10 Commandments are SO offensive!

[8236]

I think I can cut down the commandments to the point that the Supreme Court will leave them alone. (paraphrased from the Glenn Beck program)

1. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.
Ok, this one's out completely, because who are you to tell me who I'm going to worship. That's my own private business. I'll worship this squirrel if I want, you religion zealot.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, etc
This one's gone, too. I'll make whatever I want. You don't have to look at it.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Very out. It infringes on my right to free speech.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
What if I wanna go fishing on Sunday. There's good fishing to be had. This one's out.

5. Honor they father and thy mother. (y'all missed this one)
What if my parents are jerks. This one goes.

6. Thou shalt not murder.
This one, I'm ok with.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
What I do in the privacy of my own...or their own...bedroom is my own business and nobody else's. This one goes.

8. Thou shalt not steal.
This one's fine as is.

9. Thou shalt not covet.
Oh, so now you're policing my thoughts? I think all the implications of this commandment can be covered in number 8. Dismissed.

10.Thou shalt not commit false witness against thy neighbor.
This one needs a couple of provisos. Let's call it, "Thou shalt not commit perjury against thy neighbor unless it involves sex.

Ok, now we have the 2 1/2 commandments. Actually, commandment is too judgemental. Let's call them tips. The 2 1/2 tips.

Oh bugger them all.
Do unto others as you would have done onto yourself.
Thats the only commandment I need.

 

[mattskramer]

Children should eventually be taught how to think. I remember attending Junior ROTC. (I didn't do well). My instructor kept telling me that my belt buckle wasn't shiny enough. I told him that I didn't want it to reflect the sunlight into the enemies eyes thereby giving my location away. The result of our talk would not make a pretty picture.

The "10 Commandments leaves little, if any, room for situational consideration. Imagine the following:

I'm a poor man living in a state with a small population & no social welfare program. My wife, a relatively good woman, is in pain & suffering form a fast-acting disease thought to be fatal. A chemist created a cure but demands $1 million for it. I can't afford it. He won't negotiate. I could easily steal some of the medicine and, if I did so, the chemist would not suffer a great loss. Yet, "THOU SHALL NOT STEAL". What do I tell my wife. "I'm sorry, honey, but I am not allowed to steal the cure. You will just have to suffer and die".

Here is another example:

I live in Nazi Germany and, by accident, I discover that my neighbor created an underground railroad for the Jews to use in escaping Germany. German soldiers confront and question me. They have reason to believe that Jews are leaving and they ask me if I know anything at all about it and what I know. What do I say. "My neighbor, George, at this house has developed a way the have Jews leave this area undetected. Let me tell you the truth.

 

[Gunny]

The Feds should actually have NO say in what state buildings choose to display.

Good. At least we agree.

I find the ignorance level today on the US Civil War and it's causes nothing short of amazing due to PC revision.

That reminds me of the time I questioned my teachers long ago when she said that "Christopher Columbus 'discovered' the "New World". I asked her if I could wander down the road until I found some woodland and discover some new land and claim it in similar fashion. She basically told me to sit down and shut up. It seems to me as though students were not allowed to question what they were told. I am glad when I see examples of that attitude changing.

You seem to base your entire argument on your perspective of the educational system, not what's being taught. I have found from years of study on the US Civil War that I was not taught anything contrary to it in school. And I was a service brat. I went to schools from "sea to shining sea," and overseas too.

It isn't about students questioning anything. You've mentioned that in several posts (your questioning this or that). Your question concerning Columbus is not a question at all. It's you being a smartass and trying to dis the teacher's credibility.

It is my position that students should taught the truth ... not some PC, secular version of the First Amendment and what it says.

Okay. Do you really want to have students taught the truth only through a non-secular perspective on the First Amendment? There are several ways in which the "First Amendment" can be taught.

(1.)It can be taught "as-written" (without interpretation or explanation). We can let the students decide for themselves what it means.

(2.)More comprehensively, it can be taught with commentary from different perspectives as to what it means. Give a secularist and non-secularist perspective.

(3.)Even more comprehensively, it can be taught as viewed through the "original intent" of the authors. Yet, the issue of what constituted the original intent is debatable. Therefore, to be fair, different perspectives can be brought to the students' attention on that as well.

I haven't stated I wanted anyone taught the First Amendment only from a religious point of view. I stated they shouldn't be taught it from a secualrist point of view -- meaning exclusively.

Sorry, but you are writing your own definition into the Constitution. There is no Amendment that prohibits respecting one religion. The First Amendment prohibits "a church" from controlling the government.

No. That is not what it says. You are giving your perspective on what the "First Amendment" means. It does not even use the term a church. It uses the term religion.

It IS what it says. You're trying to play the intellectual here, so try not to be so obvious when you want to play semantics. Church -- religion -- same thing in the context I used it.
Federally condoned religious bias? Puh-lease.

If the majority of taxpayers in a given area foot the bill for a government building and they wish to decorate it with a privately funded statue of the Ten Commandments, it should be their right to do so.

Please be more specific. For example, based on your comment, is it fair to conclude that:

If the most taxpayers want tax money (including mine) to go to decorate a Federal building with a statue of the "10 Commandments" as the only religions symbol it should be their right to do so.

