I hate Pittm!

[W00lygimp]

What a loser, I hope he gets run over by the GoodYear Blimp.
He makes stupid points, stampedes other peoples rights and assumes hes right. Not once, has he made a single partially valid argument. In fact, everytime i read his posts I feel like knocking his punk ass out.

Quit inciting arguments and accept the fact that Bush won, and don't insult other peoples beleif's.

[elwoodblues]

Please hate me too.

Thanks!

(if it helps you hate me, I can make fun of you a bit)

[W00lygimp]

ok i hate you too, just not as much as pittm.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
Not once, has he made a single partially valid argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right... I guess by partially valid you must mean based on what is morally correct (as bible tells us). And the fact that all the midwest religious nuts who don't understand the seperation of church and state vote for something, I suppose thats necessary and sufficient proof that its valid.

uh oh, my sarcasm detector is off the charts, I guess you better hate me too

[W00lygimp]

Saying the Bible is a fictional book is being a troll at its best. Of course hes going to take heat for it because basically hes insulting peoples beleif's.

[texaspimp]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


It appears as though Congress (the government) cannot tell you to be Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindi, etc.. Moreover, they cannot prevent you from practicing any religion. Where does it say, "You cannot have a Christmas party in school"? Where does it say "By displaying the 10 commandments, you are endorsing Christianity"? If I am a Buddist, and one of the commandments says "thou shalt not kill", how is that forcing Christianity on me?

Just curious.

[elwoodblues]

Just trying to improve my rankings on the wooly hate meter...I bet you've got a journal of names of people you hate, don't you?

[ QUOTE ]
Of course hes going to take heat for it because basically hes insulting peoples beleif's.

[/ QUOTE ]

i before e except after c and words the say "ay" like neighbor and weigh.

curious use of the apostraphe as well. Peoples and hes don't have one while beleif's [sic] does.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
What a loser, I hope he gets run over by the GoodYear Blimp.
He makes stupid points, stampedes other peoples rights and assumes hes right. Not once, has he made a single partially valid argument. In fact, everytime i read his posts I feel like knocking his punk ass out.


[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post, concise, to the point and very accurate, except for one small mistake, obviously a typo, it should have been called, "I hate W00lygimp!"

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
Saying the Bible is a fictional book is being a troll at its best. Of course hes going to take heat for it because basically hes insulting peoples beleif's.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that the Bible is not a fictional book, with all the implications that follow from that idea, is quite insulting to many people as well.

[pfkaok]

If you truly believe that you can take the fact that 51% of America thinks that something is right, or true... and then think that logically leads to the conclusion that that thing is right or true, then I feel very sorry for you.(you might make a good politition though)
America as a public is very, very uneducated, and you don't have to pass any tests that show that you actually understand the issues in order to vote. Now just b/c Bush wins the election you're using that as your PROOF as to why everything he says and believes in is true...very amusing

When you were in school did you used to copy off of the kid next to you, and always assume that he'd be right?? After all, even a D student would be in the 60% + range.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
"You cannot have a Christmas party in school"

[/ QUOTE ]

Insofar as it is a government school and Christmas is a Christian holiday, a Christmas party tells kids that their government endorses Christmas.

The words "respecting an establishment of religion" are being intepreted to mean (very generically) that the government has no role in supporting one religion over another.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a loser, I hope he gets run over by the GoodYear Blimp.
He makes stupid points, stampedes other peoples rights and assumes hes right. Not once, has he made a single partially valid argument. In fact, everytime i read his posts I feel like knocking his punk ass out.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Excellent post, concise, to the point and very accurate, except for one small mistake, obviously a typo, it should have been called, "I hate W00lygimp!"


[/ QUOTE ]


haha... I was thinking the exact same thing. Funny how the most stubborn, illogical, and immature of us are the quickest to find (in their own mind) their own shortcommings in others.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Sure he is kooky but he has made me laugh a lot.

I think you need to drink a few beers and relax. He is harmless.

[PITTM]

[ QUOTE ]
What a loser, I hope he gets run over by the GoodYear Blimp.
He makes stupid points, stampedes other peoples rights and assumes hes right. Not once, has he made a single partially valid argument. In fact, everytime i read his posts I feel like knocking his punk ass out.

