(01-08-2014 04:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(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.

Yes the last bit was opinion, that's why I preceded with off-the-record.

As for the cornerstone in legal history, I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. Are they valued? Certainly, but I think Hamurrabi's Code, and the democratic merits derived from Grecian Philosophy are far more instrumental in terms of legal founding.

(01-08-2014 05:01 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 04:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(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.

Yes the last bit was opinion, that's why I preceded with off-the-record.

As for the cornerstone in legal history, I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. Are they valued? Certainly, but I think Hamurrabi's Code, and the democratic merits derived from Grecian Philosophy are far more instrumental in terms of legal founding.

I never said that.

The Ten Commandments are a basis for NATURAL LAW theory which is a line of jurisprudence.

(01-08-2014 05:03 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:01 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 04:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(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.

Yes the last bit was opinion, that's why I preceded with off-the-record.

As for the cornerstone in legal history, I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. Are they valued? Certainly, but I think Hamurrabi's Code, and the democratic merits derived from Grecian Philosophy are far more instrumental in terms of legal founding.

I never said that.

The Ten Commandments are a basis for NATURAL LAW theory which is a line of jurisprudence.

I'm not sure I can agree with you there. I can see a scenario where they are regarded with high esteem in so-called natural law theory, but what does it solve in practice? They aren't human laws, they are abrahamic moral guidelines. They don't dispense or even define penalty for breaking these commandments, or to what scale these commandments can be broken.

I reiterate, I understand their importance, but they simply are not laws, at least not as we know them today.

(01-08-2014 05:08 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:03 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:01 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 04:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 04:34 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  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.

Yes the last bit was opinion, that's why I preceded with off-the-record.

As for the cornerstone in legal history, I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. Are they valued? Certainly, but I think Hamurrabi's Code, and the democratic merits derived from Grecian Philosophy are far more instrumental in terms of legal founding.

I never said that.

The Ten Commandments are a basis for NATURAL LAW theory which is a line of jurisprudence.

I'm not sure I can agree with you there. I can see a scenario where they are regarded with high esteem in so-called natural law theory, but what does it solve in practice? They aren't human laws, they are abrahamic moral guidelines. They don't dispense or even define penalty for breaking these commandments, or to what scale these commandments can be broken.

I reiterate, I understand their importance, but they simply are not laws, at least not as we know them today.

Natural law theory is one of the most important jurisprudential schools in the development of Common law. The Ten Commandments are seen as the symbol of that theory because they are in line with the idea that law is naturally good and focused on the ethicalness, or goodness of it. They are also a bedrock of the earlier theorists who really concentrated that line of thinking, Thomas Aquinas to name one.

Its symbolism so your take on the actual Ten Commandments is entirely missing the forest for the trees.

The Ten Commandments are, even more so than Hummarabi's code, or any other well known jurisprudential symbol, the symbol of our legal theory at its core.

There isn't really anything to agree or disagree with, perhaps with the extent to which natural law theory is dominant in American jurisprudence, but the rest is just fact.

(01-08-2014 05:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:08 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:03 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:01 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 04:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  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.

Yes the last bit was opinion, that's why I preceded with off-the-record.

As for the cornerstone in legal history, I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. Are they valued? Certainly, but I think Hamurrabi's Code, and the democratic merits derived from Grecian Philosophy are far more instrumental in terms of legal founding.

I never said that.

The Ten Commandments are a basis for NATURAL LAW theory which is a line of jurisprudence.

I'm not sure I can agree with you there. I can see a scenario where they are regarded with high esteem in so-called natural law theory, but what does it solve in practice? They aren't human laws, they are abrahamic moral guidelines. They don't dispense or even define penalty for breaking these commandments, or to what scale these commandments can be broken.

I reiterate, I understand their importance, but they simply are not laws, at least not as we know them today.

Natural law theory is one of the most important jurisprudential schools in the development of Common law. The Ten Commandments are seen as the symbol of that theory because they are in line with the idea that law is naturally good and focused on the ethicalness, or goodness of it. They are also a bedrock of the earlier theorists who really concentrated that line of thinking, Thomas Aquinas to name one.

