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

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: grandmakdw

Not sure what all that was about..You claimed it was impossible for the 10 Commandments to be displayed in a non-secular context.

I direct you to Mel Brooks at the top of the page...was that comedy or church?

Comedy, art, Architecture, History...et al. I can appreciate a great religious themed painting without pondering Christianity and can appreciate great architecture with religious themed sculptures without needing to contemplate Jesus's dying for our sins etc.

Yes, context matters.

No, I was saying that if the Supreme Court declared the 10 Commandments to be religious and to be removed from a courthouse because it is religious. Then all courthouses and places of government, should remove the 10 Commandments from their buildings and facades and carvings, in order to be just, fair and equal. The court declared the 10 Commandments to be religious when placed in a courthouse, then all courthouses to be fair and just and equal, must remove all religious symbolism and writings in order for the ruling not to be prejudicial and discriminatory toward the Muslims, Jewish people and Christians.

A courthouse is a courthouse, same exact context.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: grandmakdw

You can disagree all you want about this, you are still wrong. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. History is very clear on this matter. 2 + 2 = 4 no matter how much you may want to say it is 3.

Much like two men are 'married.'

Two men can never marry, no matter how much you want to say they can.

This game is fun!

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: grandmakdw

Not sure what all that was about..You claimed it was impossible for the 10 Commandments to be displayed in a non-secular context.

I direct you to Mel Brooks at the top of the page...was that comedy or church?

Comedy, art, Architecture, History...et al. I can appreciate a great religious themed painting without pondering Christianity and can appreciate great architecture with religious themed sculptures without needing to contemplate Jesus's dying for our sins etc.

Yes, context matters.

Yes, but so does a little education - where do you get the equation of the 10 Commandments = contemplating anything to do with Christ? by the same token you are arguing you can't think of the 10 Commandments without contemplating on the words of Mohammed.

Context matters, but only if you understand what context mattering actually means.

a reply to: grandmakdw

I believe Christians deserve the same respect as everyone else, although I think most on ATS disagree.

They deserve the same RIGHTS as everyone else. No question about that.

But RESPECT is earned, not 'deserved'. It can be 'demanded', but that doesn't make it happen.

Vapid? I wouldn't say she's vapid. Just mistaken.

Lacking class? Remains to be seen.
Religion doesn't make people 'classy.'

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Vapid? I wouldn't say she's vapid. Just mistaken.

Lacking class? Remains to be seen.
Religion doesn't make people 'classy.'

I believe the person was referring to you as vapid.

Classy, I don't care, too old to care, too old to be classy.

Old enough to not be afraid to call it as I see it and
not be afraid to tell the truth. Because at my age
I have learned that caring what other people think
of me personally is a gross waste of time and energy.

Telling it as I see it, well that's worth it when you are old and cranky!

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: grandmakdw

You can disagree all you want about this, you are still wrong. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. History is very clear on this matter. 2 + 2 = 4 no matter how much you may want to say it is 3.

Much like two men are 'married.'

Two men can never marry, no matter how much you want to say they can.

This game is fun!

But they CAN marry. So says the state. So yeah the game IS fun. Someone else pretending 2 + 2 = 3.

a reply to: grandmakdw

I believe the person was referring to you as vapid.

GASP!!!

Ya think?
Doy.

Classy, I don't care, too old to care, too old to be classy.

That's a shame. Never too old to get some class.

Old enough to not be afraid to call it as I see it and
not be afraid to tell the truth.

And, apparently, not afraid to tell untruths as well. There's nothing 'classy' about telling untruths.

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: grandmakdw

You can disagree all you want about this, you are still wrong. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. History is very clear on this matter. 2 + 2 = 4 no matter how much you may want to say it is 3.

Much like two men are 'married.'

Two men can never marry, no matter how much you want to say they can.

This game is fun!

Wrong again. Religion is up for interpretation. Did you read the entire bible? There are countless horrific, disgusting things in the bible. So, if a woman is raped, she must marry the rapist?

"If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

If you work on saturday, you have to be put to death

“Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.”

Let me guess, working on saturday is OK but being a man/man marriage or homosexual sex is not? Why? The anti-homosexual agenda that is -still- oppressing gays to this day.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Because at my age
I have learned that caring what other people think
of me personally is a gross waste of time and energy.

