What does freedom of religion mean to you?

[rear naked]

An agnostic wouldn't care by definition.

You're confused.

[Cflat]

Very reasonable response. But I do take issue with the Ten Commandments comment because to me it doesn't say "And justice to those of the Judeo-Christian faith only." It merely says that our laws are based on those tenants and they are viewed as universal in this nation. Most faiths do not permit murder, covetousness, adultery, etc. Only the first four should be considered objectionable to anyone who is an atheist and are unenforceable anyway. An agnostic wouldn't care by definition.

This is completely ridiculous. Our laws are not based on those "tenants"(I think you mean tenet). Unless you think 2 out of 10 warrants that assessment? And you've just shown that you have a complete misunderstanding of what an atheist or agnostic is.

I do think that removal of the Ten Commandments is an attempt to wipe away our heritage to some degree. But that is subject to debate, obviously.

Silly argument. One can make the same one for putting slavery memorabilia up on the walls in court. Let's take a look at the ten commandments to see how well they match our laws anyway;

"You shall have no other gods before me."

You left out the part where god goes on about being jealous. But it's eye roll worthy that you think this belongs in court rooms in a country that supposedly allows the worship of other gods.

"You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

LOVELY! Let's make sure we drill into all American's heads that the US stands for visiting the sins of the father on to the children! GO AMURKA! Also, someone should remind the Catholics about this one. They seemed to have missed it. Although, I don't remember our laws mentioning not being able to build a golden calf.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."

Hmmm. FUCK YOU, JESUS. God damn this stupid commandment.................. ...............Nope. No one arresting me.

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."

As much as I love sleeping in and relaxing on Sunday, I seriously doubt that anyone would argue that it should be mandated or has anything to do with our laws. And let's not forget what god says to do with those who disobey this one.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=KJV
Nope. Don't remember that being a law.

"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you."

No law mandating this either. But at least we're getting somewhere. This one has some kind of sense to it. Good thing our laws don't follow what god has to say about children who curse their parents.

"You shall not murder."

I love how it's implied that no human understood this concept before Moses had a temporal lobe epileptic seizure on mount sinai, but this is a good one! And it actually matches our laws. Although our laws on this are much more comprehensive and involved, thankfully.

"You shall not commit adultery."

I like this one. I think it's generally wrong to commit adultery, unless both parties are ok with it. But it isn't a law, and it shouldn't be.

"You shall not steal."

Another winner! This one matches our laws, and rightfully so.

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

Hmmm. If only god were a bit more clear about this one. Although from the context of the time, it appears that this is no longer necessary with our modern court system.

"You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

I love how this one lumps in one's wife as property not to be coveted alongside his ox and donkey. lol. This isn't a law either. Good thing. Coveting is good for the economy.

So,....Why should the US display the ten commandments in court rooms again?

[marshallnoise]

Very reasonable response. But I do take issue with the Ten Commandments comment because to me it doesn't say "And justice to those of the Judeo-Christian faith only." It merely says that our laws are based on those tenants and they are viewed as universal in this nation. Most faiths do not permit murder, covetousness, adultery, etc. Only the first four should be considered objectionable to anyone who is an atheist and are unenforceable anyway. An agnostic wouldn't care by definition.

This is completely ridiculous. Our laws are not based on those "tenants"(I think you mean tenet). Unless you think 2 out of 10 warrants that assessment? And you've just shown that you have a complete misunderstanding of what an atheist or agnostic is.

I do think that removal of the Ten Commandments is an attempt to wipe away our heritage to some degree. But that is subject to debate, obviously.

Silly argument. One can make the same one for putting slavery memorabilia up on the walls in court. Let's take a look at the ten commandments to see how well they match our laws anyway;

"You shall have no other gods before me."

You left out the part where god goes on about being jealous. But it's eye roll worthy that you think this belongs in court rooms in a country that supposedly allows the worship of other gods.

"You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

LOVELY! Let's make sure we drill into all American's heads that the US stands for visiting the sins of the father on to the children! GO AMURKA! Also, someone should remind the Catholics about this one. They seemed to have missed it. Although, I don't remember our laws mentioning not being able to build a golden calf.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."

Hmmm. FUCK YOU, JESUS. God damn this stupid commandment.................. ...............Nope. No one arresting me.

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."

As much as I love sleeping in and relaxing on Sunday, I seriously doubt that anyone would argue that it should be mandated or has anything to do with our laws. And let's not forget what god says to do with those who disobey this one.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=KJV
Nope. Don't remember that being a law.

"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you."

No law mandating this either. But at least we're getting somewhere. This one has some kind of sense to it. Good thing our laws don't follow what god has to say about children who curse their parents.

"You shall not murder."

I love how it's implied that no human understood this concept before Moses had a temporal lobe epileptic seizure on mount sinai, but this is a good one! And it actually matches our laws. Although our laws on this are much more comprehensive and involved, thankfully.

"You shall not commit adultery."

I like this one. I think it's generally wrong to commit adultery, unless both parties are ok with it. But it isn't a law, and it shouldn't be.

"You shall not steal."

Another winner! This one matches our laws, and rightfully so.

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

Hmmm. If only god were a bit more clear about this one. Although from the context of the time, it appears that this is no longer necessary with our modern court system.

"You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

I love how this one lumps in one's wife as property not to be coveted alongside his ox and donkey. lol. This isn't a law either. Good thing. Coveting is good for the economy.

So,....Why should the US display the ten commandments in court rooms again?

That's a nice post. Fortunately, I don't care. TL;DR.

[Cflat]

Very reasonable response. But I do take issue with the Ten Commandments comment because to me it doesn't say "And justice to those of the Judeo-Christian faith only." It merely says that our laws are based on those tenants and they are viewed as universal in this nation. Most faiths do not permit murder, covetousness, adultery, etc. Only the first four should be considered objectionable to anyone who is an atheist and are unenforceable anyway. An agnostic wouldn't care by definition.

This is completely ridiculous. Our laws are not based on those "tenants"(I think you mean tenet). Unless you think 2 out of 10 warrants that assessment? And you've just shown that you have a complete misunderstanding of what an atheist or agnostic is.

I do think that removal of the Ten Commandments is an attempt to wipe away our heritage to some degree. But that is subject to debate, obviously.

Silly argument. One can make the same one for putting slavery memorabilia up on the walls in court. Let's take a look at the ten commandments to see how well they match our laws anyway;

"You shall have no other gods before me."