Yep.

And before you try "tyranny of the majority" on me .... it is preferable to the current tyranny of the minority we are forced to suffer.

No! That would be tyranny of the majority. It basically silences any and all minorities whose religion does not recognize the "10 Commandments" as a whole.

As I said, it is preferrable to tyranny of the minority.

Also, you are not forced to suffer under the tyranny of the minority. I'm assuming that you are Christian. Are you allowed to attend Church? Are you allowed to pray in public lunch rooms? Are you allowed to talk about Jesus? Within reason, people of practically all faiths, even Christianity, are allowed to practice their religion.

I disagree, and especially with your loaded example. Are you allowed to walk through a Courthouse and ignore what you don't want to look at? Yes. What EXACTLY does it do to YOU for people to display their religion in a tasteful manner? NOTHING. Don't look at it. Get a job and make some money and quit worrying about crap that has no REAL impact anywhere but between your ears.

The fact that you and/or the ACLU types can have even ONE religious emblem removed from anywhere IS tyranny of the minority. The majority do not object. Just you folks that obviously need to have to work to get along and not have so much time on your hands.

 

[MissileMan]

Personally, religious symbols such as a cross in a state seal and the word God on money, etc. don't bother me. I draw a line though at religious symbols within a courthouse. Not that I'm planning on being on trial anytime in the near future, but if I were, I would want no doubt that I was going to be held to a legal standard, not a religious one.

 

[Gunny]

Personally, religious symbols such as a cross in a state seal and the word God on money, etc. don't bother me. I draw a line though at religious symbols within a courthouse. Not that I'm planning on being on trial anytime in the near future, but if I were, I would want no doubt that I was going to be held to a legal standard, not a religious one.

We ARE held to legal standards. A statue of the 10 Commandments in an out-of-the-way alcove down a hall in no way means God's showing up to sit on the bench at your trial. It's NO different, IMO, than a cross on a State seal. It doesn't mean a thing to anyone except those looking for an excuse to be offended by something.

I'm not Bible-thumping either, as Matt attempted to speculate. People who look for excuses to be offended by things that have no REAL affect on their lives just piss me off. Simple as that.

 

[Variati0nal]

I've realized why mattskramer has so many liberal views.
Editted to remove flame. Play nice. IB

 

[mattskramer]

You seem to base your entire argument on your perspective of the educational system, not what's being taught. I have found from years of study on the US Civil War that I was not taught anything contrary to it in school. And I was a service brat. I went to schools from "sea to shining sea," and overseas too.

It isn't about students questioning anything. You've mentioned that in several posts (your questioning this or that). Your question concerning Columbus is not a question at all. It's you being a smartass and trying to dis the teacher's credibility.

Uh. No. It is an example of what was taught. There were other examples. While in elementary school, I was taught about the many contributions made by White Europeans but very little about the contributions to society by Blacks and people not from Europe.

It is my position that students should taught the truth ... not some PC, secular version of the First Amendment and what it says.

I haven't stated I wanted anyone taught the First Amendment only from a religious point of view. I stated they shouldn't be taught it from a secularist point of view -- meaning exclusively.

Review your statement. You said "It is my position that students should taught the truth ... not some PC, secular version of the First Amendment and what it says." It implies that you would have such a perspective not taught. It is nice for you to have now modified your point with the word exclusively.

Sorry, but you are writing your own definition into the Constitution. There is no Amendment that prohibits respecting one religion. The First Amendment prohibits "a church" from controlling the government.

It IS what it says. You're trying to play the intellectual here, so try not to be so obvious when you want to play semantics. Church -- religion -- same thing in the context I used it.
Federally condoned religious bias? Puh-lease.

We agree to disagree. "A' Church and Religion is not the same thing.

If the most taxpayers want tax money (including mine) to go to decorate a Federal building with a statue of the "10 Commandments" as the only religions symbol it should be their right to do so.

Yep.

Wow. Too bad for the non-monotheists.

I disagree, and especially with your loaded example. Are you allowed to walk through a Courthouse and ignore what you don't want to look at? Yes. What EXACTLY does it do to YOU for people to display their religion in a tasteful manner? NOTHING. Don't look at it. Get a job and make some money and quit worrying about crap that has no REAL impact anywhere but between your ears.

The fact that you and/or the ACLU types can have even ONE religious emblem removed from anywhere IS tyranny of the minority. The majority do not object. Just you folks that obviously need to have to work to get along and not have so much time on your hands.

Do you know the term "captive audience"? I remember the times that I attended a public school (a school that was aided to a small degree with federal tax money) with several students who had to wait several minutes while the "Pledge" was recited & a Christian prayer was given. Almost all of the students did as they were "expected" to do (stand for the pledge and bow for the prayer. One student remained seated and stared straight ahead. When he asked if he could say his pledge or give his prayer, the faculty said "No". There are many such situations.

I recall seeing a court session which started with a judge leading a Christian prayer. He would not allow other observances. Would you be offended if the only religious symbols in a court room that you were to attend were those of a religion that you don't recognize? What if you had to wait while the court took its time to say a prayer to a god whose existence you don't recognize? No. Don't interrupt (the judge my convince other people to become Christian. it is too bad that he doesn't allow you to pray out loud to your deity and possibly attract some converts) or draw attention to yourself or to your point.

