(01-08-2014 03:15 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 02:57 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 02:54 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 02:46 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 02:45 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Wanna bet?

Never give up your battle against people who want to remove accountability. IE progressives. Never, dude.

I don't like it anymore than you do man. Still, I'd take that bet.

If we want the dominant religion to be allowed to have a place then this isn't the way to go about it.

If your religion needs to be propped up by the state, it must not have much to offer.

That's not a very factual comment. A Ten Commandments display is not propping up a religion.

I interpreted Heart's comment to be that if Christians want Christianity accepted in the public square, then forcing it through legal battles isn't the way to go about it.

My comment was intended to agree with the sentiment, with the addition that if that force is required, then people are not accepting it in the first place. Of course, if I misunderstood Heart's original comment, then my response would seem out of the blue.

My feelings are that it should be no problem for the State to merely reflect the religious makeup and reality of the people. That's not the same thing as forcing anything on society.

(01-08-2014 03:27 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:15 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 02:57 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 02:54 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 02:46 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't like it anymore than you do man. Still, I'd take that bet.

If we want the dominant religion to be allowed to have a place then this isn't the way to go about it.

If your religion needs to be propped up by the state, it must not have much to offer.

That's not a very factual comment. A Ten Commandments display is not propping up a religion.

I interpreted Heart's comment to be that if Christians want Christianity accepted in the public square, then forcing it through legal battles isn't the way to go about it.

My comment was intended to agree with the sentiment, with the addition that if that force is required, then people are not accepting it in the first place. Of course, if I misunderstood Heart's original comment, then my response would seem out of the blue.

I can get on board with that. However, I think the only entity forcing anything is the courts adhering to the minority.

Luckily, we don't live in a country that enforces whatever the majority wants.

(01-08-2014 03:33 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:27 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:15 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 02:57 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 02:54 PM)Hitch Wrote:  If your religion needs to be propped up by the state, it must not have much to offer.

That's not a very factual comment. A Ten Commandments display is not propping up a religion.

I interpreted Heart's comment to be that if Christians want Christianity accepted in the public square, then forcing it through legal battles isn't the way to go about it.

My comment was intended to agree with the sentiment, with the addition that if that force is required, then people are not accepting it in the first place. Of course, if I misunderstood Heart's original comment, then my response would seem out of the blue.

I can get on board with that. However, I think the only entity forcing anything is the courts adhering to the minority.

Luckily, we don't live in a country that enforces whatever the majority wants.

Think about the absurdity of your comment. Then try again.

(01-08-2014 03:34 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:33 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:27 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:15 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 02:57 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  That's not a very factual comment. A Ten Commandments display is not propping up a religion.

I interpreted Heart's comment to be that if Christians want Christianity accepted in the public square, then forcing it through legal battles isn't the way to go about it.

My comment was intended to agree with the sentiment, with the addition that if that force is required, then people are not accepting it in the first place. Of course, if I misunderstood Heart's original comment, then my response would seem out of the blue.

I can get on board with that. However, I think the only entity forcing anything is the courts adhering to the minority.

Luckily, we don't live in a country that enforces whatever the majority wants.

Think about the absurdity of your comment. Then try again.

We don't live in a direct democracy. We have a bill of rights. The courts can overrule the voters. This is intentional.

(01-08-2014 03:32 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:15 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 02:57 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 02:54 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 02:46 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't like it anymore than you do man. Still, I'd take that bet.

If we want the dominant religion to be allowed to have a place then this isn't the way to go about it.

If your religion needs to be propped up by the state, it must not have much to offer.

That's not a very factual comment. A Ten Commandments display is not propping up a religion.

I interpreted Heart's comment to be that if Christians want Christianity accepted in the public square, then forcing it through legal battles isn't the way to go about it.

My comment was intended to agree with the sentiment, with the addition that if that force is required, then people are not accepting it in the first place. Of course, if I misunderstood Heart's original comment, then my response would seem out of the blue.

My feelings are that it should be no problem for the State to merely reflect the religious makeup and reality of the people. That's not the same thing as forcing anything on society.

I agree. What we have now are courts who force the views of the minority on to society.

Something needs to change.

(01-08-2014 03:36 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:34 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:33 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:27 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:15 PM)Hitch Wrote:  I interpreted Heart's comment to be that if Christians want Christianity accepted in the public square, then forcing it through legal battles isn't the way to go about it.

