- 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: Satanists seek spot next to Ten Commandments monument on steps of OK's Statehous
Posted on 1/9/14 at 11:39 am to CJM18
Posted on 1/9/14 at 11:39 am to CJM18
quote:
So where do you draw the line?
You can't without favoring one religion over another. That's the issue here. The solution is to either let every religious group erect a religious statue on state grounds if they so choose or remove the one already standing.
1
Posted on 1/9/14 at 11:46 am to TideCPA
quote:TideCPA actually that is not true. There were multiple God references. However, the TCs were located atop all the others, intimating a "Final Authority". The symbolism was discussed openly by the fruitcake who fought the case and by others. The TCs as authoritative above all, including perhaps the Constitution, changes the pretext TC entirely. I'd have been for removing that BS too, even though most in Alabama were not.
The other inscriptions were not religious in nature and were mentioned nowhere in the district court decision. The sole focus was on the TC and their tacit endorsement of one particular deity.
This post was edited on 1/9/14 at 11:48 am
Posted on 1/9/14 at 11:56 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
TideCPA actually that is not true. There were multiple God references. However, the TCs were located atop all the others, intimating a "Final Authority". The symbolism was discussed openly by the fruitcake who fought the case and by others. The TCs as authoritative above all, including perhaps the Constitution, changes the pretext TC entirely. I'd have been for removing that BS too, even though most in Alabama were not.
From the ruling: "If all Chief Justice Moore had done were to emphasize the Ten Commandments' historical and educational importance... or their importance as a model code for good citizenship... this court would have a much different case before it. But the Chief Justice did not limit himself to this; he went far, far beyond. He installed a two-and-a-half ton monument in the most prominent place in a government building, managed with dollars from all state taxpayers, with the specific purpose and effect of establishing a permanent recognition of the 'sovereignty of God,' the Judeo-Christian God, over all citizens in this country, regardless of each taxpaying citizen's individual personal beliefs or lack thereof. To this, the Establishment Clause says no."
Clearly your earlier contention that "relevance is in the imagery, not the intent" is completely false as it relates to legality.
This post was edited on 1/9/14 at 11:57 am
Posted on 1/9/14 at 11:56 am to TideCPA
quote:
You can't without favoring one religion over another
Some beliefs do need to be favored over others. This anything goes, relative morality is a terrible, terrible path to take.
Posted on 1/9/14 at 11:58 am to CJM18
quote:
Some beliefs do need to be favored over others
So you're for the freedom of religion.
Just your own religion.
Got it
Posted on 1/9/14 at 12:01 pm to CJM18
quote:
Some beliefs do need to be favored over others.
According to you. Not according to the law.
Posted on 1/9/14 at 12:07 pm to TheDoc
quote:
So you're for the freedom of religion. Just your own religion.Got it.
Wise up, Doc.
Posted on 1/9/14 at 12:27 pm to TideCPA
quote:
According to you. Not according to the law.
According to the law also. That's what the law does. It enforces some beliefs over others.
This post was edited on 1/9/14 at 12:28 pm
Posted on 1/9/14 at 12:49 pm to CJM18
quote:
According to the law also. That's what the law does. It enforces some beliefs over others.
Not religious beliefs.
Posted on 1/9/14 at 12:51 pm to TideCPA
quote:TideCPA, assuming you understand what is meant by imagery, that was exactly what I described above. The monument was comprised of multiple quotes and references forming the basis of our law. But symbolically situated atop them all were the TCs. Exactly as the ruling stated.quote:Clearly your earlier contention that "relevance is in the imagery, not the intent" is completely false as it relates to legality.
There were multiple God references. However, the TCs were located atop all the others, intimating a "Final Authority". The symbolism was discussed openly by the fruitcake who fought the case and by others.
E.g., Had the TCs been very prominently displayed, but with the Constitution atop, there would have been no issue,
Posted on 1/9/14 at 1:08 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
TideCPA, assuming you understand what is meant by imagery, that was exactly what I described above. The monument was comprised of multiple quotes and references forming the basis of our law. But symbolically situated atop them all were the TCs. Exactly as the ruling stated.
