Quote: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.

That's not a straw man. I can point you to a list of fallacies if you need some help.

While you're at it, look up "false analogy"

What human right is being violated when atheists must walk by a monument depicting the Ten Commandments? That's a rhetorical question. I'm not playing your fallacy game.

Now, you can address what I put forward. If not, we will just assume you concede.

(01-08-2014 08:31 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

Quote: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.

That's not a straw man. I can point you to a list of fallacies if you need some help.

While you're at it, look up "false analogy"

What human right is being violated when atheists must walk by a monument depicting the Ten Commandments? That's a rhetorical question. I'm not playing your fallacy game.

Now, you can address what I put forward. If not, we will just assume you concede.

Totally is. You're trying win an argument against a position that isn't being taken. Nobody is ever arguing that one thing or another is just as horrible as the civil rights movement, but that's the exact thing you try to argue against every single time. In this case, I wasn't even making a comparison on the basis of civil rights, but you apparently missed that.

I was talking about courts overruling the majority, and you're arguing about the concept of civil rights. Straw man.

(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.

What religion does it establish?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

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

(01-08-2014 08:31 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

Quote: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.

That's not a straw man. I can point you to a list of fallacies if you need some help.

While you're at it, look up "false analogy"

What human right is being violated when atheists must walk by a monument depicting the Ten Commandments? That's a rhetorical question. I'm not playing your fallacy game.

Now, you can address what I put forward. If not, we will just assume you concede.

Totally is. You're trying win an argument against a position that isn't being taken. Nobody is ever arguing that one thing or another is just as horrible as the civil rights movement, but that's the exact thing you try to argue against every single time. In this case, I wasn't even making a comparison on the basis of civil rights, but you apparently missed that. Nice try though.

Nice backpedaling you have there. You very well made the comparison. Otherwise it wouldn't have appeared in your post. It's also not the first time you have tried that. Next time stick to the topic. You'll avoid being caught with your pants down.

You and I both know this has nothing to do with the Constitution or civil rights. You are just bloviating like you do with your ridiculous global warming propaganda.

Let me know if and when you want to address the truth.

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

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

(01-08-2014 08:31 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

Quote: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.

That's not a straw man. I can point you to a list of fallacies if you need some help.

While you're at it, look up "false analogy"

What human right is being violated when atheists must walk by a monument depicting the Ten Commandments? That's a rhetorical question. I'm not playing your fallacy game.

Now, you can address what I put forward. If not, we will just assume you concede.

Totally is. You're trying win an argument against a position that isn't being taken. Nobody is ever arguing that one thing or another is just as horrible as the civil rights movement, but that's the exact thing you try to argue against every single time. In this case, I wasn't even making a comparison on the basis of civil rights, but you apparently missed that. Nice try though.

Nice backpedaling you have there. You very well made the comparison. Otherwise it wouldn't have appeared in your post. It's also not the first time you have tried that. Next time stick to the topic. You'll avoid being caught with your pants down.

You and I both know this has nothing to do with the Constitution or civil rights. You are just bloviating like you do with your ridiculous global warming propaganda.

Let me know if and when you want to address the truth.

I used an example of the courts overruling majority rule, so you're still wrong. Your attempt to misdirect the argument is very transparent.

(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.

Stop responding to him. Responding to him validates his opinion.

(01-08-2014 08:43 PM)Kruciff 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.

Stop responding to him. Responding to him validates his opinion.

I am correct. It hurts when the agenda gets exposed, doesn't it?

All it takes is some atheist in New York and the lefties come seeping through the man hole covers ready to remove any religious symbolism in site.

(01-08-2014 08:46 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 08:43 PM)Kruciff 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:  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.

Stop responding to him. Responding to him validates his opinion.

I am correct. It hurts when the agenda gets exposed, doesn't it?

All it takes is some atheist in New York and the lefties come seeping through the man hole covers ready to remove any religious symbolism in site.