You left out the part where god goes on about being jealous. But it's eye roll worthy that you think this belongs in court rooms in a country that supposedly allows the worship of other gods.

"You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

LOVELY! Let's make sure we drill into all American's heads that the US stands for visiting the sins of the father on to the children! GO AMURKA! Also, someone should remind the Catholics about this one. They seemed to have missed it. Although, I don't remember our laws mentioning not being able to build a golden calf.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."

Hmmm. FUCK YOU, JESUS. God damn this stupid commandment.................. ...............Nope. No one arresting me.

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."

As much as I love sleeping in and relaxing on Sunday, I seriously doubt that anyone would argue that it should be mandated or has anything to do with our laws. And let's not forget what god says to do with those who disobey this one.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=KJV
Nope. Don't remember that being a law.

"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you."

No law mandating this either. But at least we're getting somewhere. This one has some kind of sense to it. Good thing our laws don't follow what god has to say about children who curse their parents.

"You shall not murder."

I love how it's implied that no human understood this concept before Moses had a temporal lobe epileptic seizure on mount sinai, but this is a good one! And it actually matches our laws. Although our laws on this are much more comprehensive and involved, thankfully.

"You shall not commit adultery."

I like this one. I think it's generally wrong to commit adultery, unless both parties are ok with it. But it isn't a law, and it shouldn't be.

"You shall not steal."

Another winner! This one matches our laws, and rightfully so.

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

Hmmm. If only god were a bit more clear about this one. Although from the context of the time, it appears that this is no longer necessary with our modern court system.

"You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

I love how this one lumps in one's wife as property not to be coveted alongside his ox and donkey. lol. This isn't a law either. Good thing. Coveting is good for the economy.

So,....Why should the US display the ten commandments in court rooms again?

That's a nice post. Fortunately, I don't care. TL;DR.

I think you meant to say, "I post driveling nonsense and haven't a clue what the fuck I'm talking about, and when someone points that out I act like I don't care because I can't defend or back up any of it."

[madryan]

To me it means feel free to worship the shrub in your yard if you so choose. Just don't try and make me believe your delusions.

[marshallnoise]

Very reasonable response. But I do take issue with the Ten Commandments comment because to me it doesn't say "And justice to those of the Judeo-Christian faith only." It merely says that our laws are based on those tenants and they are viewed as universal in this nation. Most faiths do not permit murder, covetousness, adultery, etc. Only the first four should be considered objectionable to anyone who is an atheist and are unenforceable anyway. An agnostic wouldn't care by definition.

This is completely ridiculous. Our laws are not based on those "tenants"(I think you mean tenet). Unless you think 2 out of 10 warrants that assessment? And you've just shown that you have a complete misunderstanding of what an atheist or agnostic is.

I do think that removal of the Ten Commandments is an attempt to wipe away our heritage to some degree. But that is subject to debate, obviously.

Silly argument. One can make the same one for putting slavery memorabilia up on the walls in court. Let's take a look at the ten commandments to see how well they match our laws anyway;

"You shall have no other gods before me."

You left out the part where god goes on about being jealous. But it's eye roll worthy that you think this belongs in court rooms in a country that supposedly allows the worship of other gods.

"You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

LOVELY! Let's make sure we drill into all American's heads that the US stands for visiting the sins of the father on to the children! GO AMURKA! Also, someone should remind the Catholics about this one. They seemed to have missed it. Although, I don't remember our laws mentioning not being able to build a golden calf.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."

Hmmm. FUCK YOU, JESUS. God damn this stupid commandment.................. ...............Nope. No one arresting me.

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."

As much as I love sleeping in and relaxing on Sunday, I seriously doubt that anyone would argue that it should be mandated or has anything to do with our laws. And let's not forget what god says to do with those who disobey this one.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=KJV
Nope. Don't remember that being a law.

"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you."

No law mandating this either. But at least we're getting somewhere. This one has some kind of sense to it. Good thing our laws don't follow what god has to say about children who curse their parents.

"You shall not murder."

I love how it's implied that no human understood this concept before Moses had a temporal lobe epileptic seizure on mount sinai, but this is a good one! And it actually matches our laws. Although our laws on this are much more comprehensive and involved, thankfully.

"You shall not commit adultery."

I like this one. I think it's generally wrong to commit adultery, unless both parties are ok with it. But it isn't a law, and it shouldn't be.

"You shall not steal."

Another winner! This one matches our laws, and rightfully so.

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

Hmmm. If only god were a bit more clear about this one. Although from the context of the time, it appears that this is no longer necessary with our modern court system.

"You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

I love how this one lumps in one's wife as property not to be coveted alongside his ox and donkey. lol. This isn't a law either. Good thing. Coveting is good for the economy.

So,....Why should the US display the ten commandments in court rooms again?

That's a nice post. Fortunately, I don't care. TL;DR.

I think you meant to say, "I post driveling nonsense and haven't a clue what the fuck I'm talking about, and when someone points that out I act like I don't care because I can't defend or back up any of it."

No, you are just posting inflammatory crap and there is no reason to really give it any legitimate response. You may call my post nonsense, but that is only because you are an intolerant prick not because it doesn't make any sense. So why engage a person like you? So I won't.

[Cflat]

Very reasonable response. But I do take issue with the Ten Commandments comment because to me it doesn't say "And justice to those of the Judeo-Christian faith only." It merely says that our laws are based on those tenants and they are viewed as universal in this nation. Most faiths do not permit murder, covetousness, adultery, etc. Only the first four should be considered objectionable to anyone who is an atheist and are unenforceable anyway. An agnostic wouldn't care by definition.

This is completely ridiculous. Our laws are not based on those "tenants"(I think you mean tenet). Unless you think 2 out of 10 warrants that assessment? And you've just shown that you have a complete misunderstanding of what an atheist or agnostic is.

I do think that removal of the Ten Commandments is an attempt to wipe away our heritage to some degree. But that is subject to debate, obviously.

Silly argument. One can make the same one for putting slavery memorabilia up on the walls in court. Let's take a look at the ten commandments to see how well they match our laws anyway;

"You shall have no other gods before me."

You left out the part where god goes on about being jealous. But it's eye roll worthy that you think this belongs in court rooms in a country that supposedly allows the worship of other gods.