My comment was intended to agree with the sentiment, with the addition that if that force is required, then people are not accepting it in the first place. Of course, if I misunderstood Heart's original comment, then my response would seem out of the blue.

I can get on board with that. However, I think the only entity forcing anything is the courts adhering to the minority.

Luckily, we don't live in a country that enforces whatever the majority wants.

Think about the absurdity of your comment. Then try again.

We don't live in a direct democracy. The courts can overrule the voters. This is intentional.

I understand that, but they are unfairly protecting the minority. There will need to be provisions or changes made to our Constitution. Thankfully, this monument was thought out better than the one in Alabama.

(01-08-2014 03:39 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:36 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:34 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:33 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:27 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  I can get on board with that. However, I think the only entity forcing anything is the courts adhering to the minority.

Luckily, we don't live in a country that enforces whatever the majority wants.

Think about the absurdity of your comment. Then try again.

We don't live in a direct democracy. The courts can overrule the voters. This is intentional.

I understand that, but they are unfairly protecting the minority. There will need to be provisions or changes made to our Constitution. Thankfully, this monument was thought out better than the one in Alabama.

Roy Moore was being a ******* and serving his own lunatic agenda.

(01-08-2014 03:39 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:36 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:34 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:33 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:27 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  I can get on board with that. However, I think the only entity forcing anything is the courts adhering to the minority.

Luckily, we don't live in a country that enforces whatever the majority wants.

Think about the absurdity of your comment. Then try again.

We don't live in a direct democracy. The courts can overrule the voters. This is intentional.

I understand that, but they are unfairly protecting the minority. There will need to be provisions or changes made to our Constitution. Thankfully, this monument was thought out better than the one in Alabama.

Tyranny of the majority was one thing that the founding fathers wanted to protect us from. We can't f*ck around with that.

(01-08-2014 03:41 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:39 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:36 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:34 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:33 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Luckily, we don't live in a country that enforces whatever the majority wants.

Think about the absurdity of your comment. Then try again.

We don't live in a direct democracy. The courts can overrule the voters. This is intentional.

I understand that, but they are unfairly protecting the minority. There will need to be provisions or changes made to our Constitution. Thankfully, this monument was thought out better than the one in Alabama.

Tyranny of the majority was one thing that the founding fathers wanted to protect us from. We can't f*ck around with that.

Changes are imminent. Right now we are living under the tyranny of the courts. The courts are being abused by a minority that is hiding behind our Constitution to push an agenda. You cannot expect that to ultimately last.

(01-08-2014 03:41 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:39 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:36 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:34 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:33 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Luckily, we don't live in a country that enforces whatever the majority wants.

Think about the absurdity of your comment. Then try again.

We don't live in a direct democracy. The courts can overrule the voters. This is intentional.

I understand that, but they are unfairly protecting the minority. There will need to be provisions or changes made to our Constitution. Thankfully, this monument was thought out better than the one in Alabama.

Roy Moore was being a ******* and serving his own lunatic agenda.

Which the exact same thing going on in Oklahoma. Not one bit of difference here. Except in Oklahoma, they put it up on the State Capitol Grounds, not in the lobby of the Supreme Court building.

(01-08-2014 03:45 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:41 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:39 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:36 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:34 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Think about the absurdity of your comment. Then try again.

We don't live in a direct democracy. The courts can overrule the voters. This is intentional.

I understand that, but they are unfairly protecting the minority. There will need to be provisions or changes made to our Constitution. Thankfully, this monument was thought out better than the one in Alabama.

Tyranny of the majority was one thing that the founding fathers wanted to protect us from. We can't f*ck around with that.

Changes are imminent. Right now we are living under the tyranny of the courts. The courts are being abused by a minority that is hiding behind our Constitution to push an agenda. You cannot expect that to ultimately last.

Uh hu.

(01-08-2014 03:36 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  What we have now are courts who force the views of the minority on to society.

Do you have an example where the court forced society to change its view to that of the minority?

(01-08-2014 03:56 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:36 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  What we have now are courts who force the views of the minority on to society.

Example?

What OLD says is "forcing the views of the minority", I'd call "protecting the rights of the minority".

Brown v Board of Education
Loving v Virginia
Lawrence v Texas

are all examples of a court ruling that those living in the minority cannot be arbitrarily subjected to the whims of the majority without a compelling reason.

Democracy falls apart without minority rights. It was the secret sauce of the US Constitution. It prevents Mob rule.

