

Who goes to hell and who doesn't is up to God. If you check it out, adulterers, whoremongers, and 'sexually amoral' people are destined for the firey pit as well. Homosexuality is a sin. So is having sex out of wedlock (Uh-oh, there goes the nation) so we had all better hope and pray that forgiveness and mercy and the love of Christ is on the menu come judgement day.

That being said, I don't condone homosexuality. Nor do I condone witch-craft, athiesm, whoremongering, or any of those other things. I'm simply stating that it's not up to me to judge them. How can I? I'm just as guilty. (Mat 7:2-7:5)

Then there is the concept that the Bible is the "Supreme Law". In this vein, it is wholly appropriate to support the erection of Christian monuments as well as the tearing down of "pagan" (i.e. any other monument, text, or other physical object) idols.

Yes, God's law is supreme, but don't forget we must also render to Ceasar what is his. Obeying the laws of the Elect who God has granted authority is also in the Bible (As long as the rules put forth by the Elect are in keeping with God's Word) So, speed limits, for instance, are part of mans law. However they do not go against Christian beliefs, and therefore I will abide by them.

As far as the erection of monuments and tearing down of pagan idols and and whatnot, this country guarantees people the right to freely assemble and worship what gods they may. Since I am not being forced to join them, I am free to continue my Christian lifestyle-- just as many of the figures in the Bible who found themselves in strange lands and surrounded by pagans and heathens. They did not tear down the societies. Instead they preserved THEMSELVES and acted as INDIVIDUALS to keep to God's commandments the best way they could.

This is just real life, and I wish more fundamental, "Bible Believing" Christians were honest to this point.
Do you want a Christian president? Yes.
Do you want the entire world to be Christian? Yes.
Would you support the erection of other religious totems or monuments? No, be real. You would not.
There is no equality because religious doctrine commands certain things, and not others. That is real life. That is real Christianity.

Do I want a Christian president? If he's a true Christian and not just giving lipservice to get votes, yeah, I think that would be great. Do I want the Pope as the president of the USA? Nope. Is being a Christian a pre-requisite for my vote? Nope.

Do you want the entire world to be Christian? Well, I would certainly like for the whole world to ACT Christian. Is that ever gonna happen? No. (Reality check, even Christians don't act right half the time..) Do I think its the job of the Church to try and snuff out other cultures? No. Do I support a one world gov't? Absolutely not. Check Revalations, bad stuff happens.

Would you support the erection of other religious totems or monuments? Let me put it this way: Generally speaking, I would not object to any man, woman, or group, expressing themselves or their faith. Take a look around New York City and tell me how many pagan statues you find in....oh, an hour or so. Statue of Liberty....Atlas....Hermes...Those are all 'heathen' statues. I'm quite fond of all three of them, although I don't consider them religious in particular. I can still appriciate the art. Would I ever personally worship an idol or totem? No. Do I respect the right of others to worship as they see fit? yes.


To claim that a Christian man or woman does not want this nation to be run by Christian people, under the Bible as the basis for all law, is a complete and utter lie.

No, not when you consider past attempts to do just that. I trust in God. I have just about ZERO trust in mankind, especially men in power who presume to know more about my relationship with God than I do. I don't want a Church of England in the USA telling me how, when, and where I can worship, nor some church official stifling my personal quest to learn more about God, Christ, and the universe in general. I can read, I have a Bible. When I pray, who I pray too, and what I pray about is nobody elses concern but mine. That's what freedom of religion is all about. So, NO, I really truly would NOT want a 'christian nation' ruled by 'christian people'. I much prefer the free nation in which I can CHOSE to be Christian and keep faith with my fellow Christians.

Besides, you would never get 100% of the population to truly accept Christianity, so would you REALLY want to be sitting in church next to someone who you KNOW is not a believer? Not me. Free will, baby, all the way.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
georg jetson, thanks for your support and advocacy of open carry.

Your welcome... thanks to you as well.

Your historical knowledge and ad hominem stupidity is pretty apparent though.

You have no idea what my historical knowledge is, however you continue to be presumptuous. In doing so you create a straw man.

What is in the Bible is irrelevant to the point that the there is NO law prohibiting the judicial branch from hanging the Ten Commandments(or the Qur'an) in one of their buildings. You obfuscate the issue and you do so with an apparent eagerness to show your self-proclaimed expertise in matters not on point.

This is a simple matter to resolve. Post the law that backs up your position.
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
No, I wouldn't put them up myself as I am not a believer in that particular faith. However, if someone else wanted to put up a sign of their faith I wouldn't have a problem with it. They've got a 1A right as well.

Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp?!

Summarizing here because an entire swath of text can be avoided by focusing on a a few questions.

So here they are for you.



#1. Does the Federal Government have a 1st Amendment right?

#2. If so, who in the government dictates the presence, or volume of presence, of a given religion?


Curious to know your answer.
 

frommycolddeadhands

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
448
Location
Knob Noster, MO
Summarizing here because an entire swath of text can be avoided by focusing on a a few questions.

So here they are for you.



#1. Does the Federal Government have a 1st Amendment right?

#2. If so, who in the government dictates the presence, or volume of presence, of a given religion?


Curious to know your answer.

1. No, the fed doesn't have rights. Our rights are a protection FROM the fed. What the fed DOES have is certain powers that have been entrusted to it by consent of the people. Congress does not have the right to establish any religion, or prohibit the exercise of religion, and it does not have any powers to dictate what constitutes a religion either. Also it has no power to dictate to local governments what they can and cannot post in front of their own courthouse. Courthouses are built with the funds provided by the local population, and what they chose to put on/inside their courthouse should be their own business. Unfortunately this is not always the case, as this motto of "freedom FROM religion" has taken sway in recent years.