E.g., Had the TCs been very prominently displayed, but with the Constitution atop, there would have been no issue,
The ruling clearly states the TC were erected "with the specific purpose and effect of establishing a permanent recognition of the 'sovereignty of God,' the Judeo-Christian God, over all citizens in this country". If you don't understand that "specific purpose" = intent, then I guess there's nothing else I can say, aside from giving you a link to a thesaurus. The ruling never mentions the physical location of the TC in relation to the other images on the monument.
Posted on 1/9/14 at 1:29 pm to TideCPA
quote:Perhaps you don't understand the term 'imagery'.
"with the specific purpose and effect of establishing a permanent recognition of the 'sovereignty of God,' the Judeo-Christian God, over all citizens in this country"
How was a "specific purpose and effect of establishing a permanent recognition of the 'sovereignty of God,' the Judeo-Christian God, over all citizens in this country" symbolized by the monument in this case?
IOW what component of the symbolism was problematic?
Specifically.
Posted on 1/9/14 at 1:35 pm to TideCPA
quote:
Not religious beliefs.
Apparently so since two of the commandments are laws in this country.
Posted on 1/9/14 at 1:45 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Perhaps you don't understand the term 'imagery'.
How was a "specific purpose and effect of establishing a permanent recognition of the 'sovereignty of God,' the Judeo-Christian God, over all citizens in this country" symbolized by the monument in this case?
IOW what component of the symbolism was problematic?
Specifically.
You're really reaching now. Again, the ruling didn't address, AT ALL, any perceived symbolism in regards to the physical location of the TC on the monument relative to the other images. You have completely fabricated that notion in the last page or so of comments. If that were really the only issue, then the easiest solution would be to simply cover up or grind down the base of the monument, leaving only the TC exposed.
As far as determining the crux of the decision, you'll have to excuse me for using the judge's own actual words instead of your interpretation of some type of relative symbolism that was never even addressed by the judge.
Posted on 1/9/14 at 1:48 pm to CJM18
quote:
Apparently so since two of the commandments are laws in this country.
Yeah, not killing people and not stealing shite are really groundbreaking ideas unique to Christianity.
Posted on 1/9/14 at 1:57 pm to TideCPA
quote:So let's try once again.
You're really reaching now. Again, the ruling didn't address, AT ALL, any perceived symbolism in regards to the physical location of the TC on the monument relative to the other images. You have completely fabricated that notion in the last page or so of comments. If that were really the only issue, then the easiest solution would be to simply cover up or grind down the base of the monument, leaving only the TC exposed.
How was a "specific purpose and effect of establishing a permanent recognition of the 'sovereignty of God,' the Judeo-Christian God, over all citizens in this country" symbolized by the monument in this case?
IOW what component of the symbolism was problematic?
Now you can duck, bob, and weave all you want to.
Choose not to answer if you'd like.
It is certainly your prerogative.
But you seem to be under the mistaken impression that the TCs in isolation were the problem. They weren't.
Perhaps you could refresh you memory with regard to the monument, its design and symbolism, and discussions about both prior to the judicial order for removal. Might help you understand the difference between the Alabama monument and the one in OK.
Posted on 1/9/14 at 2:10 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Now you can duck, bob, and weave all you want to.
Using the judge's own words to substantiate why the TC were removed = "duck, bob, and weave". You can't make this stuff up.
Posted on 1/9/14 at 2:23 pm to TideCPA
quote:
Yeah, not killing people and not stealing shite are really groundbreaking ideas unique to Christianity.
Remove God and we have no basis to say "murder and stealing are wrong"
Posted on 1/9/14 at 2:46 pm to CJM18
quote:
Some beliefs do need to be favored over others. This anything goes, relative morality is a terrible, terrible path to take.
Please do some research on why secularist or non religious people still have morality, if not more, than religious people. You, implying that religion is necessary to have morality is completely erroneous. "Erroneous, erroneous on all accounts!"
Posted on 1/9/14 at 2:48 pm to CJM18
quote:
Remove God and we have no basis to say "murder and stealing are wrong"
That's patently false, as man had established laws against murder and stealing long before Moses even existed.
Page 26 of 27
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News