(01-08-2014 03:00 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  So nobody can answer my question about what religion the Ten Commandments establish or even represent?

Assuming you are seriously inquisitive, the 10 commandments were a decalogue of moral laws supposedly transcended by Yahweh to Moses after he freed the slaves of Israel from the rule of the Egyptian Pharoah Ramses.

It is a defining point of all Abrahamic religions, which include Islam, Judaism, and Christianity and thusly, all their denominations.

Off the record, I think it is a poor set of moral ethics to live by, as all the commandments are either evidence of a jealous god, common sense, or lacking.

For example, Commandments 1 through 4 deal not with criminal law, but rather ' "Don't make me angry" - God', whereas the other commandments boil down to "respect your elders and betters", "don't kill" (a commandment broken many times in the bible, before during and after their issuance), and don't lust.

Where it is lacking is in other much needed laws of the time: respect thy neighbors unequivocally, don't rape (one could argue this could also be under the "lust" commandment, but at the time rape was considered property law, refer to deuteronomy), be charitable... so on and so forth.

Also, the constitution wasn't developed to protect the rights of the majority, because the majority do not need protecting.

A tongue-in-cheek analogy would be the high school bully representing the majority, and the geeky nerdy dweeb being the minority. Punishing the nerd for not being like the bully is asinine.

(01-08-2014 03:56 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:36 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  What we have now are courts who force the views of the minority on to society.

Do you have an example where the court forced society to change its view to that of the minority?

yes, the Ten Commandments monument in Oklahoma(pending appeal)

The cross in San Diego.

Gay Marriage in California and Utah...

Shall I go on?

(01-08-2014 04:39 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Also, the constitution wasn't developed to protect the rights of the majority, because the majority do not need protecting.

A tongue-in-cheek analogy would be the high school bully representing the majority, and the geeky nerdy dweeb being the minority. Punishing the nerd for not being like the bully is asinine.

Are we really going to equate a Ten Commandment monument to being bullied?

It's ridiculous analogies like this that have got us to this point of tyranny from the courts.

You do know that these are the issues that inevitably lead to such things as North and South Korea and the Berlin Wall?

(01-08-2014 04:39 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:56 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:36 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  What we have now are courts who force the views of the minority on to society.

Do you have an example where the court forced society to change its view to that of the minority?

yes, the Ten Commandments monument in Oklahoma(pending appeal)

The cross in San Diego.

Gay Marriage in California and Utah...

Shall I go on?

I wasn't aware that there were forced gay marriages in california and utah.

Seriously though, are there examples where people were forced to actually adhere to or alter their own beliefs and actions to mirror those of the minority group?

(01-08-2014 04:41 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 04:39 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Also, the constitution wasn't developed to protect the rights of the majority, because the majority do not need protecting.

A tongue-in-cheek analogy would be the high school bully representing the majority, and the geeky nerdy dweeb being the minority. Punishing the nerd for not being like the bully is asinine.

Are we really going to equate a Ten Commandment monument to being bullied?

It's ridiculous analogies like this that have got us to this point of tyranny from the courts.

You do know that these are the issues that inevitably lead to such things as North and South Korea and the Berlin Wall?

Like, literally communism brah.

(01-08-2014 04:34 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 03:00 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  So nobody can answer my question about what religion the Ten Commandments establish or even represent?

Assuming you are seriously inquisitive, the 10 commandments were a decalogue of moral laws supposedly transcended by Yahweh to Moses after he freed the slaves of Israel from the rule of the Egyptian Pharoah Ramses.

It is a defining point of all Abrahamic religions, which include Islam, Judaism, and Christianity and thusly, all their denominations.

Off the record, I think it is a poor set of moral ethics to live by, as all the commandments are either evidence of a jealous god, common sense, or lacking.

For example, Commandments 1 through 4 deal not with criminal law, but rather ' "Don't make me angry" - God', whereas the other commandments boil down to "respect your elders and betters", "don't kill" (a commandment broken many times in the bible, before during and after their issuance), and don't lust.

Where it is lacking is in other much needed laws of the time: respect thy neighbors unequivocally, don't rape (one could argue this could also be under the "lust" commandment, but at the time rape was considered property law, refer to deuteronomy), be charitable... so on and so forth.

Their use is far deeper than that as a symbol of legal history. They are the cornerstone of natural law theory, one of the dominant theories of jurisprudence. So, most of what you just said is beside the point.