Its symbolism so your take on the actual Ten Commandments is entirely missing the forest for the trees.

The Ten Commandments are, even more so than Hummarabi's code, or any other well known jurisprudential symbol, the symbol of our legal theory at its core.

There isn't really anything to agree or disagree with, perhaps with the extent to which natural law theory is dominant in American jurisprudence, but the rest is just fact.

Bear with me a second (law isn't what I'm trained in) while I try to place this in a scenario I can understand more readily.

Remember in beginning science courses, they always mention alchemy in the Medieval eras, and how it relates to today's scientific method? (even going so far as to expound upon Isaac Newton's dealings in Alchemy) Knowing full well that Alchemy is in no way relevant to today, but still respected for it's purpose in developing the scientific method (through elemental study), is this similar to the situation with the 10 commandments and modern legal theory?

(01-08-2014 05:21 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:08 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:03 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:01 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Yes the last bit was opinion, that's why I preceded with off-the-record.

As for the cornerstone in legal history, I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. Are they valued? Certainly, but I think Hamurrabi's Code, and the democratic merits derived from Grecian Philosophy are far more instrumental in terms of legal founding.

I never said that.

The Ten Commandments are a basis for NATURAL LAW theory which is a line of jurisprudence.

I'm not sure I can agree with you there. I can see a scenario where they are regarded with high esteem in so-called natural law theory, but what does it solve in practice? They aren't human laws, they are abrahamic moral guidelines. They don't dispense or even define penalty for breaking these commandments, or to what scale these commandments can be broken.

I reiterate, I understand their importance, but they simply are not laws, at least not as we know them today.

Natural law theory is one of the most important jurisprudential schools in the development of Common law. The Ten Commandments are seen as the symbol of that theory because they are in line with the idea that law is naturally good and focused on the ethicalness, or goodness of it. They are also a bedrock of the earlier theorists who really concentrated that line of thinking, Thomas Aquinas to name one.

Its symbolism so your take on the actual Ten Commandments is entirely missing the forest for the trees.

The Ten Commandments are, even more so than Hummarabi's code, or any other well known jurisprudential symbol, the symbol of our legal theory at its core.

There isn't really anything to agree or disagree with, perhaps with the extent to which natural law theory is dominant in American jurisprudence, but the rest is just fact.

Bear with me a second (law isn't what I'm trained in) while I try to place this in a scenario I can understand more readily.

Remember in beginning science courses, they always mention alchemy in the Medieval eras, and how it relates to today's scientific method? (even going so far as to expound upon Isaac Newton's dealings in Alchemy) Knowing full well that Alchemy is in no way relevant to today, but still respected for it's purpose in developing the scientific method (through elemental study), is this similar to the situation with the 10 commandments and modern legal theory?

Yes. I think that's a great analogy.

Hammurabi's code, the Ten Commandments, various stele, Roman Civil law, Lady Justice, etc, are all used as symbols for various jurisprudential schools.

Some are more applicable than others. Contrary to popular belief the thought process behind the Code and Civil law have very little relevance in the US.

On the other hand, the Ten Commandments, or natural law theory to be more precise, forms the cornerstone of our Common law system. They are on the same branch so to speak. So, when you see the Ten Commandments on the SCOTUS building it isn't the actual commandments themselves being glorified but the line of thinking they gave rise to. Religion and law are so closely bound it's almost silly.

Now, I'm not saying this Oklahoma, or the Alabama one, were put forward as that kind of symbols. I'm definitely not saying that. I'm just saying that in context the commandments are not merely religious symbols and that they have a much more immediate message as well as a symbolic and historical one.

Sorry if I came off as rude; I didn't mean to be.

Correction: Not the SCOTUS but on state Supreme Courts. The 10 Commandments aren't on the SCOTUS building. Moses is.

(01-08-2014 05:30 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:21 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:08 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:03 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I never said that.

