- 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: University of Arkansas hanging posters of the Ten Commandments around campus
Posted on 10/31/25 at 8:30 am to FooManChoo
Posted on 10/31/25 at 8:30 am to FooManChoo
quote:
That wasn’t the understanding of the founders, though. The courts are wrong just like they were wrong about Roe.
Why don't you opine on your view of the establishment clause, I'd like to hear your argument about how the words don't mean, what those specific words mean of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion". By the way this clause has been applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine
1
Posted on 10/31/25 at 8:45 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:It's not.
It is not a question of whether anyone’s “freedom is being violated.“
It is a question of whether government is engaging in an activity which is specifically prohibited to it by the Constitution.
The Constitution doesn't, in its text, prohibit the Government from being involved in religion in any form. The founders didn't understand it to be strictly secular in terms of application, and this is evidenced by the calls to days of prayer by early congress and Presidents.
What the Constitution was written to do was to prevent the US from proclaiming itself to be a Christian nation in its official alignment over and against other religions, and to prevent the government from forcing anyone to adhere to any state religion or worship in any particular way (or at all). This was in response to the Church of England's (and other nations at the time) having state-sponsored religion that led to persecution for those who didn't believe as the state believed.
Again, what the Constitution was not doing was barring any mention of God from the public space. Even the courthouse for the Supreme Court has a carving that includes Moses holding the 10 commandments, and that was built in the 1900's, not 1700's or 1800's before we became more enlightened (
). Posted on 10/31/25 at 8:49 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:So you say
That’s how much of the biblical texts have been compiled. Multiple traditions and multiple short stories all woven together by later editors and redactors.
Jesus is God and He attributed the pentatuch to Moses.
You assume "difficulties" in the text are evidence of multiple authors and editors. Perhaps those aren't really difficulties at all, but part of a unified and true narrative given by God. In fact, they are.
I could go through every alleged contradiction and show how it isn't what you think it is, but that would be a waste of my time, as you don't actually care.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 9:00 am to thejuiceisloose
quote:From the debates about it and other writings from the time, it is clear to me that the establishment cause was written to prevent the federal government from establishing a state religion (like the Church of England). Even state representatives who favored the clause didn't think it would affect their state charters, which included an establishment of religion.
Why don't you opine on your view of the establishment clause, I'd like to hear your argument about how the words don't mean, what those specific words mean of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion".
The first congress established chaplains and promoted days of prayer and fasting, as did later Congresses and Presidents.
This view of the establishment clause as being a hammer to smack down religion in the public square runs contrary to how the early nation acted.
The Bible was part of the curriculum in public schools throughout the 1800's, with several states requiring the Bible to be read in schools until the 1900's.
This idea that the 1st amendment has always meant that the government doesn't touch religion at all is just not historical.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 9:11 am to FooManChoo
quote:Your historical understanding is badly flawed.
What the Constitution was written to do was to prevent the US from proclaiming itself to be a Christian nation in its official alignment over and against other religions, and to prevent the government from forcing anyone to adhere to any state religion or worship in any particular way (or at all). This was in response to the Church of England's (and other nations at the time) having state-sponsored religion that led to persecution for those who didn't believe as the state believed.
As originally written, the First Amendment was written to prevent the FEDERAL government from establishing an official FEDERAL religion, because several of the constituent states DID have official religions (all of which were Christian sects) and did not want the central government to enact an official FEDERAL religion different from their official State religion.
The (ahistorical) Incorporation Doctrine has changed things somewhat.
This post was edited on 10/31/25 at 9:30 am
Posted on 10/31/25 at 9:32 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:I'm quite aware of that, and yet that didn't mean the federal government did not create a congressional chaplaincy or call for national days of prayer and fasting.
As originally written, the First Amendment was written to prevent the FEDERAL government from establishing an official FEDERAL religion, because several of the constituent states DID have official religions (all of which were Christian sects) and did not want the central government to enact an official FEDERAL religion different from their official State religion.
Again, there is a difference between establishing an official state religion--forcing citizens to adhere to one particular belief system--and allowing religion in the public space.
It seems that many think that the founders thought that even at the federal level, that there should be no mention of God, the 10 commandments, or anything religious at all. That just isn't what happened or what was expected.
