Ten Commandments Controversy Moves West

[Zhukov]

I know you are of atheistic bent, but it's nice to see reason!

What? You say that as if it's an oxymoron.

Haha.

 

[Annie]

:shocked: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

What? You say that as if it's an oxymoron.

Haha.

 

[musicman]

Actually, I believe a more accurate exaple of breaking the third commandment would be commiting evil in Gods name. Say for instance killing innocents in God's name. That's blasphemy.

Not just saying, 'god damn it'.



I know this was addressed to BP, but I'll take a stab at it.

Someone would be dead. I assume that would be the 'real-life consequnces' he talks about.

Yeah, but the fact of a dead body doesn't, in and of itself, constitute a "real-life moral consequence" if the murderer gets away with it. It's just a public health problem at this point, if it isn't dealt with pretty quickly. It's the consequence of an action, without a doubt, but it's nothing upon which I would want to see society base it's concept of right and wrong. I'd rather we had the right to say, "Someone has commited a wrong" than, "Oh, well - I guess we'd better get this stinking son of a bitch outta here".

 

[Zhukov]

Well, without knowing the exact composition of BP's morality, I'd say we can all agree the act of murdering someone is wrong. But beyond that, I'm not going to try and fathom BP's philosophy anymore. I probably shouldn't have even tried to begin with.

I suppose you'll just have to wait for his response.

 

[Annie]

Bully may have a philosophy, though I can't make it out, but morality? Even as an atheist, that is not apparent to me either. That is why I think he is without a compass.

 

[musicman]

Well, without knowing the exact composition of BP's morality, I'd say we can all agree the act of murdering someone is wrong. But beyond that, I'm not going to try and fathom BP's philosophy anymore. I probably shouldn't have even tried to begin with.

I suppose you'll just have to wait for his response.

I know what you mean. I'm sure we both agree that morality must be rooted in something other than worldly consequences; that kind of thinking strikes me as being ass-backwards. If one refrains from commiting crimes only because he fears the consequences - well, consequences can be avoided. Just ask Sandy Berger, or Robert Byrd, or Bill Clinton.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Cry me a river. I hate it when people say something like this offends them and I really hate when they have to remove it. No one else has a problem with it, and what about other things that are offensive to other people? Don't their rights count?

Maybe I'm offended by public statues depicting Greek or Roman Gods. After all, isn't that promoting paganism? Of course, I don't really feel that way, but you get the idea. I also find it odd that you don't hear much about statues and monuments of another religion being taken down. They would say that it represents multiculturalism or something like that and they would probably accuse someone of bigotry if they wanted it taken down.

 

[musicman]

Well said, Tim! Boil away all the bombast and bullshit, and the truth becomes obvious:

Christianity is the enemy.

 

[dilloduck]

Well said, Tim! Boil away all the bombast and bullshit, and the truth becomes obvious:

Christianity is the enemy.

The left would agree with you I'm afraid but it's a hush hush kinda deal..

sshhhhh!

 

[musicman]

The left would agree with you I'm afraid but it's a hush hush kinda deal..

sshhhhh!

Unfortunately for the left, they're about as subtle as a bare ass on a flagpole.

Fortunately for them, however, many Americans are too busy watching "West Wing" to notice the cheeky devils.

 

[dilloduck]

Unfortunately for the left, they're about as subtle as a bare ass on a flagpole.

Fortunately for them, however, many Americans are too busy watching "West Wing" to notice the cheeky devils.

Quick--hit em with the lawsuit while they're watching the boob tube!!

 

[musicman]

Quick--hit em with the lawsuit while they're watching the boob tube!!

 

[Moi]

Unfortunately for the left, they're about as subtle as a bare ass on a flagpole.

That's got to be one of the funniest expressions I've ever heard!

 

[musicman]

That's got to be one of the funniest expressions I've ever heard!

A bit of a wise "crack", I'll admit.


:happy2:

 

[mattskramer]

Cry me a river. I hate it when people say something like this offends them and I really hate when they have to remove it. No one else has a problem with it, and what about other things that are offensive to other people? Don't their rights count?

Maybe I'm offended by public statues depicting Greek or Roman Gods. After all, isn't that promoting paganism? Of course, I don't really feel that way, but you get the idea. I also find it odd that you don't hear much about statues and monuments of another religion being taken down. They would say that it represents multiculturalism or something like that and they would probably accuse someone of bigotry if they wanted it taken down.

Government endorsement of monotheism is more apparent than is its endorsement of other religions via various means including: displays of the "10 Commandments", the cross on state symbols, "In God We Trust" stated on its currency and "Under God" stated in the USA Pledge. Yet, I don't play favorites. I oppose any and all tax-supported displays religious symbols.

 

[mattskramer]

Wow, Matt, I never thought to compare the 10 Commandments to Slaves being bull whipped.
10 Rules from God, if you believe in them then they're words to live by, if you don't, how does that hurt you? And comparing this to beating black people while their grandchildren watch on and cry?

Is someone getting paid by the taxpayer (yourself included) to go out and dust the statue? The upkeep would be for the land not the statue. The thing has been there for 45 years and now someones gonna complain?

Please. Do I have to spell it out for you? I was making 2 main points.

(1.) If the city accepts a donation of a statue of the "10 Commandments" must it be fair to all donors and accept all statues that people may wish to donate. It makes no difference what the statue depicts. Suppose I created and donate a statue of Buddha or Satan.

(2.) Ultimately, tax payers pay for the maintenance of the public land. It is not right for the city to display a religious symbol on the land that I support with my tax money if I do not hold to such a religion. As for your statue-cleaner, he is being paid my me (among others) to clean the symbol of a religion that I do not recognize. It is simply wrong.

If you want people to see the "10 Commandments", then buy the statue from the donor and put it in your own yard and not in, for all practical purposes, my yard.