The Ten Commandments are a basis for NATURAL LAW theory which is a line of jurisprudence.

I'm not sure I can agree with you there. I can see a scenario where they are regarded with high esteem in so-called natural law theory, but what does it solve in practice? They aren't human laws, they are abrahamic moral guidelines. They don't dispense or even define penalty for breaking these commandments, or to what scale these commandments can be broken.

I reiterate, I understand their importance, but they simply are not laws, at least not as we know them today.

Natural law theory is one of the most important jurisprudential schools in the development of Common law. The Ten Commandments are seen as the symbol of that theory because they are in line with the idea that law is naturally good and focused on the ethicalness, or goodness of it. They are also a bedrock of the earlier theorists who really concentrated that line of thinking, Thomas Aquinas to name one.

Its symbolism so your take on the actual Ten Commandments is entirely missing the forest for the trees.

The Ten Commandments are, even more so than Hummarabi's code, or any other well known jurisprudential symbol, the symbol of our legal theory at its core.

There isn't really anything to agree or disagree with, perhaps with the extent to which natural law theory is dominant in American jurisprudence, but the rest is just fact.

Bear with me a second (law isn't what I'm trained in) while I try to place this in a scenario I can understand more readily.

Remember in beginning science courses, they always mention alchemy in the Medieval eras, and how it relates to today's scientific method? (even going so far as to expound upon Isaac Newton's dealings in Alchemy) Knowing full well that Alchemy is in no way relevant to today, but still respected for it's purpose in developing the scientific method (through elemental study), is this similar to the situation with the 10 commandments and modern legal theory?

Yes. I think that's a great analogy.

Hammurabi's code, the Ten Commandments, various stele, Roman Civil law, Lady Justice, etc, are all used as symbols for various jurisprudential schools.

Some are more applicable than others. Contrary to popular belief the thought process behind the Code and Civil law have very little relevance in the US.

On the other hand, the Ten Commandments, or natural law theory to be more precise, forms the cornerstone of our Common law system. They are on the same branch so to speak. So, when you see the Ten Commandments on the SCOTUS building it isn't the actual commandments themselves being glorified but the line of thinking they gave rise to. Religion and law are so closely bound it's almost silly.

Now, I'm not saying this Oklahoma, or the Alabama one, were put forward as that kind of symbols. I'm definitely not saying that. I'm just saying that in context the commandments are not merely religious symbols and that they have a much more immediate message as well as a symbolic and historical one.

Sorry if I came off as rude; I didn't mean to be.

Ok thanks for the explanation.

And it's alright, i'm sure you wouldn't expect civil discourse in the spin room of all places lol.

I think if that is the case, the symbol vs. intention is a very important part if this goes to court. I think precedent in past cases would weigh heavily.

Makes me wonder what would happen to other uses of the "symbol" if the secular side won out, such as government monuments, our national motto, currency... etc.

(01-08-2014 05:35 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:30 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:21 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:08 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  I'm not sure I can agree with you there. I can see a scenario where they are regarded with high esteem in so-called natural law theory, but what does it solve in practice? They aren't human laws, they are abrahamic moral guidelines. They don't dispense or even define penalty for breaking these commandments, or to what scale these commandments can be broken.

I reiterate, I understand their importance, but they simply are not laws, at least not as we know them today.

Natural law theory is one of the most important jurisprudential schools in the development of Common law. The Ten Commandments are seen as the symbol of that theory because they are in line with the idea that law is naturally good and focused on the ethicalness, or goodness of it. They are also a bedrock of the earlier theorists who really concentrated that line of thinking, Thomas Aquinas to name one.

Its symbolism so your take on the actual Ten Commandments is entirely missing the forest for the trees.

The Ten Commandments are, even more so than Hummarabi's code, or any other well known jurisprudential symbol, the symbol of our legal theory at its core.

There isn't really anything to agree or disagree with, perhaps with the extent to which natural law theory is dominant in American jurisprudence, but the rest is just fact.