No matter where you see your tax money (federal or state) going to recognize one religion over and above yours, don't do anything. Don't complain. Just sit down and shut up and do what is expected of you by the majority.

The removal of a Christian symbol from a government sign or public land is no more tyrannical that having the "10 Commandments" placed "front and center" in a court house with no other religious symbols beside it. If Federal money is to be used for the display of the "10 Commandments" then it should be used for the display of other religious symbols. Otherwise the "10 Commandments" should be removed. I'll ask you. Would you object to there being monuments to other religions placed beside the "10 Commandments" on Federal land? Why would you object? Let us have other symbols. If you don't like the symbols of other religions, you can simply ignore them - fair enough?

Uh, by the way, I am a self-reliant American citizen, born in the USA to American parents. I have a job - I have had it for several years. I even pay taxes. At the same I am politically active and have a right to speak and vote as I see fit - even if non-liberals don't like my views.

 

[kurtsprincess]

To put it in the perspective of reality, it is not banned from public view, merely from the courthouse. If you want to put up a Ten Commandments statue on the front lawn of your house, or on the front lawn of your church, knock yourself out. Frankly, I fail to get the maniacal compulsion to display religious symbols in government buildings except as a way to rub everyone's noses in your religion.





I don't believe anyone has called the display offensive, just inappropriate. But why stop at decorating courthouses with Ten Commandment statues? Let's take down the blindfolded lady with the scales and put up a statue of The Blessed Mary...she's not offensive. And while we're at it, we can wallpaper the entire courthouse with the pages of the bible. There's no way someone could find that offensive. And just for giggles, we can hand out crosses to everyone who enters the courthouse too...nothing offensive about that. Exactly how much would it take to get you to quit whining?

Wasn't it all the liberal whining that started all this?

 

[Gunny]

Review your statement. You said "It is my position that students should taught the truth ... not some PC, secular version of the First Amendment and what it says." It implies that you would have such a perspective not taught. It is nice for you to have now modified your point with the word exclusively.

I modified nothing. I merely had to spell it out for your apparently selctive understanding.

We agree to disagree. "A' Church and Religion is not the same thing.

I don't...

1. A building for public, especially Christian worship.
2. often Church
a. The company of all Christians regarded as a spiritual body.
b. A specified Christian denomination: the Presbyterian Church.
c. A congregation.
3. Public divine worship in a church; a religious service: goes to church at Christmas and Easter.
4. The clerical profession; clergy.
5. Ecclesiastical power as distinguished from the secular: the separation of church and state.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=church

... but there you go since you won't take my word for it.

Do you know the term "captive audience"? I remember the times that I attended a public school (a school that was aided to a small degree with federal tax money) with several students who had to wait several minutes while the "Pledge" was recited & a Christian prayer was given. Almost all of the students did as they were "expected" to do (stand for the pledge and bow for the prayer. One student remained seated and stared straight ahead. When he asked if he could say his pledge or give his prayer, the faculty said "No". There are many such situations.

So? If you show up to the football field wearing shorts and sporting a basketball, should you get to play football? The majority of society decides what is and is not acceptable, regardless the dishonest attempts to twist and circumvent the law by those who wish to force their individual views on the majority.

You have the right to not go along with what the majority of society wishes. You do not have the right to bitch and whine when that same society you are shunning ostricizes YOU.

I recall seeing a court session which started with a judge leading a Christian prayer. He would not allow other observances. Would you be offended if the only religious symbols in a court room that you were to attend were those of a religion that you don't recognize? What if you had to wait while the court took its time to say a prayer to a god whose existence you don't recognize? No. Don't interrupt (the judge my convince other people to become Christian. it is too bad that he doesn't allow you to pray out loud to your deity and possibly attract some converts) or draw attention to yourself or to your point.

Ah ... the old "recognize all or none" argument. More intellectual dishonesty. And I am sorry, but I would have to see evidence of a judge opening his court session with prayer. That would have been front page in the NY/LA Times, Washington Post and Al Jazeera, not to mention ABC and CBS.

No matter where you see your tax money (federal or state) going to recognize one religion over and above yours, don't do anything. Don't complain. Just sit down and shut up and do what is expected of you by the majority.

Your point is what? Nobody expects anyone to sit down and shut up nor do anything. You have whatever Rights the Constitution allows you. There also is this little ideal called "suffering the consequences of your actions." If you choose to be the queer, expect to be treated as such.

Instead, you expect the majority to sit down, shut up and do what you, the individual expects of it. Backwards-assed thinking, and thinking that would/will lead to the destruction of our society.

The removal of a Christian symbol from a government sign or public land is no more tyrannical that having the "10 Commandments" placed "front and center" in a court house with no other religious symbols beside it. If Federal money is to be used for the display of the "10 Commandments" then it should be used for the display of other religious symbols. Otherwise the "10 Commandments" should be removed. I'll ask you. Would you object to there being monuments to other religions placed beside the "10 Commandments" on Federal land? Why would you object? Let us have other symbols. If you don't like the symbols of other religions, you can simply ignore them - fair enough?