Quit inciting arguments and accept the fact that Bush won, and don't insult other peoples beleif's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this post is pretty funny, im still not sure whether or not i am supposed to take your points which either consist of blatent conservative propaganda or just swearing at people and calling them idiots seriously, but anyways, here i go.

a) i accept that bush won the presidency, in fact, i bet on him to win on a few sites and i actually made a prediction that he would win earlier this week already and not once have i critisized the fact that he was elected, good completely incorrect point though...

b) My latest post was a plea to PRESERVE people's rights, not to stampede on them, i would never ask for such a thing.

c) it is a politics message board, im pretty sure there will be arguing...at least as much as is contained in threads such as...

-THE [censored] EXPLOSIVES AT THE AL-QAQAA SITE WERE REMOVED BY US

-Bush has never made an attack on Kerry without correct information

Furthermore, the majority of your posts defending Bush's invasion of Iraq have never once cited a legitimate source. Making up your information or using heresay as evidence makes your credibility close to 0. If it were a little higher i might care you hate me, but alas it is not.

Also, i stand by my view on the bible, if it had never been written millions more people would be alive today, religion does not justify hatred and killing, but that seems to be all it does nowadays. Good intentions, bad results.

rj

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
Saying the Bible is a fictional book is being a troll at its best. Of course hes going to take heat for it because basically hes insulting peoples beleif's.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're insulting my beliefs by saying the Bible is not a fictional book. Troll.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, i stand by my view on the bible, if it had never been written millions more people would be alive today,

[/ QUOTE ]

And they'd all be gay, living in California demanding the right to marry one another. What good would that do us?

[PITTM]

instead we got a bunch of people who dont think for themselves but let a book do it for them...what a great country we are...

rj

[Cyrus]

PITTM gets a badge of honor from a poster who is probably the least articulate, the most gaffe-prone and with the shortest fuse! While PITTM has been posting here for a couple of months, tops. This is unfair.

I get to be a Carpal/-Tunnel and W00lly doesn't even return my calls.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[arabie]

He is stating opinion that you happen to disagree it, you heard of that constituion thing that talks about the freedom of expression. Also, you should be one to talk, you present your weak arguments and assumptions as pure universal truths. Your infallability is not real, this forum is not going to concede with your hate for everyone who disagrees with you, so i beg of you to start debating in a more mature, accepting fashion.

[nicky g]

Grow up.

[zephed56]

reply to texasSomethingOrOtherIForgotAlready...
[ QUOTE ]
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


It appears as though Congress (the government) cannot tell you to be Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindi, etc.. Moreover, they cannot prevent you from practicing any religion. Where does it say, "You cannot have a Christmas party in school"? Where does it say "By displaying the 10 commandments, you are endorsing Christianity"? If I am a Buddist, and one of the commandments says "thou shalt not kill", how is that forcing Christianity on me?

Just curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

you forgot to mention the rest of the TEN commandments...
I. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

pretty big one there. I am your god and have no other gods before me in a public school? So the school says that your god is a christian one and you must not have any other gods, and that is not establishing christianity as the official religion of this school how? If you're Hindu, you are certainly violating a policy of this school...

II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
III. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.
IV. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
V. Honour thy father and thy mother.
VI. Thou shalt not kill.
VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
VIII. Thou shalt not steal.
IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
X. Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's.

I don't know which bible version this is from, but you get the idea...

To me putting that up (like a sign) in a gov't building would imply that it is the policy of that institution.

I don't see your need to have it in a government building. Wouldn't your home or church be more appropriate? Also, if you want to spread the word of god, this ain't the way to do it. It turns people off to christianity when you try mix their gov't with christianity.

[texaspimp]

Please understand that I am not trying to be provocative. I sincerely do not understand this. Also, I am limited in knowledge of specific religions and denominations.

1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
While my interpretation is that of the Christian God (Father of Jesus), why can't a muslim look at this and say Allah. This may be difficult for Buddists since they have multiple gods.

2) I don't NEED to have this info in a public building. I simply do not understand why seeing this FORCES you to believe in Christianity.

[zephed56]

[ QUOTE ]
Please understand that I am not trying to be provocative. I sincerely do not understand this. Also, I am limited in knowledge of specific religions and denominations.

1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
While my interpretation is that of the Christian God (Father of Jesus), why can't a muslim look at this and say Allah. This may be difficult for Buddists since they have multiple gods.

2) I don't NEED to have this info in a public building. I simply do not understand why seeing this FORCES you to believe in Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) The reason a muslim can't look at this and think of allah, is because this is a passage from the bible. What about someone who believes in many gods?
2) It doesn't FORCE you to believe in it, but when it's posted in a government building, it's stating a policy of that institution. And when our Constitution states that no religion shall be established, it's contradicting itself. When you put the 10 commandments up in a gov't building, you're saying, "hey, this is our (gov't's) religion".

[texaspimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please understand that I am not trying to be provocative. I sincerely do not understand this. Also, I am limited in knowledge of specific religions and denominations.

1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
While my interpretation is that of the Christian God (Father of Jesus), why can't a muslim look at this and say Allah. This may be difficult for Buddists since they have multiple gods.

2) I don't NEED to have this info in a public building. I simply do not understand why seeing this FORCES you to believe in Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) The reason a muslim can't look at this and think of allah, is because this is a passage from the bible. What about someone who believes in many gods?
2) It doesn't FORCE you to believe in it, but when it's posted in a government building, it's stating a policy of that institution. And when our Constitution states that no religion shall be established, it's contradicting itself. When you put the 10 commandments up in a gov't building, you're saying, "hey, this is our (gov't's) religion".

[/ QUOTE ]

WHAT??? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

I missed the legislation that said, "The United States establishes Baptist as the religion of America."

So if there there is a statement in the Koran (sp) that I agree with, say "Do not steal", I cannot intrepret that to fit my Christian beliefs??

Ridiculous.

And another thing, this works for believers and non believers of religion. Again I am no expert, but if I was an atheist, I would intrepret all of the God references to mean me.

I sincerely think people just look for ways to be pissed off. Unless you're in Vegas, where you look for ways to be pissed on.

[elwoodblues]

I assume then, you would have no problem with our government institutions having large monuments with writings from the Koran on them.

[nicky g]

"if I was an atheist, I would intrepret all of the God references to mean me. "

Says a lot.

[tolbiny]

"you heard of that constituion thing"

Actually i believe it is technically a "constitution thingy". That y is very important.

[texaspimp]

Actually Elwood, I wouldn't. Because it doesn't FORCE me to believe in their religion. I would think the open-minded, more intelligent than others liberals would be for this.

As for Nick, you can bastardize my comments and take them out of context all that you want. But here is fact: I am no better than you, and the odds are pretty good you are no better than me.

Hope to see you in the great beyond. I might even buy you a Coke. Unless you're a Pepsi drinker and I'm forcing my beliefs on you.

Tolbiny, you're right. Read Article 1, first couple of sentences.

I haven't tried to convert any of you, I am simply asking how displaying this information is injurious to anyone? How is it forcing you to believe? And no, I don't need it to be displayed, I just don't understand the furor over the subject.

We had John Kerry signs all over our town, I wasn't forced to believe his ideology.

[elwoodblues]

If you think the standard is that the government can't force you to believe, then exactly what would be unconstitutional? Mandated prayer --- nope, not forcing you to believe only to recite.

[nicky g]

Relax, it was a joke.

[texaspimp]

You're smarter than that Elwood. Come on! Who has said anything about MANDATED PRAYER? I have heard of a minute of silence or reflection, but not mandated prayer. Hypothetically speaking, if there was mandated prayer, it would be wrong if the mandators specified a religion.

When was the last time you were forced to recite anything? Probably the Pledge. Has that negatively affected your life? Do you still fall prey to people forcing you to recite statements??

[elwoodblues]

I'm not saying mandated prayer is on the table, I'm wanting to see where you draw the line because you said suggested that the standard is that nobody is forcing you to believe. I don't think that should be the standard because even something as blatantly unconstitutional as mandated recitation of prayers isn't forcing you to believe.

[elwoodblues]

For what it's worth (probably not much), I tend to think the test laid out by the Supreme Court is a good one. When evaluating whether an action violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, we should look at 3 factors:

1) whether the law has a legitimate secular purpose
2) whether the primary effect of the law is one that neither advances nor hinders religion
3) whether the law fosters excessive entaglement between government and religion

How we actually apply the test in various circumstances can be wildly different, but I think this is a pretty good test.

[texaspimp]

I have no problem with that test, since it deals with laws, not traditions.

And now for my FWIW. If Congress passed a law that REQUIRED the ten commandments or any religion's views to be displayed, I would be opposed.

Elwood, I don't know if you read my post about our communities situation regarding this topic, so I will give you a brief story:

One man petitions the Indiana CLU to have a statue of the Ten Commandments removed from the courthouse grounds. It was outside, situated on a very lightly travelled street. His problem with the monument was that he HAD to drive by it everyday.

Eventually, the monument was moved to a private business (American Legion I think). So a local business put up the Ten Commandments on a number of billboards around the city.
Presumably, the offended man will now not suffer because he doesn't have to see the monument on government property.

I think this is absurd.