Bear with me a second (law isn't what I'm trained in) while I try to place this in a scenario I can understand more readily.

Remember in beginning science courses, they always mention alchemy in the Medieval eras, and how it relates to today's scientific method? (even going so far as to expound upon Isaac Newton's dealings in Alchemy) Knowing full well that Alchemy is in no way relevant to today, but still respected for it's purpose in developing the scientific method (through elemental study), is this similar to the situation with the 10 commandments and modern legal theory?

Yes. I think that's a great analogy.

Hammurabi's code, the Ten Commandments, various stele, Roman Civil law, Lady Justice, etc, are all used as symbols for various jurisprudential schools.

Some are more applicable than others. Contrary to popular belief the thought process behind the Code and Civil law have very little relevance in the US.

On the other hand, the Ten Commandments, or natural law theory to be more precise, forms the cornerstone of our Common law system. They are on the same branch so to speak. So, when you see the Ten Commandments on the SCOTUS building it isn't the actual commandments themselves being glorified but the line of thinking they gave rise to. Religion and law are so closely bound it's almost silly.

Now, I'm not saying this Oklahoma, or the Alabama one, were put forward as that kind of symbols. I'm definitely not saying that. I'm just saying that in context the commandments are not merely religious symbols and that they have a much more immediate message as well as a symbolic and historical one.

Sorry if I came off as rude; I didn't mean to be.

Ok thanks for the explanation.

And it's alright, i'm sure you wouldn't expect civil discourse in the spin room of all places lol.

I think if that is the case, the symbol vs. intention is a very important part if this goes to court. I think precedent in past cases would weigh heavily.

Makes me wonder what would happen to other uses of the "symbol" if the secular side won out, such as government monuments, our national motto, currency... etc.

This may get me tarred and fathered on here but I think we as a country have moved more towards the religious side, out of the original line, over the last 50-60 years and that a correction is fine. But, I think that a lot of those fighting any and all religious displays are equally as wrong in trying to eliminate religion from the public sphere, which is also, in my opinion, out of line.

That's why I talked about it being fine, in my opinion, for the government to reflect the religious reality of society, at a State and Federal level, in the manour that guarantees free expression, walked over by many on the left, and one that guarantees a level of inclusiveness and secularism on the other, often walked on my those on the right. It's a fine line that we have a system set up to protect.

I think people are just too into hard and fast rules which isn't the way our system is designed to work but that's another discussion.

Anyways, sorry again if I was rude.

(01-08-2014 04:47 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(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?

So you are saying people don't have a right to dictate what they deem acceptable in society, because that is what the court is saying. The court is also representing a minority.

Again, I will point to the fact that these are the issues that spit countries apart like Korea and Germany. At some point it doesn't matter that a court found it unconstitutional. Eventually people and states will stop laying down for the courts. The left has already done so on things like federal marijuana laws. It may make the minority feel good, but the divide is growing.

(01-08-2014 05:40 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:35 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:30 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:21 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Natural law theory is one of the most important jurisprudential schools in the development of Common law. The Ten Commandments are seen as the symbol of that theory because they are in line with the idea that law is naturally good and focused on the ethicalness, or goodness of it. They are also a bedrock of the earlier theorists who really concentrated that line of thinking, Thomas Aquinas to name one.

Its symbolism so your take on the actual Ten Commandments is entirely missing the forest for the trees.

The Ten Commandments are, even more so than Hummarabi's code, or any other well known jurisprudential symbol, the symbol of our legal theory at its core.

There isn't really anything to agree or disagree with, perhaps with the extent to which natural law theory is dominant in American jurisprudence, but the rest is just fact.

Bear with me a second (law isn't what I'm trained in) while I try to place this in a scenario I can understand more readily.

Remember in beginning science courses, they always mention alchemy in the Medieval eras, and how it relates to today's scientific method? (even going so far as to expound upon Isaac Newton's dealings in Alchemy) Knowing full well that Alchemy is in no way relevant to today, but still respected for it's purpose in developing the scientific method (through elemental study), is this similar to the situation with the 10 commandments and modern legal theory?