"You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

LOVELY! Let's make sure we drill into all American's heads that the US stands for visiting the sins of the father on to the children! GO AMURKA! Also, someone should remind the Catholics about this one. They seemed to have missed it. Although, I don't remember our laws mentioning not being able to build a golden calf.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."

Hmmm. FUCK YOU, JESUS. God damn this stupid commandment.................. ...............Nope. No one arresting me.

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."

As much as I love sleeping in and relaxing on Sunday, I seriously doubt that anyone would argue that it should be mandated or has anything to do with our laws. And let's not forget what god says to do with those who disobey this one.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=KJV
Nope. Don't remember that being a law.

"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you."

No law mandating this either. But at least we're getting somewhere. This one has some kind of sense to it. Good thing our laws don't follow what god has to say about children who curse their parents.

"You shall not murder."

I love how it's implied that no human understood this concept before Moses had a temporal lobe epileptic seizure on mount sinai, but this is a good one! And it actually matches our laws. Although our laws on this are much more comprehensive and involved, thankfully.

"You shall not commit adultery."

I like this one. I think it's generally wrong to commit adultery, unless both parties are ok with it. But it isn't a law, and it shouldn't be.

"You shall not steal."

Another winner! This one matches our laws, and rightfully so.

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

Hmmm. If only god were a bit more clear about this one. Although from the context of the time, it appears that this is no longer necessary with our modern court system.

"You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

I love how this one lumps in one's wife as property not to be coveted alongside his ox and donkey. lol. This isn't a law either. Good thing. Coveting is good for the economy.

So,....Why should the US display the ten commandments in court rooms again?

That's a nice post. Fortunately, I don't care. TL;DR.

I think you meant to say, "I post driveling nonsense and haven't a clue what the fuck I'm talking about, and when someone points that out I act like I don't care because I can't defend or back up any of it."

No, you are just posting inflammatory crap and there is no reason to really give it any legitimate response. You may call my post nonsense, but that is only because you are an intolerant prick not because it doesn't make any sense. So why engage a person like you? So I won't.

Not inflammatory. Direct responses to your drivel. This childish tactic is typical of you, though. Post nonsense, get called on it, and play the victim of intolerance instead of backing up anything that you said. You won't engage me. But it's not because of intolerance. Unless you have your own definition of that word as well?

[rear naked]

Don't be so intollerant guys. Just let him fill government buildings/documents/money with allusions to the particular religion he practices.

[marshallnoise]

Very reasonable response. But I do take issue with the Ten Commandments comment because to me it doesn't say "And justice to those of the Judeo-Christian faith only." It merely says that our laws are based on those tenants and they are viewed as universal in this nation. Most faiths do not permit murder, covetousness, adultery, etc. Only the first four should be considered objectionable to anyone who is an atheist and are unenforceable anyway. An agnostic wouldn't care by definition.

This is completely ridiculous. Our laws are not based on those "tenants"(I think you mean tenet). Unless you think 2 out of 10 warrants that assessment? And you've just shown that you have a complete misunderstanding of what an atheist or agnostic is.

I do think that removal of the Ten Commandments is an attempt to wipe away our heritage to some degree. But that is subject to debate, obviously.

Silly argument. One can make the same one for putting slavery memorabilia up on the walls in court. Let's take a look at the ten commandments to see how well they match our laws anyway;

"You shall have no other gods before me."

You left out the part where god goes on about being jealous. But it's eye roll worthy that you think this belongs in court rooms in a country that supposedly allows the worship of other gods.

"You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

LOVELY! Let's make sure we drill into all American's heads that the US stands for visiting the sins of the father on to the children! GO AMURKA! Also, someone should remind the Catholics about this one. They seemed to have missed it. Although, I don't remember our laws mentioning not being able to build a golden calf.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."

Hmmm. FUCK YOU, JESUS. God damn this stupid commandment.................. ...............Nope. No one arresting me.

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."

As much as I love sleeping in and relaxing on Sunday, I seriously doubt that anyone would argue that it should be mandated or has anything to do with our laws. And let's not forget what god says to do with those who disobey this one.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=KJV
Nope. Don't remember that being a law.

"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you."

No law mandating this either. But at least we're getting somewhere. This one has some kind of sense to it. Good thing our laws don't follow what god has to say about children who curse their parents.

"You shall not murder."

I love how it's implied that no human understood this concept before Moses had a temporal lobe epileptic seizure on mount sinai, but this is a good one! And it actually matches our laws. Although our laws on this are much more comprehensive and involved, thankfully.

"You shall not commit adultery."

I like this one. I think it's generally wrong to commit adultery, unless both parties are ok with it. But it isn't a law, and it shouldn't be.

"You shall not steal."

Another winner! This one matches our laws, and rightfully so.

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

Hmmm. If only god were a bit more clear about this one. Although from the context of the time, it appears that this is no longer necessary with our modern court system.

"You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

I love how this one lumps in one's wife as property not to be coveted alongside his ox and donkey. lol. This isn't a law either. Good thing. Coveting is good for the economy.

So,....Why should the US display the ten commandments in court rooms again?

That's a nice post. Fortunately, I don't care. TL;DR.

I think you meant to say, "I post driveling nonsense and haven't a clue what the fuck I'm talking about, and when someone points that out I act like I don't care because I can't defend or back up any of it."

No, you are just posting inflammatory crap and there is no reason to really give it any legitimate response. You may call my post nonsense, but that is only because you are an intolerant prick not because it doesn't make any sense. So why engage a person like you? So I won't.

Not inflammatory. Direct responses to your drivel. This childish tactic is typical of you, though. Post nonsense, get called on it, and play the victim of intolerance instead of backing up anything that you said. You won't engage me. But it's not because of intolerance. Unless you have your own definition of that word as well?

Direct responses to MY drivel? LOL! You realize that my comment merely was that I think that the Ten Commandments are harmless in courtrooms and in my opinion integral in our sense of justice. These are my opinions and I do not have to defend my opinions to you or anyone else. I don't question your opinions which are antithetical to mine regarding this issue; I merely take it at face value.

However, you took the ten commandments to task, using intentionally inflammatory comments along the way, and expect me to "engage" you? The ten commandments are from the bible, not words I created nor my personal commentary at all, and posted as a reference point in case anyone wanted to see what the hubbub was about.

