re: Satanists seek spot next to Ten Commandments monument on steps of OK's Statehous

quote:

---

Unfortunately, for anti-Christian, anti-Jew, anti-Muslim types like yourself, Satanists chose to request a religious statue

---

So in short:

Christian statue is okay but other religions are not?

You can pretend to not be able to read where I established the Ten Commandments as entirely religious in nature; but to do so shows how you are a religious partisan devoid of the critical thinking or introspection of even a teenager when it comes to religion and society.

quote:

---

where I established the Ten Commandments as entirely religious in nature

---

You should bring that enlightened "establishment" forward to the SCOTUS.
You could make quite a name for yourself.




No MCB, a rendering of Moses parting the waters is religious though. It would be the equivalent of the Satan Statue.

quote:

---

Not when the religion is satanism. Do you know what satanism preaches? Do you think those beliefs and practices are good for individuals or society? "If someone is bothering you in public ask him to stop. If he doesn't stop, destroy him." Do you think that's a good attitude to encourage?

---

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Do you think that's a good attitude to encourage, seeing as it is a direct affront to established law in the U.S.?

quote:

---

You should bring that enlightened "establishment" forward to the SCOTUS.

---

So when you can't win a discussion point you just up and change the subject?

Fine, I'm not wild about Moses' inclusion on the supreme court grounds. That said, it is an acknowledged religious statue. For some reason the Christian ideologues will not admit the ten commandments are too a religious sculpture.

So what we have here is moved goalposts and a complete change of subject. Bravo. Next time throw in a few more rhetorical tricks.

quote:

---

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Do you think that's a good attitude to encourage, seeing as it is a direct affront to established law in the U.S.?

---

Are you saying that the US government should be our God? Yikes.

“Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.”
Mathew 22:21

quote:

---

Are you saying that the US government should be our God? Yikes.

---

I think you are trying to be obtuse, as the intent of the speech was crystal clear.
A statue enshrining a law establishing a theocracy among an ancient people is certainly troubling.

I was always more troubled by the idea that people would murder without some divine hallway monitor to punish people in an eternal prison.

quote:

---

So when you can't win a discussion point you just up and change the subject?

---

Change the subject?
What?

I did not change a thing. You claimed you "established the Ten Commandments as entirely religious in nature." Wait . . . let me check . . . yep . . . that is . . . exactly . . . what you claimed.

Your statement was as stupid as someone "establishing" that screaming "Fire!" is a crowded theater is legal. It is an issue which has been considered ad nauseam in legal argument. The Ten Commandments are not solely religious. They are absolutely not reflective of a particular religion, i.e., Christianity. They are a set of early laws.

THAT is what has been established . . . . thoroughly.

quote:

---

I did not change a thing.

---

This clearly went from being a discussion on how the religious ten commandments statue should justify other religious statues including ones christians are prejudiced against.

Suddenly you both change the subject and move goalposts by showing the SCOTUS public religious monument and daring me to take them on "you could make a name for yourself".

So yes, you did change the subject and move the goalposts. You are biased against certain religions and are using increasingly childish reasons to keep these statues from public grounds,

quote:

---

by showing the SCOTUS public religious monument

---

What are you talking about?

Once again, you claimed you "established the Ten Commandments as entirely religious in nature."
You didn't "establish" a thing.

In fact, various US courts have established the Ten Commandments as NOT entirely religious in nature.
You are entitled to your own argument, but not to your own law.

Unfortunately, "establishing the Ten Commandments as entirely religious" is the central tenet to your argument.
As such, you have no argument.

quote:

---

What are you talking about?

Once again, you claimed you "established the Ten Commandments as entirely religious in nature."
You didn't "establish" a thing.

In fact, various US courts have established the Ten Commandments as NOT entirely religious in nature.
You are entitled to your own argument, but not to your own law.

Unfortunately, "establishing the Ten Commandments as entirely religious" is the central tenet to your argument.
As such, you have no argument.

---

IMO, you have to take into account the context in which the TC are presented. As it relates to the SCOTUS building, they are presented alongside many other historic lawmakers, including Justinian, Hammurabi, Napoleon, etc. However, in this case, the ONLY monument the Oklahoma legislature decided to slap up in front of the building was the TC, a decidedly Christian religious symbol. In this instance it is clearly not presented in the context of legal history, and it would be dishonest to argue otherwise.