Separation of church and state

[gasgod]

The debate over the Ten Commandments will hopefully be settled by the Supreme court soon. It seems to me that this particular debate illustrates that those who would weaken the separation of church and state are intellectually dishonest.

It is ironic that very few churches bother to display the Ten Commandments on church property, where they could be seen daily by thousands of passers-by. Yet, there are those who would insist that they should be displayed on civic property, although comparatively few people would see them there.

The difference? If they are displayed on government property, the implication is that they are government approved. The very same people who would fight tenaciously to display them on government property are almost completely indifferent to their display on private property.


GG

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that this particular debate illustrates that those who would weaken the separation of church and state are intellectually dishonest.

[/ QUOTE ]
Would you mind pointing out where said "separation of church and state" exists in the Constitution? I'm having trouble finding it.

[ QUOTE ]
It is ironic that very few churches bother to display the Ten Commandments on church property, where they could be seen daily by thousands of passers-by.

[/ QUOTE ]
And you base this off of....?

[ QUOTE ]
If they are displayed on government property, the implication is that they are government approved.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or perhaps simply acknowledged as one of the foundations of the country?

[ QUOTE ]
The very same people who would fight tenaciously to display them on government property are almost completely indifferent to their display on private property.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, what are you basing this off of?

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that this particular debate illustrates that those who would weaken the separation of church and state are intellectually dishonest.

[/ QUOTE ]
Would you mind pointing out where said "separation of church and state" exists in the Constitution? I'm having trouble finding it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't claim that the Constitution explicitly mandates "separation of church and state". However, it certainly doesn't encourage government participation in religion. You are aware of the First Amendment, aren't you? The very first sentence?

Do you feel that the state should become involved in religious affairs? If so, please elaborate. If not, then we have no disagreement.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is ironic that very few churches bother to display the Ten Commandments on church property, where they could be seen daily by thousands of passers-by.

[/ QUOTE ]
And you base this off of....?

[/ QUOTE ]

Simple everyday observation. Do you maintain that many churches display the Ten Commandments on their property? I haven't seen it.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If they are displayed on government property, the implication is that they are government approved.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or perhaps simply acknowledged as one of the foundations of the country?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you cite an example? No founding document that I am aware of says that the Ten Commandments is a foundation of anything. The first four Commandments obviously deal with matters quite outside the interests of government. In fact, only three of the Ten Commandments could arguably be cited as a basis for any law. I refer to the prohibitions against killing, lying, and stealing. (You might add adultery to get the total to four, but such laws are almost never enforced.)

Most of the commandments have nothing to do with government. Do you agree with this?


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The very same people who would fight tenaciously to display them on government property are almost completely indifferent to their display on private property.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, what are you basing this off of?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never witnessed a fund drive to build a monument to the TC on private property. There is no groundswell of support for monuments on private property. There are very few such monuments. There is, however, a great deal of support from the religious right for monuments on government property. Can you explain this disparity?


GG

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't claim that the Constitution explicitly mandates "separation of church and state". However, it certainly doesn't encourage government participation in religion. You are aware of the First Amendment, aren't you? The very first sentence?

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't claim you did either. I was merely asking you the question of where your notion of a "seperation of church and state" comes from, because I can't seem to find it in the Constitution, so it must be somewhere.

No, it doesn't say anything about government being involved in religion. It simply states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Where in there does it say that government (which I hope you understand doesn't just consist of Congress) cannot be involved at all in religion?

[ QUOTE ]
Do you feel that the state should become involved in religious affairs? If so, please elaborate. If not, then we have no disagreement.

[/ QUOTE ]
I plead the infamous poker answer: it depends.

[ QUOTE ]
Simple everyday observation. Do you maintain that many churches display the Ten Commandments on their property? I haven't seen it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Found this with a simple google search: Church Erects Ten Commandments Display (http://atheism.about.com/b/a/099899.htm)
I don't think this is the first church in the entire country to ever do such a thing.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you cite an example? No founding document that I am aware of says that the Ten Commandments is a foundation of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would argue that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principals, of which the TC are an important part, and you need look no further than the first and second sentence of the Declaration of Independence, which certainly had a role in founding the country by separating it from the mother country.