Your feelings and my feelings regarding the ten commandments in courtrooms are just that; feelings. There is zero legal reason not to have them in the courtroom except where Chris tried to go with it (again, another feeling, but one worth discussing) which initiated my response. His feeling is that it was uninclusive of all faiths to which I merely responded that I felt that most of the 10 commandments, especially in respect to our laws, are pretty universal and have a historical relevance.

So tell me why I should respond to your inflammatory post again? You weren't really wanting discourse were you? Most people don't go around pissing in people's Wheaties and expect nice responses in return.

[marshallnoise]

Don't be so intollerant guys. Just let him fill government buildings/documents/money with allusions to the particular religion he practices.

Don't be so tolerant guys. Just let him remove items from government buildings/documents/money that contain references to the religion that all the people who founded this country universally acknowledged as the origin of freedom.

[rear naked]

Cflat didn't attack the 10 Commandments, he attacked YOUR VIEW that they are integral to the justice system. Yes, it was YOUR drivel.

[marshallnoise]

Cflat didn't attack the 10 Commandments, he attacked YOUR VIEW that they are integral to the justice system. Yes, it was YOUR drivel.

That is a slight oversimplification of his post. Slightly.

[Cflat]

Very reasonable response. But I do take issue with the Ten Commandments comment because to me it doesn't say "And justice to those of the Judeo-Christian faith only." It merely says that our laws are based on those tenants and they are viewed as universal in this nation. Most faiths do not permit murder, covetousness, adultery, etc. Only the first four should be considered objectionable to anyone who is an atheist and are unenforceable anyway. An agnostic wouldn't care by definition.

This is completely ridiculous. Our laws are not based on those "tenants"(I think you mean tenet). Unless you think 2 out of 10 warrants that assessment? And you've just shown that you have a complete misunderstanding of what an atheist or agnostic is.

I do think that removal of the Ten Commandments is an attempt to wipe away our heritage to some degree. But that is subject to debate, obviously.

Silly argument. One can make the same one for putting slavery memorabilia up on the walls in court. Let's take a look at the ten commandments to see how well they match our laws anyway;

"You shall have no other gods before me."

You left out the part where god goes on about being jealous. But it's eye roll worthy that you think this belongs in court rooms in a country that supposedly allows the worship of other gods.

"You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

LOVELY! Let's make sure we drill into all American's heads that the US stands for visiting the sins of the father on to the children! GO AMURKA! Also, someone should remind the Catholics about this one. They seemed to have missed it. Although, I don't remember our laws mentioning not being able to build a golden calf.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."

Hmmm. FUCK YOU, JESUS. God damn this stupid commandment.................. ...............Nope. No one arresting me.

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."

As much as I love sleeping in and relaxing on Sunday, I seriously doubt that anyone would argue that it should be mandated or has anything to do with our laws. And let's not forget what god says to do with those who disobey this one.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=KJV
Nope. Don't remember that being a law.

"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you."

No law mandating this either. But at least we're getting somewhere. This one has some kind of sense to it. Good thing our laws don't follow what god has to say about children who curse their parents.

"You shall not murder."

I love how it's implied that no human understood this concept before Moses had a temporal lobe epileptic seizure on mount sinai, but this is a good one! And it actually matches our laws. Although our laws on this are much more comprehensive and involved, thankfully.

"You shall not commit adultery."

I like this one. I think it's generally wrong to commit adultery, unless both parties are ok with it. But it isn't a law, and it shouldn't be.

"You shall not steal."

Another winner! This one matches our laws, and rightfully so.

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

Hmmm. If only god were a bit more clear about this one. Although from the context of the time, it appears that this is no longer necessary with our modern court system.

"You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

I love how this one lumps in one's wife as property not to be coveted alongside his ox and donkey. lol. This isn't a law either. Good thing. Coveting is good for the economy.

So,....Why should the US display the ten commandments in court rooms again?

That's a nice post. Fortunately, I don't care. TL;DR.

I think you meant to say, "I post driveling nonsense and haven't a clue what the fuck I'm talking about, and when someone points that out I act like I don't care because I can't defend or back up any of it."

No, you are just posting inflammatory crap and there is no reason to really give it any legitimate response. You may call my post nonsense, but that is only because you are an intolerant prick not because it doesn't make any sense. So why engage a person like you? So I won't.

Not inflammatory. Direct responses to your drivel. This childish tactic is typical of you, though. Post nonsense, get called on it, and play the victim of intolerance instead of backing up anything that you said. You won't engage me. But it's not because of intolerance. Unless you have your own definition of that word as well?

Direct responses to MY drivel? LOL! You realize that my comment merely was that I think that the Ten Commandments are harmless in courtrooms and in my opinion integral in our sense of justice. These are my opinions and I do not have to defend my opinions to you or anyone else. I don't question your opinions which are antithetical to mine regarding this issue; I merely take it at face value.

However, you took the ten commandments to task, using intentionally inflammatory comments along the way, and expect me to "engage" you? The ten commandments are from the bible, not words I created nor my personal commentary at all, and posted as a reference point in case anyone wanted to see what the hubbub was about.

Your feelings and my feelings regarding the ten commandments in courtrooms are just that; feelings. There is zero legal reason not to have them in the courtroom except where Chris tried to go with it (again, another feeling, but one worth discussing) which initiated my response. His feeling is that it was uninclusive of all faiths to which I merely responded that I felt that most of the 10 commandments, especially in respect to our laws, are pretty universal and have a historical relevance.

So tell me why I should respond to your inflammatory post again? You weren't really wanting discourse were you? Most people don't go around pissing in people's Wheaties and expect nice responses in return.

Yes. Directly in response to your drivel. You said our laws are based on those tenets and that they are universal in our nation. Our laws are not based on those tenets and they are not universal in our nation. My post DIRECTLY responded to that and explained how and why this is false, including how only 2 of the commandments even match any of our laws and a couple of them are in regards to only being able to believe in one specific god. Read it.

These aren't "feelings". These are facts. You have a right to your own opinions. You do not have a right to your own facts. And you sure as shit don't have a right to not be called out or ridiculed when your opinion is moronic with no basis in reality. Prove me wrong. Convince everyone how the ten commandments are "integral in our sense of justice". Especially when we don't consider visiting the sins of the father on to the children as justice. I could just as easily say that Mein Kampf was integral to American society if I get to leave off 80% of it.

It's not "pissing in someone's Wheaties" to point out nonsense and/or errors in reasoning. The fantasy land you live in where everyone's "opinion" is just as valid as the next, is not reality. Or is it more likely a defense mechanism to play the victim so you never have to back up anything you say? It's much easier than knowing what you're talking about.