Just admit it: you disagree with the founding fathers and supreme court.

It's dangerous to label everything a 'civil rights' issue given the politicized meaning of the term when in reality just about anything can be framed as one.

(01-08-2014 08:59 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 08:46 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 08:43 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

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

(01-08-2014 08:12 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Pal, I am way beyond your level of comprehension on issues like this. You don't fool me.

your posts demonstrate the exact opposite.

Stop responding to him. Responding to him validates his opinion.

I am correct. It hurts when the agenda gets exposed, doesn't it?

All it takes is some atheist in New York and the lefties come seeping through the man hole covers ready to remove any religious symbolism in site.

Just admit it: you disagree with the founding fathers and supreme court.

Just admit it. Christianity makes you feel uncomfortable about being self destructive and unaccountable.

(01-08-2014 09:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's dangerous to label everything a 'civil rights' issue given the politicized meaning of the term when in reality just about anything can be framed as one.

This isn't a civil rights issue. It's a 1st amendment issue.

(01-08-2014 09:04 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 09:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's dangerous to label everything a 'civil rights' issue given the politicized meaning of the term when in reality just about anything can be framed as one.

This isn't a civil rights issue. It's a 1st amendment issue.

I'm not accusing you of it I've just seen the term thrown around in here.

(01-08-2014 09:04 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 09:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's dangerous to label everything a 'civil rights' issue given the politicized meaning of the term when in reality just about anything can be framed as one.

This isn't a civil rights issue. It's a 1st amendment issue.

This is an issue of evil.

The Satan statue is meant to promote a church, the Ten Commandments isn't. All 3 major religions have the commandments in their scripture and they are also a historical document. This argument is ridiculous.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

The founding fathers put up a lot of religious symbols. They just wouldn't declare one the official state religion. Sort of like putting up one today is not establishing anything.

(01-08-2014 09:29 PM)Paul M Wrote:  The founding fathers put up a lot of religious symbols. They just wouldn't declare one the official state religion. Sort of like putting up one today is not establishing anything.

So if Satan was placed on our money, then you wouldn't have any problem with it?

Sure would.

The goal of separation of church and state was not so as to be a tool for people to have at one another. The whole rotten discussion is a perversion of intent draped in self-righteousness.

(01-08-2014 09:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The goal of separation of church and state was not so as to be a tool for people to have at one another. The whole rotten discussion is a perversion of intent draped in self-righteousness.

Hence what I am saying. The so called atheist movement is not a real atheist movement. Real atheists don't need a God to not believe in. Real atheists don't care about a 10 Commandment monument, because it has zero affect on them.

This is about the secular progressive movement who see religion hindering their agenda...an agenda of removing accountability. It's no coincidence that it's the same people who are usually pushing for the legalization of drugs and other societal poisons. When I hear these sad people applauding this evil group promoting their statue using the Constitution, I immediately see right through their poorly veiled facade. They do not care about our Constitution, and they don't care about civil rights. They only care about how much they want to remove our Judeo Christian foundation and their war against the moral right.



There they are. Look at that fat slob. How much pot do you think that guy smokes? These are the people we want shaping our society? These are the lowlifes the secularists are defending. These are people without a moral center. These are people without sense of pride for themselves or our country. They are the cancer. Not religion.

(01-08-2014 09:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The goal of separation of church and state was not so as to be a tool for people to have at one another. The whole rotten discussion is a perversion of intent draped in self-righteousness.

Bingo!

This is Roy Moore redux. Same motivation. And it will result in the same ending. Although the Satan monument demand does create an element of comic relief though. Many Christians are rooting for that statue to go up. Not because they are Satanists, but because they recognize the demand for a Satan statue as a richly earned reward for phony "Christians" using religion as a weapon in violation of the Constitution and many people's understanding of Christianity.

And Sally Kern is every bit as bad and malevolent as Roy Moore.