Yes. I think that's a great analogy.

Hammurabi's code, the Ten Commandments, various stele, Roman Civil law, Lady Justice, etc, are all used as symbols for various jurisprudential schools.

Some are more applicable than others. Contrary to popular belief the thought process behind the Code and Civil law have very little relevance in the US.

On the other hand, the Ten Commandments, or natural law theory to be more precise, forms the cornerstone of our Common law system. They are on the same branch so to speak. So, when you see the Ten Commandments on the SCOTUS building it isn't the actual commandments themselves being glorified but the line of thinking they gave rise to. Religion and law are so closely bound it's almost silly.

Now, I'm not saying this Oklahoma, or the Alabama one, were put forward as that kind of symbols. I'm definitely not saying that. I'm just saying that in context the commandments are not merely religious symbols and that they have a much more immediate message as well as a symbolic and historical one.

Sorry if I came off as rude; I didn't mean to be.

Ok thanks for the explanation.

And it's alright, i'm sure you wouldn't expect civil discourse in the spin room of all places lol.

I think if that is the case, the symbol vs. intention is a very important part if this goes to court. I think precedent in past cases would weigh heavily.

Makes me wonder what would happen to other uses of the "symbol" if the secular side won out, such as government monuments, our national motto, currency... etc.

This may get me tarred and fathered on here but I think we as a country have moved more towards the religious side, out of the original line, over the last 50-60 years and that a correction is fine. But, I think that a lot of those fighting any and all religious displays are equally as wrong in trying to eliminate religion from the public sphere, which is also, in my opinion, out of line.

That's why I talked about it being fine, in my opinion, for the government to reflect the religious reality of society, at a State and Federal level, in the manour that guarantees free expression, walked over by many on the left, and one that guarantees a level of inclusiveness and secularism on the other, often walked on my those on the right. It's a fine line that we have a system set up to protect.

I think people are just too into hard and fast rules which isn't the way our system is designed to work but that's another discussion.

Anyways, sorry again if I was rude.

I can agree with that sentiment. I really don't think unconventional motions like these would be happening or viewed nearly as importantly, if there wasn't such a large skew in the secular/nonsecular spectrum.

No one is hiding the fact that the motive behind the Satanic Temple of New York, is to press the law allowing a, for all intents and purposes, Christian monument allowed on public property. But would the intent really be there if it wasn't, to put it in laman's terms... such a big deal?

(01-08-2014 05:50 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 04:47 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(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?

So you are saying people don't have a right to dictate what they deem acceptable in society, because that is what the court is saying. The court is also representing a minority.

Again, I will point to the fact that these are the issues that spit countries apart like Korea and Germany. At some point it doesn't matter that a court found it unconstitutional. Eventually people and states will stop laying down for the courts. The left has already done so on things like federal marijuana laws. It may make the minority feel good, but the divide is growing.

It seemed to work pretty well during the civil rights movement. How any minorities would still be in the sh!t if what the majority wanted was all that matters? The founding fathers tried to incorporate balance of power into our system of government in many ways, and keeping mob rule in check was one way they did it.

This situation is pretty clear cut: the mob doesn't care if the establishment clause is violated.

(01-08-2014 06:25 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:50 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 04:47 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

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

(01-08-2014 03:56 PM)Hitch Wrote:  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?

So you are saying people don't have a right to dictate what they deem acceptable in society, because that is what the court is saying. The court is also representing a minority.

Again, I will point to the fact that these are the issues that spit countries apart like Korea and Germany. At some point it doesn't matter that a court found it unconstitutional. Eventually people and states will stop laying down for the courts. The left has already done so on things like federal marijuana laws. It may make the minority feel good, but the divide is growing.

It seemed to work pretty well during the civil rights movement. How any minorities would still be in the sh!t if what the majority wanted was all that matters? The founding fathers tried to incorporate balance of power into our system of government in many ways, and keeping mob rule in check was one way they did it.

