It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OK Supreme Court: Ten Commandments Monument Must Be Removed From Capitol

page: 26
9
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: THEatsking
This is fascinating. Separation of church in state, and there are religious items displayed at a government building?

Another great decision by the court, good week or so.

Equality will always be uncomfortable to those who once reaped the benefits of inequality.


No equality has not won.

There are many courthouses with a religious symbol,
one that can be proven to have been worshiped and revered
in an definitively religious manner.
That is the statue of Lady Liberty, who was both a Roman
and Greek goddess who was worshiped and had an organized religion
based on her.
That is discriminatory not to remove it from all courthouses.

As for current religions, there are a number of current religions
represented by statues in a frieze on the Supreme Court building.
To be fair and equal, they must all be removed from the SCOTUS building.
Worst of all, half of the 10 Commandments are actually written on the
doors entering the SCOTUS chamber, these commandments are
definitively religious and come only from religious sources, regardless
of what they say, the source is deeply religious.
These must be sanded off now that the ruling has been made.

ALL religious symbols, writings, and statues
in order to bring true equality to the US
must be removed from all courthouses immediately,
or else there is no true equality,
only discrimination.




posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

To be consistent, to be just, to be tolerant,
to be fair, all religious symbols and writings
must go along with the 10 Commandments
from every courthouse to include SCOTUS in the US.

Otherwise, the court itself is discriminating against one particular religion.


The question any and all courts ask is if the monument conveys a predominantly secular message or a non-secular message. this monument indisputably conveys a secular message. Architectural and historical features of buildings do not. Lady Liberty was a gift from France...the SCOTUS architectural features and symbols are historical "law givers" from Moses to Mohamed to Confucius to Chief Justice Marshall...Even the Texas State Capitol who has a similar monument to Oklahoma also includes 28 other monuments in the same park representing different things.

You seem to be arguing the extremes for convenience.

Appeal to Extremes
(also known as: reductio ad absurdum [misuse of], slippery slope fallacy [form of])

Description: Erroneously attempting to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes.

Logical Form:
If X is true, then Y must also be true (where Y is the extreme of X)

edit on 2-7-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

You seem to be arguing the extremes for convenience.




Or, she is demonstrating the extreme from the other side of the fence.

The sword cuts both ways, and she is wielding it - rather effectively - to make her point.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

We've been seeing that, and are going to continue to see extreme arguments for a while.

It's really about the only thing the religious folks can do in the face of loosing their grip over the political sphere. Scare people. Make people afraid. Throw out ridiculous hypotheticals.

This happens each time something of this scale happens. Remember after 9/11? Remember how Iraq was going to share WMD with the terrorists? Remember why we invaded Iraq? Fear. We were sold a bundle of fear with crazy hypothetical situations. Fear was capitalized on to galvanize the people into an action we probably would have said no to otherwise.

Fear works great at motivating people. It's the last resort of those on the inevitable loosing end of an issue.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: grandmakdw

To be consistent, to be just, to be tolerant,
to be fair, all religious symbols and writings
must go along with the 10 Commandments
from every courthouse to include SCOTUS in the US.

Otherwise, the court itself is discriminating against one particular religion.


The question any and all courts ask is if the monument conveys a predominantly secular message or a non-secular message. this monument indisputably conveys a secular message. Architectural and historical features of buildings do not. Lady Liberty was a gift from France...the SCOTUS architectural features and symbols are historical "law givers" from Moses to Mohamed to Confucius to Chief Justice Marshall...Even the Texas State Capitol who has a similar monument to Oklahoma also includes 28 other monuments in the same park representing different things.

You seem to be arguing the extremes for convenience.

Appeal to Extremes
(also known as: reductio ad absurdum [misuse of], slippery slope fallacy [form of])

Description: Erroneously attempting to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes.

Logical Form:
If X is true, then Y must also be true (where Y is the extreme of X)


I made a mistake, I meant to say Lady Justice,
not Lady Liberty.