You completely ignored the statements I've made on this, obviously. The statue of the 10 Commandments in the Alabama Courthouse was NOT front and center. In fact, you had to go out of your way to view it.

And once again, your tax dollars are not used to pay for ANY emblems placed in courthouses.

And again, if you don't like it, don't look at it.

There are plenty of things I am forced to look at in this Nation which I find distasteful. Most of it is a result of people such as you, individuals forcing their views down the throats of the majority. The whole is forced to suffer for the selfish wants of the few. Our Constitution was NEVER intended to support THAT.
Uh, by the way, I am a self-reliant American citizen, born in the USA to American parents. I have a job - I have had it for several years. I even pay taxes. At the same I am politically active and have a right to speak and vote as I see fit - even if non-liberals don't like my views.

I have at no time attempted to deny you anything. It is YOU who are trying to deny the majority for your petty, selfish, individual desires.

 

[mattskramer]

I modified nothing. I merely had to spell it out for your apparently selective understanding.

You modified your statement by adding to it, practically adding a disclaimer - exclusively. The point is not my selective understanding. It is your lack of clearly and specifically explaining your statement.

I said "We agree to disagree. "A" Church and "Religion" is not the same thing".

You provided the link http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=church - definitions of the word CHURCH. In addition, you highlighted the definition that suited you. Yet, that word, CHURCH is not used in the "1st Amendment". The word is RELIGION it is defined as:

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

See: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion

If you show up to the football field wearing shorts and sporting a basketball, should you get to play football? The majority of society decides what is and is not acceptable, regardless the dishonest attempts to twist and circumvent the law by those who wish to force their individual views on the majority.

If you sign up for football classes you should be taught football. You should not have to wait several minutes while a coach or some other authority figure daily and subtly attempts to proselytize. I agree with you, to an extent, that that, "society decides what is and is not acceptable". I am a member of that society. Yet, the constitution also decides to an extent, what is and is not acceptable. I do not engage in dishonest attempts to twist and circumvent the law. I have my interpretation of the law and you have your interpretation.

You have the right to not go along with what the majority of society wishes. You do not have the right to bitch and whine when that same society you are shunning ostracizes YOU.

I do have a right to speak out when I think that things are not fair. I am allowed to "bitch and whine" as you say. I have the right to be politically active and to strive for equal recognition for all major religions in America. Equally, you have the right to bitch and whine when you think that things are unfair. I don't think that it is right for government to, in a practical sense, play favorites (even if Christianity is the majority religion).

Ah ... the old "recognize all or none" argument. More intellectual dishonesty. And I am sorry, but I would have to see evidence of a judge opening his court session with prayer. That would have been front page in the NY/LA Times, Washington Post and Al Jazeera, not to mention ABC and CBS.

I might make mistakes, and even say thinks that are incorrect, but I don't lie. Correct me if I am wrong but I think that the Supreme Court opens with prayer, "God Bless This Honorable Court" - with little regard to Atheists or polytheists who might be in attendance.

Nobody expects anyone to sit down and shut up nor do anything. You have whatever Rights the Constitution allows you. There also is this little ideal called "suffering the consequences of your actions." If you choose to be the queer, expect to be treated as such.

A few sentences ago, you said that I "do not have the right to bitch and whine". Now you say that "No body expects anyone to sit down and shut up". Please be more consistent. The teachers & authority figures at my school expected those who did not believe in Jesus to sit down and shut up while the "Pledge" and a prayer was recited. We have rights under the Constitution, even under the 1st Amendment!?! Then tell the Feds to stop morning prayer or, in an attempt to be inclusive, have them include messages from all faiths. By the way, if you choose to be a Christian, expect to be treated like one.

Instead, you expect the majority to sit down, shut up and do what you, the individual expects of it. Backwards-assed thinking, and thinking that would/will lead to the destruction of our society.

No. I believe in free speech - perhaps more than you do. Bitch and complain as you see fit. I simply want equal "recognition of all major religions" to be supported by Federal tax dollars or that all religious references removed. I consider that to be fair. My ideas would not lead to the destruction of our society. Far from it. It would be a welcome display of more tolerance, fairness, and respect to those who follow less popular religions. The removal of a cross from a flag will not result in fire and brimstone falling from the sky.

The statue of the 10 Commandments in the Alabama Courthouse was NOT front and center. In fact, you had to go out of your way to view it.

And once again, your tax dollars are not used to pay for ANY emblems placed in courthouses.

I didn't mention Alabama. Please do your homework. As recently as 1998, The Supreme Court narrowly rejected a proposal for a constitutional amendment to allow prayer in schools and religious displays in federal buildings. Yet, the outside of the US Supreme Court there is a sculpture of Moses holding the Ten Commandments. Once again, my tax money is used to pay for displaying the "10 Commandments", a religious emblem, at the US Supreme Court of all places.

And again, if you don't like it, don't look at it.

On top of a 30-foot-high rock outcropping in the Mojave National Preserve in California, stood an old rugged eight-foot-tall Latin cross. It might still be there. Sometimes it is difficult to avoid seeing such things, especially when you realize that your tax money is going to "support" it (pun intended).

Now, how about answering my question. Would you object to having emblems of other religions displayed, with support from your tax money, along side the "10 Commandments"? It is not a difficult question: Yes or No? If your answer is "No", then who is really being the tyrannically intolerant person?