This situation is pretty clear cut: the mob doesn't care if the establishment clause is violated.

This isn't a civil rights issue. Comparing it to such is a disgrace and a slap in the face to those who suffered through those times. It's also common with white liberals who are trying to get their agenda across.

This is a bunch of spoiled 20-something liberal, pretend atheists tying to tear down our foundation using a very dishonest approach. They want a society that lacks accountability because they are not accountable people.

This is the evil that sets in when people stop protecting the good. When people stop taking care of the body(our country) when people become complacent, when people start filling it with poison, the cancer begins to take shape. All the talk about protecting our Constitution and separation of Church and state is just is just rhetoric from those who are pushing the cancer. That doesn't make our country great...it makes it sick.

It's also the beginning of the fall. Unless people start fighting the evil, it will consume everything that our founders put in place.

You can laugh and you can give me lectures on Supreme Court cases, and you can sound off about the Constitution....but in the end, I am right and you know that - simply because it has historical precedence. It is the very thing that people like you want to happen.

(01-08-2014 07:12 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 06:25 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:50 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 04:47 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

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

So you are saying people don't have a right to dictate what they deem acceptable in society, because that is what the court is saying. The court is also representing a minority.

Again, I will point to the fact that these are the issues that spit countries apart like Korea and Germany. At some point it doesn't matter that a court found it unconstitutional. Eventually people and states will stop laying down for the courts. The left has already done so on things like federal marijuana laws. It may make the minority feel good, but the divide is growing.

It seemed to work pretty well during the civil rights movement. How any minorities would still be in the sh!t if what the majority wanted was all that matters? The founding fathers tried to incorporate balance of power into our system of government in many ways, and keeping mob rule in check was one way they did it.

This situation is pretty clear cut: the mob doesn't care if the establishment clause is violated.

This isn't a civil rights issue. Comparing it to such is a disgrace and a slap in the face to those who suffered through those times. It's also common with white liberals who are trying to get their agenda across.

This is a bunch of spoiled 20-something liberal, pretend atheists tying to tear down our foundation using a very dishonest approach. They want a society that lacks accountability because they are not accountable people.

This is the evil that sets in when people stop protecting the good. When people stop taking care of the body(our country) when people become complacent, when people start filling it with poison, the cancer begins to take shape. All the talk about protecting our Constitution and separation of Church and state is just is just rhetoric from those who are pushing the cancer. That doesn't make our country great...it makes it sick.

It's also the beginning of the fall. Unless people start fighting the evil, it will consume everything that our founders put in place.

You can laugh and you can give me lectures on Supreme Court cases, and you can sound off about the Constitution....but in the end, I am right and you know that - simply because it has historical precedence. It is the very thing that people like you want to happen.

Screaming "IM RIGHT" does not make it so...

Quote:Screaming "IM RIGHT" does not make it so...

and an immature little comeback doesn't challenge anything I said. It only demonstrates your lack of ability to present a feasible counter statement.

(01-08-2014 07:18 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

Quote:Screaming "IM RIGHT" does not make it so...

and an immature little comeback doesn't challenge anything I said. It only demonstrates your lack of ability to present a feasible counter statement.

I don't have to challenge you...you don't make or enforce laws.

(01-08-2014 07:12 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 06:25 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:50 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 04:47 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

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

So you are saying people don't have a right to dictate what they deem acceptable in society, because that is what the court is saying. The court is also representing a minority.

Again, I will point to the fact that these are the issues that spit countries apart like Korea and Germany. At some point it doesn't matter that a court found it unconstitutional. Eventually people and states will stop laying down for the courts. The left has already done so on things like federal marijuana laws. It may make the minority feel good, but the divide is growing.

It seemed to work pretty well during the civil rights movement. How any minorities would still be in the sh!t if what the majority wanted was all that matters? The founding fathers tried to incorporate balance of power into our system of government in many ways, and keeping mob rule in check was one way they did it.

This situation is pretty clear cut: the mob doesn't care if the establishment clause is violated.