[marshallnoise]

Very reasonable response. But I do take issue with the Ten Commandments comment because to me it doesn't say "And justice to those of the Judeo-Christian faith only." It merely says that our laws are based on those tenants and they are viewed as universal in this nation. Most faiths do not permit murder, covetousness, adultery, etc. Only the first four should be considered objectionable to anyone who is an atheist and are unenforceable anyway. An agnostic wouldn't care by definition.

This is completely ridiculous. Our laws are not based on those "tenants"(I think you mean tenet). Unless you think 2 out of 10 warrants that assessment? And you've just shown that you have a complete misunderstanding of what an atheist or agnostic is.

I do think that removal of the Ten Commandments is an attempt to wipe away our heritage to some degree. But that is subject to debate, obviously.

Silly argument. One can make the same one for putting slavery memorabilia up on the walls in court. Let's take a look at the ten commandments to see how well they match our laws anyway;

"You shall have no other gods before me."

You left out the part where god goes on about being jealous. But it's eye roll worthy that you think this belongs in court rooms in a country that supposedly allows the worship of other gods.

"You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

LOVELY! Let's make sure we drill into all American's heads that the US stands for visiting the sins of the father on to the children! GO AMURKA! Also, someone should remind the Catholics about this one. They seemed to have missed it. Although, I don't remember our laws mentioning not being able to build a golden calf.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."

Hmmm. FUCK YOU, JESUS. God damn this stupid commandment.................. ...............Nope. No one arresting me.

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."

As much as I love sleeping in and relaxing on Sunday, I seriously doubt that anyone would argue that it should be mandated or has anything to do with our laws. And let's not forget what god says to do with those who disobey this one.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=KJV
Nope. Don't remember that being a law.

"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you."

No law mandating this either. But at least we're getting somewhere. This one has some kind of sense to it. Good thing our laws don't follow what god has to say about children who curse their parents.

"You shall not murder."

I love how it's implied that no human understood this concept before Moses had a temporal lobe epileptic seizure on mount sinai, but this is a good one! And it actually matches our laws. Although our laws on this are much more comprehensive and involved, thankfully.

"You shall not commit adultery."

I like this one. I think it's generally wrong to commit adultery, unless both parties are ok with it. But it isn't a law, and it shouldn't be.

"You shall not steal."

Another winner! This one matches our laws, and rightfully so.

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

Hmmm. If only god were a bit more clear about this one. Although from the context of the time, it appears that this is no longer necessary with our modern court system.

"You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

I love how this one lumps in one's wife as property not to be coveted alongside his ox and donkey. lol. This isn't a law either. Good thing. Coveting is good for the economy.

So,....Why should the US display the ten commandments in court rooms again?

That's a nice post. Fortunately, I don't care. TL;DR.

I think you meant to say, "I post driveling nonsense and haven't a clue what the fuck I'm talking about, and when someone points that out I act like I don't care because I can't defend or back up any of it."

No, you are just posting inflammatory crap and there is no reason to really give it any legitimate response. You may call my post nonsense, but that is only because you are an intolerant prick not because it doesn't make any sense. So why engage a person like you? So I won't.

Not inflammatory. Direct responses to your drivel. This childish tactic is typical of you, though. Post nonsense, get called on it, and play the victim of intolerance instead of backing up anything that you said. You won't engage me. But it's not because of intolerance. Unless you have your own definition of that word as well?

Direct responses to MY drivel? LOL! You realize that my comment merely was that I think that the Ten Commandments are harmless in courtrooms and in my opinion integral in our sense of justice. These are my opinions and I do not have to defend my opinions to you or anyone else. I don't question your opinions which are antithetical to mine regarding this issue; I merely take it at face value.

However, you took the ten commandments to task, using intentionally inflammatory comments along the way, and expect me to "engage" you? The ten commandments are from the bible, not words I created nor my personal commentary at all, and posted as a reference point in case anyone wanted to see what the hubbub was about.

Your feelings and my feelings regarding the ten commandments in courtrooms are just that; feelings. There is zero legal reason not to have them in the courtroom except where Chris tried to go with it (again, another feeling, but one worth discussing) which initiated my response. His feeling is that it was uninclusive of all faiths to which I merely responded that I felt that most of the 10 commandments, especially in respect to our laws, are pretty universal and have a historical relevance.

So tell me why I should respond to your inflammatory post again? You weren't really wanting discourse were you? Most people don't go around pissing in people's Wheaties and expect nice responses in return.

Yes. Directly in response to your drivel. You said our laws are based on those tenets and that they are universal in our nation. Our laws are not based on those tenets and they are not universal in our nation. My post DIRECTLY responded to that and explained how and why this is false, including how only 2 of the commandments even match any of our laws and a couple of them are in regards to only being able to believe in one specific god. Read it.

These aren't "feelings". These are facts. You have a right to your own opinions. You do not have a right to your own facts. And you sure as shit don't have a right to not be called out or ridiculed when your opinion is moronic with no basis in reality. Prove me wrong. Convince everyone how the ten commandments are "integral in our sense of justice". Especially when we don't consider visiting the sins of the father on to the children as justice. I could just as easily say that Mein Kampf was integral to American society if I get to leave off 80% of it.

It's not "pissing in someone's Wheaties" to point out nonsense and/or errors in reasoning. The fantasy land you live in where everyone's "opinion" is just as valid as the next, is not reality. Or is it more likely a defense mechanism to play the victim so you never have to back up anything you say? It's much easier than knowing what you're talking about.

What part of the justice system does NOT owe its roots to the recorded history (or fictional, as you might say) that is the bible where Moses was a lawgiver as well as a religious leader? Hell, there is a book called Judges in the bible which chronicles Hebrew justices. The whole point of the ten commandments being displayed in courts or public places is to show unwavering credence to law as being derived by an intangible being, not subject to fleeting thoughts and wavering opinions. Is that concept that the law is the law not found in the ten commandments? There is a historical application to having them displayed.

Here is a bit of history on how they appeared in the Supreme Court. http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... 0408155647

Here is what a supreme court justice said regarding the subject. "According to Judeo-Christian belief, the Ten Commandments were given to Moses by God on Mt. Sinai. But Moses was a lawgiver as well as a religious leader. And the Ten Commandments have an undeniable historical meaning," Rehnquist said. This is from the case of Van Orden v. Perry in 2005.