There are plenty of things I am forced to look at in this Nation which I find distasteful. Most of it is a result of people such as you, individuals forcing their views down the throats of the majority.

As I asked before, be specific. Give me some examples of these distasteful things that you are "forced" to look at. We will see if they stack up to the Constitution (federal or state) and debate the fairness of subjecting you to them. By the way, did I ever say that the "10 Commandments" were distasteful? I simply don't recall.

The whole is forced to suffer for the selfish wants of the few. Our Constitution was NEVER intended to support THAT.

((1.) "What was the original intent of the authors of the Constitution? Once the answer to that question is agreed upon, (2.) should modern interpretation of the Constitution, while we are faced with contemporary issues, be based on the authors' original intent?) These questions, in and of themselves, are debatable. I will bypass them at least for now. I simply don't see the whole as suffering that much at the hands of the minority. It doesn't suffer to the extent that the minority is made to suffer in almost consistent and subtle ways, at the careless and inconsiderate whims of the majority.

I have at no time attempted to deny you anything. It is YOU who are trying to deny the majority for your petty, selfish, individual desires.

You, personally and directly have not attempted to deny me anything. Yet, many other people have. When he asked if he could say his pledge or give his prayer, the faculty said "No". There are many such situations.

What right am I denying you - the "right" to have your religion Federally recognized practically above that of (and to the near exclusion of) other religions? If you consider that to be a right, then I suppose that I am attempting to deny you that "right".

 

[Gunny]

I modified nothing. I merely had to spell it out for your apparently selective understanding.

You modified your statement by adding to it, practically adding a disclaimer - exclusively. The point is not my selective understanding. It is your lack of clearly and specifically explaining your statement.

Semantics in place of a valid argument. I wasn't under the impression you were a second grader who needed every little thing explained in intricate detail. You seem quite coherent and intelligent when you wish to be.

I said "We agree to disagree. "A" Church and "Religion" is not the same thing".

You provided the link http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=church - definitions of the word CHURCH. In addition, you highlighted the definition that suited you. Yet, that word, CHURCH is not used in the "1st Amendment". The word is RELIGION it is defined as:

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

See: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion

More semantics. I used the term correctly. Had I quoted the Constitution rather than editorialized, you would have an argument. As it is, you do not.

If you show up to the football field wearing shorts and sporting a basketball, should you get to play football? The majority of society decides what is and is not acceptable, regardless the dishonest attempts to twist and circumvent the law by those who wish to force their individual views on the majority.

If you sign up for football classes you should be taught football. You should not have to wait several minutes while a coach or some other authority figure daily and subtly attempts to proselytize. I agree with you, to an extent, that that, "society decides what is and is not acceptable". I am a member of that society. Yet, the constitution also decides to an extent, what is and is not acceptable. I do not engage in dishonest attempts to twist and circumvent the law. I have my interpretation of the law and you have your interpretation.

The Constitution, when taken as is vs out of context literalism to suit one's political agenda is about as good as it gets. And while it sets a standard of basic laws based on our society, it was agreed upon and ratified by the majority.

You have the right to not go along with what the majority of society wishes. You do not have the right to bitch and whine when that same society you are shunning ostracizes YOU.

I do have a right to speak out when I think that things are not fair. I am allowed to "bitch and whine" as you say. I have the right to be politically active and to strive for equal recognition for all major religions in America. Equally, you have the right to bitch and whine when you think that things are unfair. I don't think that it is right for government to, in a practical sense, play favorites (even if Christianity is the majority religion).

Let's try this again. The point I am trying to make is, if you choose to live outside the conforms of society, provided you are within the law, yes, you have the right to bitch about society ostricizing you. However, it is a consequence of YOUR action, not society's, that is the cause and to deny that and attempt to blame society is just a lack of self-actualization and acceptance of responsibility for one's actions.

Ah ... the old "recognize all or none" argument. More intellectual dishonesty. And I am sorry, but I would have to see evidence of a judge opening his court session with prayer. That would have been front page in the NY/LA Times, Washington Post and Al Jazeera, not to mention ABC and CBS.

I might make mistakes, and even say thinks that are incorrect, but I don't lie. Correct me if I am wrong but I think that the Supreme Court opens with prayer, "God Bless This Honorable Court" - with little regard to Atheists or polytheists who might be in attendance.

Cool. If the justices agree that is what they wish to do, the Constitution does not preclude it. If you or anyone else don't want participate with what the majority wishes, bring a Walkman.

Nobody expects anyone to sit down and shut up nor do anything. You have whatever Rights the Constitution allows you. There also is this little ideal called "suffering the consequences of your actions." If you choose to be the queer, expect to be treated as such.

A few sentences ago, you said that I "do not have the right to bitch and whine". Now you say that "No body expects anyone to sit down and shut up". Please be more consistent. The teachers & authority figures at my school expected those who did not believe in Jesus to sit down and shut up while the "Pledge" and a prayer was recited. We have rights under the Constitution, even under the 1st Amendment!?! Then tell the Feds to stop morning prayer or, in an attempt to be inclusive, have them include messages from all faiths. By the way, if you choose to be a Christian, expect to be treated like one.

