- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Arkansas' new Ten Commandments monument at Capitol destroyed
Posted on 6/28/17 at 9:33 am to antibarner
Posted on 6/28/17 at 9:33 am to antibarner
Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Sounds like nothing should be on capitol grounds at all. And if everyone on this board was as star spangled awesome as they claim to be, and knew our constitutional rights, they'd agree too.
Sounds like nothing should be on capitol grounds at all. And if everyone on this board was as star spangled awesome as they claim to be, and knew our constitutional rights, they'd agree too.
3
Posted on 6/28/17 at 9:35 am to msutiger
quote:
Well it is completely inappropriate to display the Ten Commandments on State House grounds anyways.
quote:
Like it or not, this is 100% accurate.
Merely displaying the Ten Commandments on State grounds is NOT mandating people to follow one State religion.
Posted on 6/28/17 at 9:35 am to DawgfaninCa
“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin,[b] but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause.’ -John 15:18-25
Posted on 6/28/17 at 9:37 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Merely displaying the Ten Commandments on State grounds is NOT mandating people to follow one State religion.
Hahahaha dude
Posted on 6/28/17 at 9:37 am to Lakeboy7
quote:
emocrats are not the ones electing right wing jesus freaks to their respective legislatures over and over again.
As long as my government makes me go vote at a church, then I have no problem with churchie things being displayed on government property.
Posted on 6/28/17 at 9:38 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Merely displaying the Ten Commandments on State grounds is NOT mandating people to follow one State religion.
lol, I mean, this is Arkansas we are talking about. Are you sure?
Posted on 6/28/17 at 9:39 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
As long as my government makes me go vote at a church
quote:
I have no problem
Because it goes right up narrative alley?
Posted on 6/28/17 at 9:39 am to olddawg26
You do not have the right to force the rest of us to omit mention or display of religious quotes or symbols on public property. At the moment it is being forced on us, but that error one day will be corrected. And it is an error.
Freedom OF Religion, not FROM it.The tyranny of the minority.
Freedom OF Religion, not FROM it.The tyranny of the minority.
This post was edited on 6/28/17 at 9:41 am
Posted on 6/28/17 at 9:42 am to Salmon
quote:
no, they have already passed legislation to block it
Oh ok. Thanks. I thought I saw in the paper the proposed monument for the atheists but I did not realize it was blocked by legislation. I was wondering why someone would destroy the Ten Commandments monument if the atheists were getting a monument also.
Posted on 6/28/17 at 9:42 am to antibarner
The so called Establishment Clause actually means you cannot be forced to attend a state sponsored church, not will there BE such a thing..re Church of England.
It has been twisted and taken out of context to serve an agenda.
It has been twisted and taken out of context to serve an agenda.
Posted on 6/28/17 at 9:43 am to olddawg26
quote:
Because it goes right up narrative alley?
No, because if we want a total separation of church and state, then let's separate it all. No church business on government property, no government business on church property. You don't agree?
Posted on 6/28/17 at 9:43 am to antibarner
quote:
The tyranny of the minority.
Yes, but less important than the tyranny of the majority. The whole reason for a constitution.
I guess you would have no problem with every single religion putting something on the building, and paying for it when dingus and mingus come rip an islamic symbol off of it every night.
Posted on 6/28/17 at 9:44 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
You don't agree?
I completely agree. Now can you explain that to antibarner cause he's going full barner
Posted on 6/28/17 at 9:44 am to olddawg26
quote:
Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Sounds like nothing should be on capitol grounds at all. And if everyone on this board was as star spangled awesome as they claim to be, and knew our constitutional rights, they'd agree too.
Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether a display of the Ten Commandments on a monument given to the government at the Texas State Capitol in Austin violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court ruled on June 27, 2005, by a vote of 5 to 4, that the display was constitutional. The Court chose not to employ the popular Lemon test in its analysis, reasoning that the display at issue was a "passive monument."[1] Instead, the Court looked to "the nature of the monument and . . . our Nation’s history."[1] Chief Justice William Rehnquist delivered the plurality opinion of the Court; Justice Stephen Breyer concurred in the judgment but wrote separately. The similar case of McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky was handed down the same day with the opposite result (also with a 5 to 4 decision). The "swing vote" in both cases was Breyer.
yeah well that's how much you know.
given the current make up of the court and the fact that MR. PRESIDENT TRUMP will be appointing the next three justices that's not likely to change for the rest of your miserable life.
now get down on your knees and pray to the baby jesus!
Posted on 6/28/17 at 9:44 am to olddawg26
quote:
Sounds like nothing should be on capitol grounds at all. And if everyone on this board was as star spangled awesome as they claim to be, and knew our constitutional rights, they'd agree too.
Sounds to me like you don't know what "separation of Church and State" really means so I'll mansplain it to you.
It means the State cannot adopt one religion as the official State religion and force its citizens to become members of that religion.
This post was edited on 6/28/17 at 9:45 am
Posted on 6/28/17 at 9:46 am to DawgfaninCa
Correct and that is ALL it means.
Posted on 6/28/17 at 9:48 am to DawgfaninCa
I would argue that putting a religious monument on government property is inappropriate and, in a way, asking for something like this to happen.
Posted on 6/28/17 at 9:49 am to antibarner
I think people forget that the point of the 1st amendment's establishment clause was to prevent the government from forcing religious observance on the people. The government cannot coerce a person to violate their religious beliefs or to adhere to a religious belief that they do not agree with. That is a far cry from "BAN EVERYTHING POSSIBLY RELATED TO RELIGION FROM THE PUBLIC SQUARE!"
Even the founders prayed publicly before legislative session meetings and conventions and issued proclamations of thanksgiving to God. They didn't divorce religion from government, just coercion of religion by government.
Even the founders prayed publicly before legislative session meetings and conventions and issued proclamations of thanksgiving to God. They didn't divorce religion from government, just coercion of religion by government.
Posted on 6/28/17 at 9:51 am to FooManChoo
quote:
I think people forget that the point of the 1st amendment's establishment clause was to prevent the government from forcing religious observance on the people. The government cannot coerce a person to violate their religious beliefs or to adhere to a religious belief that they do not agree with. That is a far cry from "BAN EVERYTHING POSSIBLY RELATED TO RELIGION FROM THE PUBLIC SQUARE!"
Even the founders prayed publicly before legislative session meetings and conventions and issued proclamations of thanksgiving to God. They didn't divorce religion from government, just coercion of religion by government.
I get all that, but it seems unnecessary to invite this conflict.
Posted on 6/28/17 at 9:51 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
No, because if we want a total separation of church and state, then let's separate it all. No church business on government property, no government business on church property. You don't agree?
That interpretation of the meaning of "separation of Church and State" is incorrect because it violates an individual's constitutional right to freely exercise their religious beliefs.
Page 3 of 18
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News