This isn't a civil rights issue. Comparing it to such is a disgrace and a slap in the face to those who suffered through those times. It's also common with white liberals who are trying to get their agenda across.

This is a bunch of spoiled 20-something liberal, pretend atheists tying to tear down our foundation using a very dishonest approach. They want a society that lacks accountability because they are not accountable people.

This is the evil that sets in when people stop protecting the good. When people stop taking care of the body(our country) when people become complacent, when people start filling it with poison, the cancer begins to take shape. All the talk about protecting our Constitution and separation of Church and state is just is just rhetoric from those who are pushing the cancer. That doesn't make our country great...it makes it sick.

It's also the beginning of the fall. Unless people start fighting the evil, it will consume everything that our founders put in place.

You can laugh and you can give me lectures on Supreme Court cases, and you can sound off about the Constitution....but in the end, I am right and you know that - simply because it has historical precedence. It is the very thing that people like you want to happen.

Oh Okla, someday these comparisons won't go straight over your head.

(01-08-2014 08:09 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 07:12 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 06:25 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:50 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 04:47 PM)Hitch Wrote:  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?

So you are saying people don't have a right to dictate what they deem acceptable in society, because that is what the court is saying. The court is also representing a minority.

Again, I will point to the fact that these are the issues that spit countries apart like Korea and Germany. At some point it doesn't matter that a court found it unconstitutional. Eventually people and states will stop laying down for the courts. The left has already done so on things like federal marijuana laws. It may make the minority feel good, but the divide is growing.

It seemed to work pretty well during the civil rights movement. How any minorities would still be in the sh!t if what the majority wanted was all that matters? The founding fathers tried to incorporate balance of power into our system of government in many ways, and keeping mob rule in check was one way they did it.

This situation is pretty clear cut: the mob doesn't care if the establishment clause is violated.

This isn't a civil rights issue. Comparing it to such is a disgrace and a slap in the face to those who suffered through those times. It's also common with white liberals who are trying to get their agenda across.

This is a bunch of spoiled 20-something liberal, pretend atheists tying to tear down our foundation using a very dishonest approach. They want a society that lacks accountability because they are not accountable people.

This is the evil that sets in when people stop protecting the good. When people stop taking care of the body(our country) when people become complacent, when people start filling it with poison, the cancer begins to take shape. All the talk about protecting our Constitution and separation of Church and state is just is just rhetoric from those who are pushing the cancer. That doesn't make our country great...it makes it sick.

It's also the beginning of the fall. Unless people start fighting the evil, it will consume everything that our founders put in place.

You can laugh and you can give me lectures on Supreme Court cases, and you can sound off about the Constitution....but in the end, I am right and you know that - simply because it has historical precedence. It is the very thing that people like you want to happen.

Oh Okla, someday these comparisons won't go straight over your head.

Pal, I am way beyond your level of comprehension on issues like this. You don't fool me.

(01-08-2014 08:12 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 08:09 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 07:12 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 06:25 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:50 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  So you are saying people don't have a right to dictate what they deem acceptable in society, because that is what the court is saying. The court is also representing a minority.

Again, I will point to the fact that these are the issues that spit countries apart like Korea and Germany. At some point it doesn't matter that a court found it unconstitutional. Eventually people and states will stop laying down for the courts. The left has already done so on things like federal marijuana laws. It may make the minority feel good, but the divide is growing.

It seemed to work pretty well during the civil rights movement. How any minorities would still be in the sh!t if what the majority wanted was all that matters? The founding fathers tried to incorporate balance of power into our system of government in many ways, and keeping mob rule in check was one way they did it.

This situation is pretty clear cut: the mob doesn't care if the establishment clause is violated.

This isn't a civil rights issue. Comparing it to such is a disgrace and a slap in the face to those who suffered through those times. It's also common with white liberals who are trying to get their agenda across.

This is a bunch of spoiled 20-something liberal, pretend atheists tying to tear down our foundation using a very dishonest approach. They want a society that lacks accountability because they are not accountable people.