I explained my statement in detail just for you. I am going to further comment that if you cannot debate honestly, I'm out of here. I'll go toe to toe on ideals with you, but I'm not wasting my time playing literalist games of semantics.

Again, if you do not wish to participate, don't. That is your right. Your individual right does not extend to stifling what the majority wishes to do.

What I choose to be has no play here. When I start thumping a Bible THEN you can bring my religious preference into the argument. Until then, I have not attempted to use religion in my argument, so don't try and interject it.
Instead, you expect the majority to sit down, shut up and do what you, the individual expects of it. Backwards-assed thinking, and thinking that would/will lead to the destruction of our society.

No. I believe in free speech - perhaps more than you do. Bitch and complain as you see fit. I simply want equal "recognition of all major religions" to be supported by Federal tax dollars or that all religious references removed. I consider that to be fair. My ideas would not lead to the destruction of our society. Far from it. It would be a welcome display of more tolerance, fairness, and respect to those who follow less popular religions. The removal of a cross from a flag will not result in fire and brimstone falling from the sky.

Like I said ... your ideals would lead to the destruction of our society. You wish to remove the common bond and unrealistically cater to the whines of the minority for which their would never be enough time. This Nation was founded by the majority for the majority.

Fair is for individuals to either go with the majority, or go about their merry little ways understanding that it is UNFAIR for the majority to have to suffer at the hands of the individual.
The statue of the 10 Commandments in the Alabama Courthouse was NOT front and center. In fact, you had to go out of your way to view it.

And once again, your tax dollars are not used to pay for ANY emblems placed in courthouses.

I didn't mention Alabama. Please do your homework. As recently as 1998, The Supreme Court narrowly rejected a proposal for a constitutional amendment to allow prayer in schools and religious displays in federal buildings. Yet, the outside of the US Supreme Court there is a sculpture of Moses holding the Ten Commandments. Once again, my tax money is used to pay for displaying the "10 Commandments", a religious emblem, at the US Supreme Court of all places.

You may not have mentioned it. I DID. In historical context, our laws are based on Judeo-Christian law/ethic regardless any dishonest argument to say otherwise. A statue of Moses holding the 10 Commandments can be easily understand as a symbol if the basis of the laws of our society. YOU choose to see it as promoting religion.
And again, if you don't like it, don't look at it.

On top of a 30-foot-high rock outcropping in the Mojave National Preserve in California, stood an old rugged eight-foot-tall Latin cross. It might still be there. Sometimes it is difficult to avoid seeing such things, especially when you realize that your tax money is going to "support" it (pun intended).

Who cares? When and if you let little shit like that bother you, you need some Paxil.

Now, how about answering my question. Would you object to having emblems of other religions displayed, with support from your tax money, along side the "10 Commandments"? It is not a difficult question: Yes or No? If your answer is "No", then who is really being the tyrannically intolerant person?

Ask an honest question and I will answer it. You keep trying to throw in "supported by tax dollars" bullshit that is trivial nitpicking. IF the majority of a given demograph agree, and a piece of art is donated, I have NO problem with it depicting anything that is considered conservative and in good taste within the confines of what is considered such by our society.

There are plenty of things I am forced to look at in this Nation which I find distasteful. Most of it is a result of people such as you, individuals forcing their views down the throats of the majority.

As I asked before, be specific. Give me some examples of these distasteful things that you are "forced" to look at. We will see if they stack up to the Constitution (federal or state) and debate the fairness of subjecting you to them. By the way, did I ever say that the "10 Commandments" were distasteful? I simply don't recall.

No we won't. I'm not going to play that dishonest little game. My personal preferences don't have to stack up to any specific guidelines but those that I set. It would be purely subjective, and no doubt, NOTHING I post would meet your criteria, regardless what it is.

I do not recall that you have or have not said the 10 Commandments are distasteful. Obviously you find them offensive, even though they are the basis for everything you have been taught concerning right and wrong since birth. Go figure.
The whole is forced to suffer for the selfish wants of the few. Our Constitution was NEVER intended to support THAT.

((1.) "What was the original intent of the authors of the Constitution? Once the answer to that question is agreed upon, (2.) should modern interpretation of the Constitution, while we are faced with contemporary issues, be based on the authors' original intent?) These questions, in and of themselves, are debatable. I will bypass them at least for now. I simply don't see the whole as suffering that much at the hands of the minority. It doesn't suffer to the extent that the minority is made to suffer in almost consistent and subtle ways, at the careless and inconsiderate whims of the majority.

You don't see the whole suffering at the hands of the individual because it does nto suit your position to do so. When you talk of fairness, it will NEVER be completely fair. Get real. It is far more fair that the majority rules than it is when the majority is forced to suffer the desires of the minority.
I have at no time attempted to deny you anything. It is YOU who are trying to deny the majority for your petty, selfish, individual desires.

You, personally and directly have not attempted to deny me anything. Yet, many other people have. When he asked if he could say his pledge or give his prayer, the faculty said "No". There are many such situations.

I'm sure there are and I have addressed this repeatedly. Society/the group has decided what is acceptable. If one wishes to go outside those parameters, one can do it on one's own time.