You seem to be unaware that we are of the same generation. I am 56 years old. Not a 'grandma' yet, though.

If you are so unbothered by what others think, then why the crusade to call out people who aren't fans of Christianity?
Why attack other posters who aren't Christians?

The Christians are doing this to themselves - and to you. You are on the right track in terms of reining them in - but attacking others for expressing what they see and perceive (given the available evidence) with anger and hostility is hardly "not caring."

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: grandmakdw

Because at my age
I have learned that caring what other people think
of me personally is a gross waste of time and energy.

You seem to be unaware that we are of the same generation. I am 56 years old. Not a 'grandma' yet, though.

If you are so unbothered by what others think, then why the crusade to call out people who aren't fans of Christianity?
Why attack other posters who aren't Christians?

The Christians are doing this to themselves - and to you. You are on the right track in terms of reining them in - but attacking others for expressing what they see and perceive (given the available evidence) with anger and hostility is hardly "not caring."

I am not bothered by what others think of me personally.

I "attack" as you put it,
to point out how what they are saying is intolerant, judgmental, bigoted and prejudiced,
because they think Christians
are fair game to be intolerant toward, to be judgmental toward,
they don't see they are engaging in exactly the same behavior they condemn

When I take their own words and change the word Christian
for black or gay
it clearly points out the intolerance and judgmental bigotry
of the statements they are making.

Many people on ATS are blind to the fact that they are being
equally judgmental, intolerant and bigoted as the very
people they are accusing of those things.

Because our current popular culture makes it acceptable
to "blame" Christians and to be intolerant, judgmental and bigoted
toward them.

It has become not only acceptable in our current
popular culture, it has become nearly mandatory for many people
on ATS. So much so that they don't see what they are saying
for what it really is, intolerant, hateful and judgmental.

So when I "attack", it shocks people
it stuns people
to realize that their words
are as hurtful and awful
and intolerant and judgmental
and bigoted
as they claim Christians are.

Because most Christians are too nice
and too afraid to stand up and say:
"Hey that was judgmental, intolerant and bigoted
and you directed it toward me
and Mother Theresa
and Martin Luther King
when you say Christians like it was the "N" word."

Some Christian has to be brave enough to
say enough is enough,
and to fight
exactly like gays are fighting for the right to be respected (as they should)
and as people of color are fighting for the right to be respected (as they should).

Society should NOT condone, as it is now
making one group ok to be the target
of intolerant, judgmental and bigoted remarks
that lead to things like the KKK
and lead to things like throwing gays off roof tops.

Right now society in general is saying it is ok
to treat Christians like that, because "they deserve it"
for their past, as they see it, "evil" deeds.
That is the same reasoning for the holocaust.

I can not and will not stand by and let that happen,
I will fight the injustice, the bigotry and hatred that
is acceptable behavior on ATS
and in popular culture right now.

Don't expect me to stop and don't
be shocked when I do.

Standing up for the right to be respected
and not be insulted and not be defamed
and not be ridiculed and not be made
an acceptable object of hatred,
is not attacking.
It is self defense.

To point out to someone who thinks
they are the most tolerant and non-judgmental person
on the face of the earth
that their remarks are intolerant and judgmental
does I admit lead to them feeling attacked,
because they don't see themselves that way.

I will continue to hold up the mirror, until people realize what they are doing is hateful.

If that is attacking, then so be it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

But they CAN marry. So says the state. So yeah the game IS fun. Someone else pretending 2 + 2 = 3.

No matter what you, or the Supreme Court says, that is not and will never be so.

Here, I'll give you an example:

"I am a Unicorn!"

See how easy that is?

If the Supreme Court overturned 30 states that denied my claim of Unicorn status and ruled that the Constitution affords me the right to consider myself a Unicorn and subjects all 50 states to acknowledge my Unicornness, it will NEVER change the undeniable fact, that I am not, never was, and never will be.....a Unicorn.

a reply to: Seamrog

Technically you're wrong

But serious question.. do you understand the Concept of Human?

a reply to: grandmakdw

I guess you missed my post about how RESPECT is not 'deserved', but 'earned.'

I will tell you that I RESPECT Pope Francis.
He's got class. I RESPECT many people who are Christians, for that matter.