This may shock you, but I am not an overly religious person. I have done a number of things that have probably destined me for hell. However, I still stand by my opinion that all of this rancor over a monument is disturbing.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
This may shock you, but I am not an overly religious person

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would that shock me? I don't make assumptions like that. I try not to assume everyone with conservative positions on some issues has them on all issues. I don't believe that all liberals are pro-choice and all conservatives are pro-life.

This may shock you, but I consider myself a fairly religious person, and I still don't think the monument belongs.

----

Monument issue applying the Supreme Court's Lemon test:

1) Secular purpose
I don't know if there really is one. I suppose one could argue that it is an acknowledgement of one of the roots of the legal system (though very few of the 10 commandments would actually be constitutional if they were laws.) I don't really buy that argument at all. The purpose to me seems like a sectarian one, not a secular one.

2) primary effect neither advances nor hinders religion
Again, I see this one as pretty clear cut. The primary effect of the monument clearly advances religion. It might not advance a particular religion, but it certainly advances a judeo-christian belief system. I think one question that remains open is whether the advancement of religion over non-religion (i.e. atheism) is okay (as opposed to advancing one religion over another religion.) Here, however, I think the primary effect advances a judeo-christian belief system.

3) Excessive entanglement
Certainly there is entanglement, whether it is excessive is questionable. For me, I answer this question by asking myself whether a kid viewing the monument would believe that the court is embracing the 10 commandments (which are clearly a religious doctrine). I would think they probably would.

Therefore, I come out in favor of taking down the monument. For what it's worth, I suspect that you are misstating the man's position on this to further your beliefs. I highly doubt that the man argued that he "suffered" as a result of the monument or that he "had" to drive by it every day. Even so, that shouldn't be the standard.

[texaspimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This may shock you, but I am not an overly religious person

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would that shock me? I don't make assumptions like that. I try not to assume everyone with conservative positions on some issues has them on all issues. I don't believe that all liberals are pro-choice and all conservatives are pro-life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Forgive me for being a tad defensive, but I did say may!


----

[ QUOTE ]
Monument issue applying the Supreme Court's Lemon test:

1) Secular purpose
I don't know if there really is one. I suppose one could argue that it is an acknowledgement of one of the roots of the legal system (though very few of the 10 commandments would actually be constitutional if they were laws.) I don't really buy that argument at all. The purpose to me seems like a sectarian one, not a secular one.

2) primary effect neither advances nor hinders religion
Again, I see this one as pretty clear cut. The primary effect of the monument clearly advances religion. It might not advance a particular religion, but it certainly advances a judeo-christian belief system. I think one question that remains open is whether the advancement of religion over non-religion (i.e. atheism) is okay (as opposed to advancing one religion over another religion.) Here, however, I think the primary effect advances a judeo-christian belief system.

3) Excessive entanglement
Certainly there is entanglement, whether it is excessive is questionable. For me, I answer this question by asking myself whether a kid viewing the monument would believe that the court is embracing the 10 commandments (which are clearly a religious doctrine). I would think they probably would.

Therefore, I come out in favor of taking down the monument. For what it's worth, I suspect that you are misstating the man's position on this to further your beliefs. I highly doubt that the man argued that he "suffered" as a result of the monument or that he "had" to drive by it every day. Even so, that shouldn't be the standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, I must defer to your legal expertise. I think we agree that Commandments 6, 8 and 9 are without question constitutional. Commandments 5 & 7, for reasonable people, are good ideas to follow.

I am disappointed that you think I misstated his position to further my beliefs. I freely admit that I could be wrong about his reasons. I heard and read comments from him. My statements are a result of his own words. I thought that you and I usually have a civil discourse of ideas. For you to assert that I would deliberately misrepresent facts or statements for my "gain" is disheartening.

One other point, I lived in this town 10 years (very small town) before I even knew this monument existed, FWIW. I found out when all of this happened.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
For you to assert that I would deliberately misrepresent facts or statements for my "gain" is disheartening.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sincere appologies. Got wrapped up in my own rhetoric.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, I must defer to your legal expertise

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you need to. It might make sense to defer when I state a fact (i.e. the test is xyz.) But when I state an opinion (this is how the test should be applied), there is absolutely no reason to defer. The test itself is a legal one, but I don't think it takes a legal mind to apply it. I think more people should take an interest not only in what the courts decide but in how/why they decide the way they do.

Many legal decisions are thick and complex and hard to understand. However, those same decisions can often be boiled down to an understandable test and the arguments for/against the test can be explained in logical ways. There is no reason why legal decisionmaking should be a mystery to people and equally no reason why non-lawyers shouldn't fully engage in the debate.