But all that doesn't matter anyway because of the relentless pursuit of secular purification our nation has been going through. Clearly you wouldn't recognize the historical context of the ten commandments because you reject the bible as a whole (correct me if I am wrong) and therefore, even as a story (the bible, in your view), it must be removed from all facets of public life because the word "God" appears in it.

So keep your mockery going at full throttle, after all its the way.

[Cflat]

Very reasonable response. But I do take issue with the Ten Commandments comment because to me it doesn't say "And justice to those of the Judeo-Christian faith only." It merely says that our laws are based on those tenants and they are viewed as universal in this nation. Most faiths do not permit murder, covetousness, adultery, etc. Only the first four should be considered objectionable to anyone who is an atheist and are unenforceable anyway. An agnostic wouldn't care by definition.

This is completely ridiculous. Our laws are not based on those "tenants"(I think you mean tenet). Unless you think 2 out of 10 warrants that assessment? And you've just shown that you have a complete misunderstanding of what an atheist or agnostic is.

I do think that removal of the Ten Commandments is an attempt to wipe away our heritage to some degree. But that is subject to debate, obviously.

Silly argument. One can make the same one for putting slavery memorabilia up on the walls in court. Let's take a look at the ten commandments to see how well they match our laws anyway;

"You shall have no other gods before me."

You left out the part where god goes on about being jealous. But it's eye roll worthy that you think this belongs in court rooms in a country that supposedly allows the worship of other gods.

"You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

LOVELY! Let's make sure we drill into all American's heads that the US stands for visiting the sins of the father on to the children! GO AMURKA! Also, someone should remind the Catholics about this one. They seemed to have missed it. Although, I don't remember our laws mentioning not being able to build a golden calf.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."

Hmmm. FUCK YOU, JESUS. God damn this stupid commandment.................. ...............Nope. No one arresting me.

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."

As much as I love sleeping in and relaxing on Sunday, I seriously doubt that anyone would argue that it should be mandated or has anything to do with our laws. And let's not forget what god says to do with those who disobey this one.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=KJV
Nope. Don't remember that being a law.

"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you."

No law mandating this either. But at least we're getting somewhere. This one has some kind of sense to it. Good thing our laws don't follow what god has to say about children who curse their parents.

"You shall not murder."

I love how it's implied that no human understood this concept before Moses had a temporal lobe epileptic seizure on mount sinai, but this is a good one! And it actually matches our laws. Although our laws on this are much more comprehensive and involved, thankfully.

"You shall not commit adultery."

I like this one. I think it's generally wrong to commit adultery, unless both parties are ok with it. But it isn't a law, and it shouldn't be.

"You shall not steal."

Another winner! This one matches our laws, and rightfully so.

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

Hmmm. If only god were a bit more clear about this one. Although from the context of the time, it appears that this is no longer necessary with our modern court system.

"You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

I love how this one lumps in one's wife as property not to be coveted alongside his ox and donkey. lol. This isn't a law either. Good thing. Coveting is good for the economy.

So,....Why should the US display the ten commandments in court rooms again?

That's a nice post. Fortunately, I don't care. TL;DR.

I think you meant to say, "I post driveling nonsense and haven't a clue what the fuck I'm talking about, and when someone points that out I act like I don't care because I can't defend or back up any of it."

No, you are just posting inflammatory crap and there is no reason to really give it any legitimate response. You may call my post nonsense, but that is only because you are an intolerant prick not because it doesn't make any sense. So why engage a person like you? So I won't.

Not inflammatory. Direct responses to your drivel. This childish tactic is typical of you, though. Post nonsense, get called on it, and play the victim of intolerance instead of backing up anything that you said. You won't engage me. But it's not because of intolerance. Unless you have your own definition of that word as well?

Direct responses to MY drivel? LOL! You realize that my comment merely was that I think that the Ten Commandments are harmless in courtrooms and in my opinion integral in our sense of justice. These are my opinions and I do not have to defend my opinions to you or anyone else. I don't question your opinions which are antithetical to mine regarding this issue; I merely take it at face value.

However, you took the ten commandments to task, using intentionally inflammatory comments along the way, and expect me to "engage" you? The ten commandments are from the bible, not words I created nor my personal commentary at all, and posted as a reference point in case anyone wanted to see what the hubbub was about.

Your feelings and my feelings regarding the ten commandments in courtrooms are just that; feelings. There is zero legal reason not to have them in the courtroom except where Chris tried to go with it (again, another feeling, but one worth discussing) which initiated my response. His feeling is that it was uninclusive of all faiths to which I merely responded that I felt that most of the 10 commandments, especially in respect to our laws, are pretty universal and have a historical relevance.

So tell me why I should respond to your inflammatory post again? You weren't really wanting discourse were you? Most people don't go around pissing in people's Wheaties and expect nice responses in return.

Yes. Directly in response to your drivel. You said our laws are based on those tenets and that they are universal in our nation. Our laws are not based on those tenets and they are not universal in our nation. My post DIRECTLY responded to that and explained how and why this is false, including how only 2 of the commandments even match any of our laws and a couple of them are in regards to only being able to believe in one specific god. Read it.

These aren't "feelings". These are facts. You have a right to your own opinions. You do not have a right to your own facts. And you sure as shit don't have a right to not be called out or ridiculed when your opinion is moronic with no basis in reality. Prove me wrong. Convince everyone how the ten commandments are "integral in our sense of justice". Especially when we don't consider visiting the sins of the father on to the children as justice. I could just as easily say that Mein Kampf was integral to American society if I get to leave off 80% of it.

It's not "pissing in someone's Wheaties" to point out nonsense and/or errors in reasoning. The fantasy land you live in where everyone's "opinion" is just as valid as the next, is not reality. Or is it more likely a defense mechanism to play the victim so you never have to back up anything you say? It's much easier than knowing what you're talking about.

What part of the justice system does NOT owe its roots to the recorded history (or fictional, as you might say) that is the bible where Moses was a lawgiver as well as a religious leader? Hell, there is a book called Judges in the bible which chronicles Hebrew justices. The whole point of the ten commandments being displayed in courts or public places is to show unwavering credence to law as being derived by an intangible being, not subject to fleeting thoughts and wavering opinions. Is that concept that the law is the law not found in the ten commandments? There is a historical application to having them displayed.