I understand why SCOTUS made the ruling,
however I think the entire mess is absurd.

But if SCOTUS says the 10 Commandments must be removed
from one courthouse,
that must apply to SCOTUS itself,
who has 1/2 of the commandments (directly from the Torah, Bible, Koran)
inscribed on its doors.
To leave them is hypocritical.
They are not secular, they clearly and definitively come from
a Biblical, Torah, Koran source.

Of course, I am being absurdest in saying Lady Justice should be removed,
however, to point out that SCOTUS itself is
discriminating
by not holding themselves to the
same standard is not absurdest,
it is pointing out inequality and
discrimination for their own benefit.

The whole thing is absurd.

I no more have to look at or read any inscription
on any building than you do. No one forced anyone
to look at or read it. Just as no one is forced
to read the doors into the chambers of SCOTUS.

Remove the 10 Commandments from one courthouse,
to be fair, and not absurdest,
one MUST in order to be consistent, fair and just,
remove them from ALL courthouses, including SCOTUS;
that is not absurdest,
it is holding SCOTUS to the same standard by which
they are hold the other courthouses.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw




When you say "Christians" and generalize to all Christians
followed by and insult
it is judgmental bigotry and prejudice at its ugliest


Okay, so you, as a Christian are okay with the Satanist monument being on display next to the 10 Commandments? You do understand that that IS the reasoning behind their removal, because the "Christians" who put the monument there don't want it to be displayed next to a statue of Baphomet, don't you?

You should write them a letter and let them know that, as a "Christian" you're offended at their decision to remove the 10 Commandment from the public square!

Why don't you do that?!


edit on 2-7-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gothmog

Because even if it honors three religions instead of one, it still isn't paying homage to the 300 and some other religions recognized by the US Government. The Constitution is clear on this. You either honor all or none, nothing in between.


Why shouldn't all 300 (if they are really unique faiths) be honoured as long as they do not promote any action which would be considered illegal? Do you have a problem with that?

I appreciate I am walking directly into the trap where someone will say 'eeeuuuwww, so I can have a statue of the spaghetti monster on the white house lawn then dude lmao, lmao, lmao" To which if I dignified it with a reply, it would be get a life.


If you can figure out a way to honor every specific religion then I have no problem with it.


It's really easy - honour someone's right - that doesn't mean statues everywhere - it's not a statue of God/Allah that they are talking about removing is it?


It's really easy, just try to keep religious artifacts off of state grounds instead of worrying about acquiescing to everyone's wants.


Hmmmm, I could say to take that a step further anything that is against your constitution should also be off state grounds - problem solved, trash the confederate flag anywhere near state grounds - sure, not based on religion but on anything that is not based around what should be applied as after all it represents something emotional, not within that constitution.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Indigo5

We've been seeing that, and are going to continue to see extreme arguments for a while.

It's really about the only thing the religious folks can do in the face of loosing their grip over the political sphere. Scare people. Make people afraid. Throw out ridiculous hypotheticals.

This happens each time something of this scale happens. Remember after 9/11? Remember how Iraq was going to share WMD with the terrorists? Remember why we invaded Iraq? Fear. We were sold a bundle of fear with crazy hypothetical situations. Fear was capitalized on to galvanize the people into an action we probably would have said no to otherwise.

Fear works great at motivating people. It's the last resort of those on the inevitable loosing end of an issue.


To show you the ugliness in your words, the judgementalism, the bigotry, I am going to now use your own words and change a few key elements: (note: I do not believe any of these things, they are to make a point)
It's really about the only thing the gay people can do in the face of ..... Scare people. Make people afraid. Throw out ridiculous hypotheticals.
It's really about the only thing the black folks can do in the face of ..... Scare people. Make people afraid. Throw out ridiculous hypotheticals.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gothmog

Because even if it honors three religions instead of one, it still isn't paying homage to the 300 and some other religions recognized by the US Government. The Constitution is clear on this. You either honor all or none, nothing in between.