It wasn't until relatively recently that the focus went from protecting religion from the state to protecting the state from religion.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 9:50 am to imjustafatkid
quote:This is very true. He claims to only listen to neutral or unbiased sources, as if anyone is actually neutral. Everyone has a worldview--accepted biases and beliefs that inform how we interpret reality, and no one is completely neutral.
he only listens to "scholarship" biased against Christianity. He doesn't even realize that admission outed him as a clown.
Squirrelmeister dismisses the supernatural outright, since he is a materialist. That means that the biblical narrative cannot be true because it proclaims things as truth that he doesn't believe can possibly be true.
He rejects the possibility that God is the ultimate author of the Bible, using human instruments, and has preserved His infallible word throughout the millennia. He rejects the possibility that Jesus rose from the dead, or Moses actually spoke with God. He rejects so much of the Bible from the get-go, so of course he isn't going to interpret the Bible like a Christian would.
He's going to give weight and prominence to non-biblical sources and go with interpretations that defy common sense and grammatical credulity as long as it results in an attack against the word of God.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 9:50 am to FooManChoo
quote:Again, your understanding of “state religion“ is flawed. State religions come in many flavors, ranging from an absolute prohibition against other religions, all the way down to simply favoring one religion over another. The first amendment prohibits all of them.
there is a difference between establishing an official state religion--forcing citizens to adhere to one particular belief system--and allowing religion in the public space.
You are correct in stating that the First Amendment does not bar “religion in the public space.“ It simply prohibits government from participating, by weighing the scales in favor of one religion.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 10:04 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Jesus is God and He attributed the pentatuch to Moses.
Both non-existent, non-historical, mythical figures.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 10:25 am to FooManChoo
quote:
This is very true. He claims to only listen to neutral or unbiased sources, as if anyone is actually neutral. Everyone has a worldview--accepted biases and beliefs that inform how we interpret reality, and no one is completely neutral.
You said it correctly. He "claims" to only listen to neutral or unbiased sources.
This is only a claim, because he clearly embraces biased sources by rejecting any who land on a Christian worldview or interpretation as "biased."
Posted on 10/31/25 at 10:33 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:I'm oversimplifying, yes, but the nuance doesn't matter to the discussion from what I'm arguing.
Again, your understanding of “state religion“ is flawed. State religions come in many flavors, ranging from an absolute prohibition against other religions, all the way down to simply favoring one religion over another. The first amendment prohibits all of them.
The context of the first amendment was a war for independence from a nation with a state (national, in this case) religion, mandated by the King. The founders didn't want to mandate any citizen adhere to any particular religion at the federal level.
How this was lived out in practice was very different from what many are calling for today: the complete absence of religious language or recognition/acknowledgement of any kind in the public square.
quote:Again, that wasn't the practice in the 1700's, 1800's, and early 1900's. From Congress to the President to the Courts of the US, a Christian/Biblical worldview was promulgated and referenced, from SCOTUS justices referencing the important role of Christianity in the legal system to calls for fasting and prayer by Congress and Presidents, and individual state charters remained partial to one religion over others (not thinking the 1st amendment had bearing on them). In that context, it was more about the warring factions of Christianity not getting a preference over another, rather than the absolute expulsion of all religious language or reference by the federal government.
You are correct in stating that the First Amendment does not bar “religion in the public space.“ It simply prohibits government from participating, by weighing the scales in favor of one religion.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 1:31 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
He claims to only listen to neutral or unbiased sources, as if anyone is actually neutral.
Not true. I’ve told you on here I do read and like the late Dr. Michael Heiser, who identified as Christian. Im sure you hate him but I really enjoyed his works.
quote:
Squirrelmeister dismisses the supernatural outright, since he is a materialist.
Well if I ever come across convincing evidence, I could potentially be convinced. I am capable of analyzing a circumstance and evidence and my opinion of the truthfulness of a matter can be changed. Your opinions cannot change because you have decided to impose a dogma you have learned or inherited. You are the definition of close-minded.
quote:
That means that the biblical narrative cannot be true because it proclaims things as truth that he doesn't believe can possibly be true.
Not quite. “it” doesn’t proclaim anything. That’s you. It is just a collection of texts. You and your dogma proclaim your beliefs and impose them onto the Bible. You control what the Bible “says”, when it actuality it “says” nothing because it’s an inanimate object. At any rate, most of what is in the biblical accounts not only cannot possibly be true, but we have overwhelming evidence that most of the biblical stories are non-historical, like the flood, like the Tower of Babel, like both contradictory creation accounts in Genesis, etc.
quote:
He rejects the possibility that God is the ultimate author of the Bible, using human instruments, and has preserved His infallible word
Ok buddy, did “Jesus” tell his followers to take a staff, or to not take a staff?
quote:
He rejects the possibility that Jesus rose from the dead, or Moses actually spoke with God.