Here is a bit of history on how they appeared in the Supreme Court. http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... 0408155647

Here is what a supreme court justice said regarding the subject. "According to Judeo-Christian belief, the Ten Commandments were given to Moses by God on Mt. Sinai. But Moses was a lawgiver as well as a religious leader. And the Ten Commandments have an undeniable historical meaning," Rehnquist said. This is from the case of Van Orden v. Perry in 2005.

But all that doesn't matter anyway because of the relentless pursuit of secular purification our nation has been going through. Clearly you wouldn't recognize the historical context of the ten commandments because you reject the bible as a whole (correct me if I am wrong) and therefore, even as a story (the bible, in your view), it must be removed from all facets of public life because the word "God" appears in it.

So keep your mockery going at full throttle, after all its the way.

More babble, backpedaling, and red herrings. Now you've moved on from claiming that the ten commandments are an integral part of our laws (even though only two seem to match in any way) to the appeal to authority fallacy (posting links to what other "authorities" think) and that the bible has historical meaning. Yes. The bible has historical meaning. If you had said that or that it was integral to modern literature or art, I would agree. But you didn't say that. You said our laws are based on those tenets. I went through each of the ten commandments in my previous post and pointed out how they are not. Please stop trying to change the subject and respond directly to that.

And of course you are wrong about me. I'm not surprised. No, I don't reject the bible as a whole. It really exists. And I don't mind seeing it anywhere. Except in the case of the government, because we have laws for that sort of thing. Laws I believe in. It doesn't make it OK just because it's been going on for a while. It's like someone who gets caught stealing complaining that he's been doing it for years.

And where did I say that I want god removed from every facet of public life? Another attempt at trying to backpedal and change the subject? It doesn't have a place in a secular government. Read that again, as many times as needed. And law isn't derived from an intangible being. They are derived from society. Do you really need more examples of this?

So please, can you get back on topic and explain to me how our laws are based on the tenets of the ten commandments? Thanks.

[madryan]

The founders weren't Christian for the most part. That's a load of crap which is easily disproved in their own writings as well as church history of the time.

[marshallnoise]

More babble, backpedaling, and red herrings. Now you've moved on from claiming that the ten commandments are an integral part of our laws (even though only two seem to match in any way) to the appeal to authority fallacy (posting links to what other "authorities" think) and that the bible has historical meaning. Yes. The bible has historical meaning. If you had said that or that it was integral to modern literature or art, I would agree. But you didn't say that. You said our laws are based on those tenets. I went through each of the ten commandments in my previous post and pointed out how they are not. Please stop trying to change the subject and respond directly to that.

And of course you are wrong about me. I'm not surprised. No, I don't reject the bible as a whole. It really exists. And I don't mind seeing it anywhere. Except in the case of the government, because we have laws for that sort of thing. Laws I believe in. It doesn't make it OK just because it's been going on for a while. It's like someone who gets caught stealing complaining that he's been doing it for years.

And where did I say that I want god removed from every facet of public life? Another attempt at trying to backpedal and change the subject? It doesn't have a place in a secular government. Read that again, as many times as needed. And law isn't derived from an intangible being. They are derived from society. Do you really need more examples of this?

So please, can you get back on topic and explain to me how our laws are based on the tenets of the ten commandments? Thanks.

The problem with trying to prove our nation's Christian heritage to you is that you simply deny it. So why bother? I could provide you with 250 or so founding fathers who were ordained pastors, preachers and otherwise Christian holy men and you would deny it. I could provide you with direct quotes from these men showing their belief in this nation being created out of reverence for God and how the bible is an integral part of any moral man. Heck, the Declaration of Independence specifically states that God is the origin of our rights and no man has a right to take them away, yet you will deny it. So why bother?

You are parsing words when you say you don't reject the bible. You know damn well what the meaning of the phrase "reject the bible" means. Acknowledging the existence of the bible does not mean you give a rip about what is in it.

How many times in your above post do you say that you don't have a problem with the bible, except when it comes in contact with our government? Yet you claim you don't want "god removed from every facet of public life?" You even bolded "It doesn't have a place in secular government." So how can it be both ways?

I just explained to you above how the ten commandments, and what they mean as a whole, means to the concept of law. The law is supposed to be immovable, a constant and something to navigate life in reference to. The ten commandments are God's laws to His people; issued by God and held accountable by the judges of Israel. Heck, the whole concept of a judicial system is contained in the bible. Here is some good reading you will ignore: http://www.lawandliberty.org/justice.htm.

I quite realize that in public internet forums such as this one, mob rules. So I lose this whole discussion and I am fine with it. Just don't present your mockery as indicated clearly in this thread and in the other thread regarding the church sign as anything more valuable than a kid making fun of another kid for being fat. It is just stupid playground antics.

[indienoise]

Looking past the bickering occurring here, to me it means the government just stays the hell out of people's religion. For positive OR negative affect. From establishing any official religion, and from restricting any religion.

Just as a point of reference, this means I oppose some recent decisions I've read about that extracurricular clubs can't have any religious theme. If students want to pray to Jesus, fine. If they want to pray to Allah, fine. If they want to pray to Satan, fine. If they want to pray to the maimed, five-legged insect somebody found outside, fine. And as long as it's not part of the curriculum and required to pass, I really don't see the issue if it's led by a faculty member. It's not required, the student walked in of their own accord and they can walk back out all the same. The government shouldn't be restricting those people, regardless of their position, if it's not part of their official duty. Now, some teacher wants to try to bully kids into joining? Sure, give that teacher the smack down.

Also, Ovid, is the hospital your wife works at privately owned, or publicly subsidized? If it's publicly subsidized, then yeah no way they should be making that call. If it's privately owned, though, again - let the government stay out of it, there are other, public, health care options. Let them use their money in whatever way they see fit.

So yeah, just in general. Means government stays out of it.

[madryan]

Good lord the butthurt is flowing in this one. There's no justification for legislating religion in our country.

[Cflat]

The problem with trying to prove our nation's Christian heritage to you is that you simply deny it. So why bother? I could provide you with 250 or so founding fathers who were ordained pastors, preachers and otherwise Christian holy men and you would deny it. I could provide you with direct quotes from these men showing their belief in this nation being created out of reverence for God and how the bible is an integral part of any moral man. Heck, the Declaration of Independence specifically states that God is the origin of our rights and no man has a right to take them away, yet you will deny it. So why bother?