This is the evil that sets in when people stop protecting the good. When people stop taking care of the body(our country) when people become complacent, when people start filling it with poison, the cancer begins to take shape. All the talk about protecting our Constitution and separation of Church and state is just is just rhetoric from those who are pushing the cancer. That doesn't make our country great...it makes it sick.

It's also the beginning of the fall. Unless people start fighting the evil, it will consume everything that our founders put in place.

You can laugh and you can give me lectures on Supreme Court cases, and you can sound off about the Constitution....but in the end, I am right and you know that - simply because it has historical precedence. It is the very thing that people like you want to happen.

Oh Okla, someday these comparisons won't go straight over your head.

Pal, I am way beyond your level of comprehension on issues like this. You don't fool me.

your posts demonstrate the exact opposite.

(01-08-2014 08:16 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 08:12 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 08:09 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 07:12 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 06:25 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  It seemed to work pretty well during the civil rights movement. How any minorities would still be in the sh!t if what the majority wanted was all that matters? The founding fathers tried to incorporate balance of power into our system of government in many ways, and keeping mob rule in check was one way they did it.

This situation is pretty clear cut: the mob doesn't care if the establishment clause is violated.

This isn't a civil rights issue. Comparing it to such is a disgrace and a slap in the face to those who suffered through those times. It's also common with white liberals who are trying to get their agenda across.

This is a bunch of spoiled 20-something liberal, pretend atheists tying to tear down our foundation using a very dishonest approach. They want a society that lacks accountability because they are not accountable people.

This is the evil that sets in when people stop protecting the good. When people stop taking care of the body(our country) when people become complacent, when people start filling it with poison, the cancer begins to take shape. All the talk about protecting our Constitution and separation of Church and state is just is just rhetoric from those who are pushing the cancer. That doesn't make our country great...it makes it sick.

It's also the beginning of the fall. Unless people start fighting the evil, it will consume everything that our founders put in place.

You can laugh and you can give me lectures on Supreme Court cases, and you can sound off about the Constitution....but in the end, I am right and you know that - simply because it has historical precedence. It is the very thing that people like you want to happen.

Oh Okla, someday these comparisons won't go straight over your head.

Pal, I am way beyond your level of comprehension on issues like this. You don't fool me.

your posts demonstrate the exact opposite.

I can say the exact same about you? I honestly don't think you have the ability. Do you want to address the truth or do you want to continue to bog down the discussion with your meaningless analogies?

(01-08-2014 08:20 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 08:16 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 08:12 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 08:09 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 07:12 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  This isn't a civil rights issue. Comparing it to such is a disgrace and a slap in the face to those who suffered through those times. It's also common with white liberals who are trying to get their agenda across.

This is a bunch of spoiled 20-something liberal, pretend atheists tying to tear down our foundation using a very dishonest approach. They want a society that lacks accountability because they are not accountable people.

This is the evil that sets in when people stop protecting the good. When people stop taking care of the body(our country) when people become complacent, when people start filling it with poison, the cancer begins to take shape. All the talk about protecting our Constitution and separation of Church and state is just is just rhetoric from those who are pushing the cancer. That doesn't make our country great...it makes it sick.

It's also the beginning of the fall. Unless people start fighting the evil, it will consume everything that our founders put in place.

You can laugh and you can give me lectures on Supreme Court cases, and you can sound off about the Constitution....but in the end, I am right and you know that - simply because it has historical precedence. It is the very thing that people like you want to happen.

Oh Okla, someday these comparisons won't go straight over your head.

Pal, I am way beyond your level of comprehension on issues like this. You don't fool me.

your posts demonstrate the exact opposite.

I can say the exact same about you? I honestly don't think you have the ability. Do you want to address the truth or do you want to continue to bog down the discussion with your meaningless analogies?

For starters, you need to stop relying on the same straw man argument you use when the civil rights movement is used as an example. I can't tell if you're knowingly using it as a diversion, or are too stupid to realize that it's a straw man.