Well kind of know there aren’t 7 firmaments of heaven and a sky ocean and that Christians were worshipping a mythical Jesus before the human Jesus was even supposed to be born. Good ole Philo, whom you hate, even identified the Logos being named “Jesus” before Jesus of Nazareth.
quote:
He's going to give weight and prominence to non-biblical sources
It’s sad that you can’t understand that there were different sects of Jews and Christians throughout the years just like we have Catholics, Baptists, and Calvinists today. Each sect had different scriptures and there was not yet any unifying authority to set Jewish canons or Christian canons (canons plural, such as the Marcionite canon - the first Christian canon, such as the Catholic canon, such as the Ethiopic canon) until centuries into the common era.
Open your eyes and start using some of those brain cells. You aren’t stupid, in fact you may use your intelligence to trick yourself into a false reality. There are some really intelligent Christian scholars and apologists- smart enough to trick their own brain and override their inherent logical thinking capacity. Almost like hypnosis. It’s because what they claim to believe - they desperately want it to be true.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 3:58 pm to wackatimesthree
Thought it was about fresh ingredients?
Posted on 11/1/25 at 11:16 am to Azkiger
quote:
Thought it was about fresh ingredients?
I don't know anything about that, nor did I say anything of the sort.
EDIT: Oh, I see, you're just being an a-hole calling the offering "ingredients."
Look, I understand that you are just trolling at this point because you've been revealed to be an idiot on this issue (it's what you atheists always do when you get your arse handed to you, which is anytime you converse about the Bible with someone who halfway knows it) but sure, I'll go one more time.
Yes, idioms are usually derived from something, but they are not about the thing they were derived from. For example, when we say "I'll break the ice," or "Here's an ice-breaker," we're not literally referring to the ancient maritime practice of sending certain ships ahead whose job it was to break up ice so that other ships following behind could get through, although that is where that idiom comes from and although it is derived from an actual historical practice.
When we say, "Don't rest on your laurels," we're not literally referring to the ancient Greek/Roman Pythian Games champions receiving a crown made of laurel branches, although that's where the idiom comes from and although it is derived from an actual historical practice.
And when they said, "Don't boil a goat in it's mother's milk," they weren't literally commanding Israelites to not take a young goat and cook it in it's mother's milk, even though that's where the idiom comes from and even though it is derived from an actual historical practice.
A third grader with two working brain cells can figure this out. It's not hard.
This post was edited on 11/1/25 at 11:27 am
Posted on 11/1/25 at 11:25 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
I don't know anything about that, nor did I say anything of the sort.
Stop being a frickwit.
"It's a Hebrew idiom that basically means, "Don't take some of last year's produce and mix it in with this year's (fresher) produce as an offering."
Don't shortchange your offering by putting some old produce on the bottom and covering it up with fresh, better quality produce, in other words. Which makes perfect sense."
Posted on 11/1/25 at 11:27 am to Azkiger
quote:
Stop being a frickwit.
"It's a Hebrew idiom that basically means, "Don't take some of last year's produce and mix it in with this year's (fresher) produce as an offering."
Don't shortchange your offering by putting some old produce on the bottom and covering it up with fresh, better quality produce, in other words. Which makes perfect sense."
I edited the reply, a-hole. Before you posted this.
Posted on 11/1/25 at 11:28 am to Azkiger
quote:
Stop being a frickwit.
One of is doing that, for sure.
But it's not me.
Posted on 11/1/25 at 11:36 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
I edited the reply, a-hole. Before you posted this.
No use conversing with someone who thinks an edited post made at 11:27 came before a post made at 11:25.
No wonder you're a theist.
Posted on 11/1/25 at 11:47 am to evil cockroach
You know regardless of religious beliefs if everyone followed those 10 rules the world would be a much better place
Posted on 11/1/25 at 12:08 pm to deltaland
quote:Dependent upon version (there are three distinct set of Commandments in the text) and numbering system (they are not numbered in the text), 4-5 of the Commandments are ENTIRELY religious.
You know regardless of religious beliefs if everyone followed those 10 rules the world would be a much better place
As to the other 5-6, I agree with you.
Murder is generally considered to be a Bad Thing, regardless of your religion.
This post was edited on 11/1/25 at 2:43 pm
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News