To give a secular example of what I'm talking about, in my hometown of Clarksburg, WV, there is a statue of General Stonewall Jackson out in front of the county courthouse. He's a hometown hero because he was actually born across the street from where the courthouse now sits. Various groups have been saber-rattling and hem-hawing about this particular figure being shown in front of the courthouse and they decry racism. So far the statue still stands because the local population likes it there and doesn't see anything racist about it. The fed doesn't have any right to order them to take it down. It's not in their authority to do so. If they can't force the folks in Harrison County to take down their 'offensive' secular statue, then why should they be able to tell someone else to take down their 'offensive' statue which holds religious significance to several religious groups?

And, the truth of the matter (as I see it) is that a statue outside the courthouse has no bearing on the judgments being handed out INSIDE the court room. Everyone still gets their constitutional rights. The inside of that courthouse functions just the same as the most mundane courtroom anywhere else in the country. It isn't what they park on the front steps that matters, its how people get treated inside the doors that counts in my book. Hence, I could care less if a courtroom has the 10 commandments, or the pillars of Islam, or Wiccan incantations around the door frame. Give me a proper judge, a decent attorney, and the closest thing to a fair trial that is manageable with human beings steering this thing, and I'm good to go.

In my humble opinion, the congress has better things to do than nit-pick about courthouse displays (which they really don't have the authority to do anyway), like fixing the economy for instance....

#2 Well, when talking about the fed, it breaks down like this: Congress can't establish a religion, nor deny the practice of religion. If they want to have a congressional investigation to determine the 'presence' of a religion, well I guess that's up for debate, but since they can't make any law to stop the practice of any religion it seems like a moot point. The SCOTUS is allowed to determine the 'presence' of religion as it applies to 1A cases (in determining the constitutionality of certain laws which are presented before it), but they are not a legislature and therefore can make no laws either (although they could set a precedent in case law, which is almost as dangerous).

Hope that answered your questions. I'm off for the night. Pick it back up tomorrow if you're around.
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
Bear in mind that I am still intent on responding with an articulate post, and will do so probably in the next few days. I simply have way too much going on to do an elaborate post that details the errors I see in frommycolddeadhands post.


It is convenient for any religious body to claim moral ambiguity towards the placement of any religious icon when the icon in question is from their own religion.
It is also convenient to dismiss the Ten Commandments as "not a religious item" or "Not indicative of a religious preference" when the fact remains that the Ten Commandments are in fact religious in derivation and purpose. Especially so when the Ten Commandments displayed are Judeo-Christian in version.

The term "Pagan" is also thrown around a lot by individuals of varying religions identifying any sculpture not sourced from their religion. Naturally, this explains such fallacies as describing the Statue of Liberty as "Pagan". The Statue of Liberty is not pagan, and would not qualify as an idol as it is not expressly worshipped.

More later.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
SNIP
It is convenient for any religious body to claim moral ambiguity towards the placement of any religious icon when the icon in question is from their own religion.
It is also convenient to dismiss the Ten Commandments as "not a religious item" or "Not indicative of a religious preference" when the fact remains that the Ten Commandments are in fact religious in derivation and purpose. Especially so when the Ten Commandments displayed are Judeo-Christian in version.

Before you waste your time making irrelevant points, address this. Who gets to decide what "is" or "is not" religious?

Remember, EVERYONE has a belief system(religion). Atheism is just as much a religion as any other.

The term "Pagan" is also thrown around a lot by individuals of varying religions identifying any sculpture not sourced from their religion. Naturally, this explains such fallacies as describing the Statue of Liberty as "Pagan". The Statue of Liberty is not pagan, and would not qualify as an idol as it is not expressly worshipped.

More later.

WOW!! I guess YOU get to decide what "is" religious and what "is not". Show me in the LAW where this definition of "pagan" is found.

The existing law is enough and if followed will keep belief systems from interfering with the equal protection under the law. Trying to determine the "religiousness" of something will, and HAS, lead to injustice. In particular, the judge removed from the bench in the link in an earlier post.
 

Jerry2197

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
13
Location
San Diego
Can't say ( God ) in shcool, but the schoold will take your money that has the word ( god ) on it...............:banghead:
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
The existing law is enough and if followed will keep belief systems from interfering with the equal protection under the law. Trying to determine the "religiousness" of something will, and HAS, lead to injustice. In particular, the judge removed from the bench in the link in an earlier post.

Most of your replies are hilarious rhetoric, but in this case you simply are omitting the English language.

There are definitions for words that tell us what a particular word means. In this case the word is "Pagan". "Pagan" is really a blanket term used to define very loosely what a religious body deems to be outside of their practices yet religious.

The Statue of Liberty is not idolized.
The Statue of Liberty is not worshipped.
Its sourcing is not derived from religion.
Many modern sculptures have no religious sourcing.


I can tell you are one of those "Anything can be anything bro!" kind of people when it comes to backing up your comments and/or beliefs. Instead of a well structured response using historical referendum or the English language, I get a hodge-podge of ambiguous vomit to try to respond to.

I think I will respond to frommycolddeadhands and simply ignore you. It's clear you are devoid of any well thought out standing in terms of your religion, thus your input is of no value.
 
Last edited:
Top