What right am I denying you - the "right" to have your religion Federally recognized practically above that of (and to the near exclusion of) other religions? If you consider that to be a right, then I suppose that I am attempting to deny you that "right".

You aren't denying me anything. What you are doing is obssessing over the fact that the majority does not agree with you, and does not wish to cater to your whims based on your definition of the First Amendment.

Exclusivity is not a crime, nor is it wrong. It defines who we are. One group will always be exclusive of others as long as the individuals who make up that group choose to retain any individual identity.

What you want is a perfect little world of PC automatons merely existing from birth to death, never having an opinion, nor expressing any ideals that do not go along with what you want. And it is THAT PC-ness that has permeated our society and created a foul stench from within.

But you'll come on here and proclaim what YOU think YOU have the right to do, exclusive of what all others may or may not wish.

 

[mattskramer]

Semantics [concerning your addition of the word "exclusively"] in place of a valid argument. I wasn't under the impression you were a second grader who needed every little thing explained in intricate detail. You seem quite coherent and intelligent when you wish to be.

Have you studied semantics and logic. As one famous (or infamous) radio talk-show host says "Words mean things". It seems as though you simply refuse to accept the fact that you were not clear in your original statement. You can be quite vague and evasive when you choose to be.

More semantics [concerning your apparent desire to replace the word "religion" with the phrase "a church"]. I used the term correctly. Had I quoted the Constitution rather than editorialized, you would have an argument. As it is, you do not.

Your original statement reads: "Sorry, but you are writing your own definition into the Constitution. There is no Amendment that prohibits respecting one religion. The First Amendment prohibits 'a church' from controlling the government." Sorry, but you are writing your own definition into the Constitution, particularly when you practically attempt to equate "religion" with "a church" and then select a definition for "a church" that suits your interpretation of the Constitution.

The Constitution, when taken as is vs out of context literalism to suit one's political agenda is about as good as it gets. And while it sets a standard of basic laws based on our society, it was agreed upon and ratified by the majority.

You did not take the Constitution as is. You equated "religion" with "a church" and chose a definition of "a church" to suit your political agenda.

Let's try this again. The point I am trying to make is, if you choose to live outside the conforms of society, provided you are within the law, yes, you have the right to bitch about society ostracizing you. However, it is a consequence of YOUR action, not society's, that is the cause and to deny that and attempt to blame society is just a lack of self-actualization and acceptance of responsibility for one's actions.

Society is not the correct word to use. There are people within society who believe as I do. I blame individuals who prevent me from doing things that I believe that I have a right to do. Wouldn't you do the same thing? If, by your interpretation of the Constitution, you thought that you had the right to do "XYZ" your way, but people prevented you from doing it, wouldn't you blame those people? I would. I would speak out and attempt to get the "rules" changed.

The acts of authority figures are the cause - particularly when those figures play games of subtle religious favoritism and discrimination in the public arena. It is not my fault. I have every right to blame the authority figures for what they do and prevent from happening.

You said "And I am sorry, but I would have to see evidence of a judge opening his court session with prayer." I gave you that evidence. You replied that "If the justices agree that is what they wish to do, the Constitution does not preclude it. If you or anyone else don't want participate with what the majority wishes, bring a Walkman."

In your opinion, and perhaps the opinion of the Court, the Constitution does not preclude that (an opening prayer). Yet, based on my interpretation, and the interpretation that many other people hold, the Constitution does preclude such activity. No. I am not placing my intellect above that of the court. Do you place your intellect above that of the court when it makes a decision to which you disagree?

Try to look beyond your own religious bias. I think that such an act would be very difficult for you. Imagine American "society" as predominantly Muslim. You would likely experience the Salah - perhaps twice a court's day. You practically could not avoid hearing prayers by your leaders. If you dare to mention that you want to pray to Jesus, you may hear your one say something similar to "We don't have time now, and where is your prayer rug?" That is okay. As you advised me to do - just bring a Walkman.

I explained my statement in detail just for you. I am going to further comment that if you cannot debate honestly, I'm out of here. I'll go toe to toe on ideals with you, but I'm not wasting my time playing literalist games of semantics.

LOL -You did nothing of the kind. I caught in your "double-speak". I caught you when you stooped to personal attacks and personal assumptions about me. I caught you when you said blatant false statements. I caught you when you practically tried to change the meaning of the Constitution by your replacing words with words for which you find definitions that better suit your agenda. When that may not work for you, you implied that we should interpret the Constitution based on the original intent of the authors. Yet, earlier you said that a comment made by Jefferson was not in the Constitution - (as if I did not know that) - implying that we should not consider original intent.

[Sigh] - Look. Please go back to school, learn to think critically. Take a course in logic. Then try to debate me on this again. As any honest casual observer should see, I easily out-debate you.

I'm going to put in some over-time at my job Sunday morning. Surprise! I have a job! I also, sometimes, work on Sunday. I also plan to shop. I think the "Blue Laws" were repealed. Then my wife (a fine woman) and I will be going out for the evening. Surprise! I'm a happily married heterosexual. Good night.

 

[Gunny]

Have you studied semantics and logic. As one famous (or infamous) radio talk-show host says "Words mean things". It seems as though you simply refuse to accept the fact that you were not clear in your original statement. You can be quite vague and evasive when you choose to be.