Why shouldn't all 300 (if they are really unique faiths) be honoured as long as they do not promote any action which would be considered illegal? Do you have a problem with that?

I appreciate I am walking directly into the trap where someone will say 'eeeuuuwww, so I can have a statue of the spaghetti monster on the white house lawn then dude lmao, lmao, lmao" To which if I dignified it with a reply, it would be get a life.


If you can figure out a way to honor every specific religion then I have no problem with it.


It's really easy - honour someone's right - that doesn't mean statues everywhere - it's not a statue of God/Allah that they are talking about removing is it?


It's really easy, just try to keep religious artifacts off of state grounds instead of worrying about acquiescing to everyone's wants.


Exactly!

And scrub every courthouse and public arena in the entire US
of any and all religious symbols
religious writings
be they ancient or modern.
If the writing, statue, or symbol has its origins in a
verifiable religion and is currently being practiced
or was at one time practiced.

Then to be fair, to be just, to be equal
all must go from all courthouses
from all public spaces
from all government buildings
or else
one is discriminating against
one religion in particular,
or 2 religions as in the case
of the 10 Commandments
(Judism, and Christianity)



3 actually, Islam also acknowledges the Old Testament.

ETA: Didn't see this had been acknowledged.
edit on 2-7-2015 by uncommitted because: as per ETA



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

I already don't want the confederate flag flown on state grounds, so you'll get no argument from me on that.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

You remain confused...

SCOTUS did not demand the 10 Commandments be removed from the Capitol Grounds...

The Oklahoma Supreme Court did...and their ruling was based on the Oklahoma State Constitution NOT Federal law.

SCOTUS has actually allowed a similar monument to stand on the Texas State Grounds...but the history and the context spoke to a non-secular message...it had been their 40 years without complaint, was donated by a non-secular org and was among 30+ other monuments in a park of varying themes and messages...thus SCOTUS determined that 10 Comm. display to be "predominately non-secular".

SCOTUS ruling on Texas Display
en.wikipedia.org...

Oklahoma Supreme Court Ruling
www.oscn.net...





edit on 2-7-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
I have become disgusted with all the posts on this thread
that use the word "Christian" the same way
that people use the N word.
That attitude is spread throughout this thread.

That is one of my main priorities on ATS, to point out that
using the word "Christian" as an insult
is intolerant, judgmental, bigoted, and prejudiced.

Words like these generate hatred for Christians,
words like these are as hurtful as racist words
words like these are as harmful as homophobic words
words like these are as ugly as sexist words.
These kinds of ugly stereotypes divide people and
create hatred.

When you generalize about Christians,
keep in mind
Martin Luther King
and Mother Theresa,
they are part of your generalization of Christians.
If your words to not apply to them, then
they are intolerant, prejudicial, ugly and inciting hatred.

If people want to remove Christianity from all public arenas
that is the choice of the voter
or the ruling of SCOTUS,
I'll accept that.

I won't accept intolerant, or judgmental, or bigoted, or prejudicial
hate speech against all Christians.

It is as bad as racism, sexism, homophobic words and as harmful to society
and as harmful to those whom one generalizes about.


edit on 1Thu, 02 Jul 2015 13:18:22 -0500pm70207pmk024 by grandmakdw because: edited to remove a reference to any particular person



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: Indigo5

You seem to be arguing the extremes for convenience.




Or, she is demonstrating the extreme from the other side of the fence.

The sword cuts both ways, and she is wielding it - rather effectively - to make her point.


Only if you consider the separation of church and state as extreme.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

3 actually, Islam also acknowledges the Old Testament.


apologized and included Islam in an earlier post,
you missed it

You are correct,
the 10 Commandments
are fundamental
to Islam, Judism, and Christianity.

edit on 12Thu, 02 Jul 2015 12:20:03 -0500pm70207pmk024 by grandmakdw because: format



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: grandmakdw

You remain confused...

SCOTUS did not demand the 10 Commandments be removed from the Capitol Grounds...

The Oklahoma Supreme Court did...and their ruling was based on the Oklahoma State Constitution NOT Federal law.