 

[musicman]

Please. Do I have to spell it out for you? I was making 2 main points.

(1.) If the city accepts a donation of a statue of the "10 Commandments" must it be fair to all donors and accept all statues that people may wish to donate. It makes no difference what the statue depicts. Suppose I created and donate a statue of Buddha or Satan.

(2.) Ultimately, tax payers pay for the maintenance of the public land. It is not right for the city to display a religious symbol on the land that I support with my tax money if I do not hold to such a religion. As for your statue-cleaner, he is being paid my me (among others) to clean the symbol of a religion that I do not recognize. It is simply wrong.

If you want people to see the "10 Commandments", then buy the statue from the donor and put it in your own yard and not in, for all practical purposes, my yard.

Well, matts, why don't you start by being honest? Public displays of Greek and Roman gods don't bother you in the slightest. In fact, you never gave them a thought until they were mentioned in this thread. It is with monotheism - specifically Christianity - that you have an issue. And that issue is not that you don't recognize Christianity. It is that you find Christianity OFFENSIVE.

Now, as to point one of your post, you seem to have already forgotten Rush Limbaugh"s admonition, "words mean things". "If the city accepts a donation of a statue...must it be fair to all donors and accept all statues...?". Well, no, thank God. Your gospel (political correctness to the exclusion of all common sense) hasn't quite taken us to that point yet. But, the words, matts - the words - they're getting you all convoluted again. You've got "accept" and "must...be fair" going in the same thought. Acceptance means the grateful, gracious, and VOLUNTARY receipt of a gift. Mayors, city managers, and public works planners don't serve at the pleasure of "fairness Nazis" who stand over them, saying, "Well, if you accept a statue of the Ten Commandments, you have to accept matts' very lovely statue of Satan as well. Otherwise, little matts won't feel good about himself". No - they serve at the pleasure of the voters. And, you know what? I don't hear the voters bitching - only the hate-filled, antilogical watchdog groups, and the tragicomic Michael Newdow types who shriek in agony at the mere mention of God's name, like cinematic vampires who cringe in terror at the sight of a cross.

As for point two, I wonder if you'd join me in a fun little hypothetical.Let's pretend that, come tax time, you are able to recoup all the money your local government has wasted promoting a religion you find offensive - particularly, Christianity. I am able to recoup all the money it has wasted promoting a religion I find offensive - namely liberal socialist secular humanism. You get to party on your share of the man's salary who dusts off the statue of the Ten Commandments, and I get to party on my share of what the government spent making sure that evolution, revisionist history, and the legitimization of homosexuality were taught to my children in school.

I'll bet you get home before I do.

 

[mattskramer]

Well, matts, why don't you start by being honest? Public displays of Greek and Roman gods don't bother you in the slightest. In fact, you never gave them a thought until they were mentioned in this thread. It is with monotheism - specifically Christianity - that you have an issue. And that issue is not that you don't recognize Christianity. It is that you find Christianity OFFENSIVE.

As I said: Government endorsement of monotheism is more apparent than is its endorsement of other religions via various means including: displays of the "10 Commandments", the cross on state symbols, "In God We Trust" stated on its currency and "Under God" stated in the USA Pledge.

Public displays go Greek and Roman gods don't bother ME but they might bother other people.

Therefore, I don't play favorites. I oppose any and all tax-supported displays religious symbols.

"If the city accepts a donation of a statue...must it be fair to all donors and accept all statues...?". Well, no, thank God. Your gospel (political correctness to the exclusion of all common sense) hasn't quite taken us to that point yet. But, the words, matts - the words - they're getting you all convoluted again. You've got "accept" and "must...be fair" going in the same thought. Acceptance means the grateful, gracious, and VOLUNTARY receipt of a gift.

Okay. So the popularity of a religion makes it practically the official religion. Why not have the voters have the city/state accept a statue of Jesus on the cross and many other Christian symbols but no symbol of any other religion. No. It is still wrong to play religious favorites.

I am able to recoup all the money it has wasted promoting a religion I find offensive - namely liberal socialist secular humanism. You get to party on your share of the man's salary who dusts off the statue of the Ten Commandments, and I get to party on my share of what the government spent making sure that evolution, revisionist history, and the legitimization of homosexuality were taught to my children in school.

Uh. To be fair, I'd get to party on my share of the money that was used my the government to promote monotheism in other ways too - I want the salary of the government chaplains. I want the money that was used to decide on (and print) the line "In God We Trust". I want the money it took to etch Christian statements on our government buildings.

Concerning your "school" argument. I want the money that was spent leading children in prayer, bible reading, and the pledge. These three activities took place in public schools on a regular basis for many years not so long ago. Secular humanism along with your three specific examples (Evolution (which does not necessarily negate creationism), revisionist history (which does not necessarily remove all mention of Christianity), and the legitimization of homosexuality (which does not negate some people's interpretation of the Bible)) have years to go to catch up with the schools past endorsement of traditional Christianity.

Once the "religious money" is returned to us, we should privatized schools. Then I can support the schools that I like and you can support the schools that you like. I shouldn't be obligated to support schools that teach what I consider to be offensive stuff and you shouldn't be obligated to support schools that teach what you consider to be offensive stuff. It is as simple as that.

 

[Annie]

So Matt, you would have all the memorials taken down that have a reference to God? I supposed we'd have to chuck the Declaration too?

 

[mattskramer]

So Matt, you would have all the memorials taken down that have a reference to God? I supposed we'd have to chuck the Declaration too?

You make a good point that I had not considered. Yes, The Declaration of Independence is an important official document of the USA. Official US government documents are an exception. Though it unfortunately makes an assumption about the existence of God, I think that it should be kept in a "government library" with other official documents that have been created throughout history.