You deserve RIGHTS, you do not necessarily deserve "respect". Respect has to be earned. It can't be demanded.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Kromlech

Obviously further proof of the prosecution of the christians in this once great christian nation!

/sarc off.

For those that are against this ruling, would you be okay with any other religions monument on state capital grounds?

Just to keep things current, what would the outrage be if it was a muslim monument?

That's the stupidest comparison I've ever heard. It's like asking the Saudis to post the Ten Commandments out front of the Muslim Kings palace. Really? America is and has been a Christian nation since its founding over 200 years ago. Never, ever, has it been a Muslim nation. Our country was founded on the principles of Christianity while the Muslim religion has been a guest in our house, tolerated and accepted as another form of worship.

Which history book did you get this information from? No history professor I'VE ever talked to says that it was founded as a Christian nation. Everyone I talk to who has actually STUDIED the matter and isn't just spouting a bunch of insane drivel says the country was founded as a secular nation to prevent ANY religion from taking over and establishing their will on the populace.

Twisted. That's all I can say. Your basis is based on more drivel from another liberal "professor" trying to rewrite history. Sure, the constitution is to protect us from overzealous religious leaders, not to protect us from having religious faith. Why is it that every politician since the beginning has been sworn in to office putting their hands on a bible and taking an oath with religious reference? Why is it that we used to pledge allegiance "under God" since the beginning? Why is it that "in God we Trust" is on our money? Why is that our most celebrated holidays in this country are based on the birth of Christ and the death of Christ? Do you celebrate Christmas? Well, you get the point. These things have always been a part of our history until liberal "professors" starting rewriting history and liberals began their war on Christianity. Now, for crying out loud, Christmas vacation at our schools isn't even Christmas vacation anymore...it's Winter Break. lol. Progressives (sigh). What really baffles me the most is what the hell you people are so afraid of when someone chooses to have their own opinion or belief system.

a reply to: Rezlooper

Why is it that every politician since the beginning has been sworn in to office putting their hands on a bible and taking an oath with religious reference?

They haven't. Why is it that you don't know this?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: grandmakdw

I guess you missed my post about how RESPECT is not 'deserved', but 'earned.'

I will tell you that I RESPECT Pope Francis.
He's got class. I RESPECT many people who are Christians, for that matter.

You deserve RIGHTS, you do not necessarily deserve "respect". Respect has to be earned. It can't be demanded.

So you are saying that for people to respect all Black people, they must first earn the respect?

Are you saying that LGBT people do not deserve respect until they earn it?

Are you saying that Muslims in the US do not deserve respect until they earn it?

That is what you are saying when you say all Christians must first earn the respect of those who trash them, that they don't deserve respect as human beings? Because they are Christians?

I am simply saying that all human beings deserve respect,
regardless of their color, their religion, their orientation.

All people deserve to be respected, unless they personally
do something to lose the respect of others.

One can not take a large group of people
(millions upon millions of people) and say,
it's ok not to respect them until they earn it.
But everyone else deserves respect.

a reply to: Rezlooper

Not since the beginning

www.ushistory.org...

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:

a reply to: grandmakdw

I am saying that a person - ANY person - is not "entitled" to respect. Their actions earn them respect. Respect is given by people - by individuals - not by law.

Understanding and tolerance and acceptance and inclusion and rights are not "respect." I know gay people that I very much respect. I know others who I do not respect.

I know black people whom I respect. I know others who I do not respect.

I know Christians whom I respect. I know atheists and agnostics and Muslims and Jews whom I respect.......

and blah blah and so on and so forth, and scooby-dooby-do.

Case by case basis, ya know?
Just because you raise your hand and say "I'm a Christian! Respect me!" does not mean you "deserve" my respect. You "deserve" rights. You "deserve" life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.

a reply to: grandmakdw

I said it was founded using Christian principals, it was.

Here is a quote from a treaty written under George Washington's presidency and signed under John Adam's presidency:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

- Treaty of Tripoli link

The Founding Fathers themselves say that The U.S. was not founded, in any sense, on the Christian religion.

The 10 Commandments being on government property is unfair to other religions. Is it ok to have Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, or Satanic symbols there? If not, then neither should Biblical symbolism.

Establishment clause:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Either everyone should be able to have their symbol there or no one at all, otherwise it's prohibiting the free exercise of other people's religions, by allowing Biblical symbols but not Hindu and all others.