SCOTUS has actually allowed a similar monument to stand on the Texas State Grounds...but the history and the context spoke to a non-secular message...it had been their 40 years without complaint, was donated by a non-secular org and was among 30+ other monuments in a park of varying themes and messages...thus SCOTUS determined that 10 Comm. display to be "predominately non-secular".

SCOTUS ruling on Texas Display
en.wikipedia.org...

Oklahoma Supreme Court Ruling
www.oscn.net...






That is inconsistent.

The 10 Commandments can not be deemed to be religious in one setting,
and then deemed secular in another setting.

That may be what the court is doing or has ruled,
but they are wrong,
it is either secular in all settings
or religious in all settings

The words are exactly the same.
The words are from exactly the same source.
The words are numbered in exactly the same
order.

They can not be inherently secular in one location
and inherently religious in another location.

That is discrimination by location.
That may be what they ruled, but they are wrong.

The same words from the same source
can not be both inherently religious
and at the same time inherently secular,
simply based on location of the words,
or of the intent behind the placement of the words.

The words are identical
and must be judged to be identical
in any and all circumstances
because they are identical.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw




I was point out that your words as written were extremely judgmental toward all Christians.


Lady, you're crazy! This is what I said:

"And that's why we're here, Christians couldn't handle the idea of having to share the public square with the other 300 religions, especially Satanism and the Baphomet statue! "

Do you deny that it is Christians who have made the decision to remove the monument? Do you deny that their decision is based on the fact that the Satanist are putting a statue of Baphomet next to their "holy" monument?

Now, if you have a problem with the way these Christians are behaving, then I suggest that you address them through a letter and let them know of your disgust at their bigotry!



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   
The fact that the ruling in Oklahoma was based entirely on the Oklahoma Constitution, can an appeals argument be made based on Federal rulings?

The SCOTUS has nullified some State laws and State Constitution points already.



Hmmm.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   

edit on 1Thu, 02 Jul 2015 13:14:26 -0500pm70207pmk024 by grandmakdw because: see note to windword



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw




Substitute the word Black people for Christians


I don't have to. It's not "black people" who are taking down a monument dedicated to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, for example, because a statue of a confederate general is proposed to go up next to it.There are no "gay people" threatening to take down their rainbow flag because of an anti-gay flag flying next to it.

In fact, we're having this discussion because the Christians who put the monument of the 10 Commandment up are taking it down because they refuse to share the public square with the Satanist who plan to erect a statue of Baphomet.



I am disgusted by your words of intolerance,
the words you wrote that contain extremist judgementalism,
the words you wrote that incite hatred for Christians and Christianity


You are deluded and confused. I think you have intolerant, judgmental and hateful filters attached to your computer monitor, because the only hate filled, intolerant and judgment posts I see are coming from you!



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: grandmakdw




Substitute the word Black people for Christians


I don't have to. It's not "black people" who are taking down a monument dedicated to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, for example, because a statue of a confederate general is proposed to go up next to it.There are no "gay people" threatening to take down their rainbow flag because of an anti-gay flag flying next to it.

In fact, we're having this discussion because the Christians who put the monument of the 10 Commandment up are taking it down because they refuse to share the public square with the Satanist who plan to erect a statue of Baphomet.



I am disgusted by your words of intolerance,
the words you wrote that contain extremist judgementalism,
the words you wrote that incite hatred for Christians and Christianity


You are deluded and confused. I think you have intolerant, judgmental and hateful filters attached to your computer monitor, because the only hate filled, intolerant and judgment posts I see are coming from you!



Know what, you are right, I got carried away.

My radar just goes of when people write "Christians" followed by an insult.

I went too far in your case.

However, that said, if "Christians" wanted the statue removed, then why did the court have to force Christians to remove it through a court ruling. If the entire case was, "Christians" wanted the statue removed, as you are claiming then why did the court have to force removal?

I will ammend/edit my previous posts to you if I can to apologize.



new topics




 
9
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join