Declaration of Independence isn't the Constitution. Notice how the wording changed drastically when it came time to actually form a government. Unless you're seriously trying to use an appeal to popularity here? This is irrelevant anyway. You're trying to change the subject again. Our nation's heritage has nothing to do with it. You said the tenets of the ten commandments are what our laws are based on. Please explain.

You are parsing words when you say you don't reject the bible. You know damn well what the meaning of the phrase "reject the bible" means. Acknowledging the existence of the bible does not mean you give a rip about what is in it.

What do you want to know? I don't believe that the bible is god's word. I don't believe the bible is an accurate representation of history, especially in regards to the miraculous claims that can't possibly be justified. Most of the founding fathers that you could name mostly agree with my assessment of the bible, anyway.
Although, I don't see the relevance here. What's your point with this if not to desperately try and backpedal/change the subject again?

How many times in your above post do you say that you don't have a problem with the bible, except when it comes in contact with our government? Yet you claim you don't want "god removed from every facet of public life?" You even bolded "It doesn't have a place in secular government." So how can it be both ways?

Yes. What are you not grasping?
I don't mind seeing religion plastered all over the universe (although that would be a scary universe). But it doesn't belong in government. Our government is secular. It has laws about not promoting one religion over another. Promoting one religion over another(or none at all) should not be done with government funds or on government property. Everywhere else is fine as this is a free country. I don't know how much simpler to put it.

I just explained to you above how the ten commandments, and what they mean as a whole, means to the concept of law. The law is supposed to be immovable, a constant and something to navigate life in reference to. The ten commandments are God's laws to His people; issued by God and held accountable by the judges of Israel. Heck, the whole concept of a judicial system is contained in the bible. Here is some good reading you will ignore: http://www.lawandliberty.org/justice.htm.

LOL. Right. The Bible invented the judicial system.
Our laws are NOT immovable and constant. Do you know what country you live in? Our constitution isn't even immovable. Because,....it's been moved.
We might run into problems if we're to believe our laws to be immovable. Especially with that slavery thing, or that women voting thing.
And I will ignore your link. If that guy wants to have a discussion with me or try and bail you out, he can email me or post here.

I quite realize that in public internet forums such as this one, mob rules. So I lose this whole discussion and I am fine with it. Just don't present your mockery as indicated clearly in this thread and in the other thread regarding the church sign as anything more valuable than a kid making fun of another kid for being fat. It is just stupid playground antics.

Playing the victim again.
This isn't mob rules. It's invalid and/or nonsensical arguments lose. And I wouldn't say it's like a kid calling another kid fat. It's more like a person making baseless claims and crying fowl when someone points it out. The only playground antics have been by you. You post drivel showing that you don't know what you're talking about and get pissy when someone points it out. You immediately play the victim card instead of backing up anything you say, constantly change the subject, backpedal, misrepresent who you're talking to, and commit relativistic fallacies in order to imply that facts are somehow just opinions and yours is just as good as any another. As much as that might make you feel better, it just isn't true.

[marshallnoise]

Cflat, I just don't care to continue this with you. It really is a waste of breath (in this case, typing). Claim victory all you want.

[rear naked]

Cflat, I just don't care to continue this with you. It really is a waste of breath (in this case, typing). Claim victory all you want.

Ran out of red herrings?

[Cflat]

Cflat, I just don't care to continue this with you. It really is a waste of breath (in this case, typing). Claim victory all you want.

I'm not winning anything. None of the facts I've presented are owned by me. It's not about victory. It's about you being able to back up your baseless claims, or not. Clearly not. So maybe you should reconsider them. That's what reasonable people do in those cases.
And you're not fooling anyone with your "I don't care" routine. Funny how that comes out when someone starts making too much sense for you.

[marshallnoise]

Cflat, I just don't care to continue this with you. It really is a waste of breath (in this case, typing). Claim victory all you want.

Ran out of red herrings?

Find one.

[marshallnoise]

Cflat, I just don't care to continue this with you. It really is a waste of breath (in this case, typing). Claim victory all you want.

I'm not winning anything. None of the facts I've presented are owned by me. It's not about victory. It's about you being able to back up your baseless claims, or not. Clearly not. So maybe you should reconsider them. That's what reasonable people do in those cases.
And you're not fooling anyone with your "I don't care" routine. Funny how that comes out when someone starts making too much sense for you.

How can someone speak with you when you truly believe that the Constitution was created in a vacuum, outside of all influence of the day? You are the one that claims that the Declaration of Independence is essentially unrelated to the Constitution.

Whatever I bring to the discussion will be refuted as irrelevant because of me being involved in the discussion in the first place. So what is the point? I could supply a list of 230 some odd founding fathers who are indeed Christian and you will say, "What is a Christian?" or "They weren't Christians in the same way as Christians today." Or you will bring up quotes that supposedly prove that a founding father isn't a Christian and then I will have to go and bring context of the conversation into the light just to have it ignored in the same way that the Constitution has to be viewed in isolation, outside of the Declaration of Independence or the founders to influenced both documents.

Next you will say that I am bringing in a Strawman argument because I am saying what you are going to say, etc. But I have been there before with people and this is inevitably where all conversations of this nature go with the players at hand. A universal claim is made outside of context, I go dig around to provide context, then get accused of changing the subject. When the truth of the matter is that outlandish maxims are implemented without any regard for the context in the first place. It is simply impossible to discuss anything in this way. It would be one thing entirely if I claimed that what happened in the 1920s China directly influenced the founding fathers creation of the constitution.

All this started because I said that I claimed most people typically do not have a problem with the ten commandments because either they are generally agreed upon as good things to adhere to and/or the specific-to-Judeo-Christian ones are just disregarded by a reasonable person in the first place while accepting that murder is bad, adultery is bad, covetousness is bad, and so on. Then later on, I bring on the historical significance of the ten commandments and the bible with it's influence on law as a whole and it gets disregarded as well as red herrings. I have been focusing on the same issue at hand, you reject everything so I try to bolster my case, just to have you accuse me of not talking about the subject at hand.

Worse yet, your responses to the ten commandments were a simple show of irreverence and contempt towards the document in the first place. In acknowledging that, I am accused of not taking your comments seriously. And why would I? Are you REALLY interested in an honest discussion or just engaging in ridicule over something you disagree with? Me thinks the latter, so I am made to be a coward for not taking your baited reply. Fine, so be it. A coward I am.