Perhaps you need time to re-read the posts on this? I supplied an additional word FOR clarification and you accused me of altering the meaning of my statement. The fact that I bothered to clarify means I accepted that my statement was not clear to you.

What I do not accept is your accusation that I completely changed the meaning of my statement. I did not. Try to get over it.

Your original statement reads: "Sorry, but you are writing your own definition into the Constitution. There is no Amendment that prohibits respecting one religion. The First Amendment prohibits 'a church' from controlling the government." Sorry, but you are writing your own definition into the Constitution, particularly when you practically attempt to equate "religion" with "a church" and then select a definition for "a church" that suits your interpretation of the Constitution.

You are incorrect. I clearly showed that in the context used and with a dictionary definition, not MY definition, the term "church" is interchangeable with the term "religion."

The issue is the First Amendment to the US Constitution, not your personal dislike for a completely appropriate use of a word.

The First Amendment does not preclude religion in government. It precludes the government being controlled by a religion. Any other definition is dishonest, and not within the context of the Amendment's intent.

You did not take the Constitution as is. You equated "religion" with "a church" and chose a definition of "a church" to suit your political agenda.

Have you run out of legitimate argument? Is that it? Clearly, you are wrong, and again, it is not MY definition. It is not MY fault you are ignorant concerning the use of the word "church," but you're making yourself look pretty stupid refusing to accept a dictionary -- not my -- definition just because you don't like it.

Society is not the correct word to use. There are people within society who believe as I do. I blame individuals who prevent me from doing things that I believe that I have a right to do. Wouldn't you do the same thing? If, by your interpretation of the Constitution, you thought that you had the right to do "XYZ" your way, but people prevented you from doing it, wouldn't you blame those people? I would. I would speak out and attempt to get the "rules" changed.

The acts of authority figures are the cause - particularly when those figures play games of subtle religious favoritism and discrimination in the public arena. It is not my fault. I have every right to blame the authority figures for what they do and prevent from happening.

Disagree, and society IS the correct word, because it is societal acceptance that I addressed. I did NOT address individual acceptance at all. And you're trying to confuse two separate issues.

If I think I have the right to do XYZ and society does not accept XYZ, then, if I STILL choose to do it, I at least understand there are consequences in the form of societal nonacceptance that are a result of MY actions. I don't expect society to cater to my individual whims.

If I believe I have a right to do XYZ and an individual disagrees, then I can do it or not, provided indulging my personal desires does not infringe on that individual.

You can blame whoever you wish. I have not said you do not have the right. However, if you cannot justify to my satisfaction, I WILL argue it.

In your opinion, and perhaps the opinion of the Court, the Constitution does not preclude that (an opening prayer). Yet, based on my interpretation, and the interpretation that many other people hold, the Constitution does preclude such activity. No. I am not placing my intellect above that of the court. Do you place your intellect above that of the court when it makes a decision to which you disagree?

You ARE placing your intellect above that of the court by disagreeing with the court's ruling. And yes, if I disagree with a ruling they make, if you want to call it placing my intellect above the court's, I do.

Try to look beyond your own religious bias. I think that such an act would be very difficult for you. Imagine American "society" as predominantly Muslim. You would likely experience the Salah - perhaps twice a court's day. You practically could not avoid hearing prayers by your leaders. If you dare to mention that you want to pray to Jesus, you may hear your one say something similar to "We don't have time now, and where is your prayer rug?" That is okay. As you advised me to do - just bring a Walkman.

Dude, YOU, not I, keep trying to bring any religious bias I may have into play here. I AM a secularist. I am a secularist PRIOR TO the word being hijacked by Christian-haters. I do not believe any church, religion, or whatever synonymous term you wish to use should control our government at any level. At the same time, I do not deny citizens of our society who make up the government their individual and collective rights to worship freely.

Think outside your little religious box. I am a retired US Marine. Do you not there have been countless times I had to carry out orders I disagreed with? Or participate in something the group voted on -- majority rule -- whether or not I wanted to?

LOL -You did nothing of the kind. I caught in your "double-speak". I caught you when you stooped to personal attacks and personal assumptions about me. I caught you when you said blatant false statements. I caught you when you practically tried to change the meaning of the Constitution by your replacing words with words for which you find definitions that better suit your agenda. When that may not work for you, you implied that we should interpret the Constitution based on the original intent of the authors. Yet, earlier you said that a comment made by Jefferson was not in the Constitution - (as if I did not know that) - implying that we should not consider original intent.

Dude, you are freakin' weird. Not only are you dishonest .....

[Sigh] - Look. Please go back to school, learn to think critically. Take a course in logic. Then try to debate me on this again. As any honest casual observer should see, I easily out-debate you.

... you are also delusional as Hell. You've been countered and turned at every attempt, honest and otherwise.

As any honest casual observer should see, you couldn't out-debate a first grader, so no I won't be back. I have tired of your dishonest little word games. You come off as someone who could give an honest argument or I would not have bothered with you to begin with. Your facade lasts only as long as it takes to counter your argument, then begins the petty, dishonest little word games.

As far as education goes, I have no need to sweat the likes of you. Your interpretation of the Constitution alone speaks for itself, much less the simple sentences of mine you have tried to twist into something they are not.