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the commandments have nothing to do with government. Do you agree with this?

[/ QUOTE ]
Some don't. Some do. Should something be barred from government property if it isn't 100% relevant to the functions of government? What about religious artwork? Can that be displayed on public property? Say I paint a picture of Jesus at the Last Supper. Should that painting be banned from being displayed in school?

[ QUOTE ]
I have never witnessed a fund drive to build a monument to the TC on private property. There is no groundswell of support for monuments on private property. There are very few such monuments. There is, however, a great deal of support from the religious right for monuments on government property. Can you explain this disparity?

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you willing to admit that simply because you have not seen something, that something may very well exist? That's partly the reason I asked you what you based your claims on.

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't claim that the Constitution explicitly mandates "separation of church and state". However, it certainly doesn't encourage government participation in religion. You are aware of the First Amendment, aren't you? The very first sentence?

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't claim you did either. I was merely asking you the question of where your notion of a "seperation of church and state" comes from, because I can't seem to find it in the Constitution, so it must be somewhere.

No, it doesn't say anything about government being involved in religion. It simply states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Where in there does it say that government (which I hope you understand doesn't just consist of Congress) cannot be involved at all in religion?

[/ QUOTE ]

The important question is simply this: Is it a good idea for government to become involved with religion?

One can answer this question pretty easily. The USA is arguably one of the least religious governments in the history of this planet. Personal freedom in the USA is arguably closer to the ideal than it is under any other government in the history of the planet. I maintain that this is not merely a coincidence.

Religious governments today -- notably the Islamic states -- are among the most repressive on the planet. When government and religion merge, there is almost always a loss in personal freedom.

If memory serves (and I'm not sure it does), the phrase "separation of church and state" comes from a Supreme Court decision. This, in effect, has become the law of the land. Anything that breaks down that wall of separation moves us a bit closer to becoming the Christian States of America. This would be a very bad idea, and a serious blow to our freedom.


GG

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you mind pointing out where said "separation of church and state" exists in the Constitution? I'm having trouble finding it.



[/ QUOTE ]
...
[ QUOTE ]
Or perhaps simply acknowledged as one of the foundations of the country?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you mind pointing out where in any of the founding documents the Ten Commandments are found? I'm having trouble finding it.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The important question is simply this: Is it a good idea for government to become involved with religion?

[/ QUOTE ]
My take on it is this. Religion and government should not have active roles in the affairs of each other. But a totally hands-off rule is a little ridiculous. I advocate common sense.

[ QUOTE ]
The USA is arguably one of the least religious governments in the history of this planet.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't necessarily agree. I believe a great deal of our legislators are of belong to one religion or another. I'd also argue that those religions tend to help shape who that person is and the decisions they make. Should this be illegal in the perfect "seperation" state?

[ QUOTE ]
Personal freedom in the USA is arguably closer to the ideal than it is under any other government in the history of the planet.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would argue that this is partly because of the religiousness of the country, not inspite of it.

[ QUOTE ]
Religious governments today -- notably the Islamic states -- are among the most repressive on the planet. When government and religion merge, there is almost always a loss in personal freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with the first sentence, but not necessarily the second. I think when one begins playing an active role in the other, that's when you have problems.

[ QUOTE ]
If memory serves (and I'm not sure it does), the phrase "separation of church and state" comes from a Supreme Court decision. This, in effect, has become the law of the land. Anything that breaks down that wall of separation moves us a bit closer to becoming the Christian States of America. This would be a very bad idea, and a serious blow to our freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, I agree with the first sentence, but not necessarily the others. I think reasonable interactions can occur between the two, but one cannot start playing active roles in the other.

[goofball]

"congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or preventing the free excercise thereof"

That phrase has routinetly be interpreted by the supreme court to as a matter law mandate seperation of church and state.

Clearly the government saying, through their silence, that it's ok to have biblical passages on government property, endorses christianity over other religions and is the beginning of establishing it.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly the government saying, through their silence, that it's ok to have biblical passages on government property, endorses christianity over other religions and is the beginning of establishing it.

[/ QUOTE ]
How exactly do bible passages, specifically the Ten Commandments, endorse Christianity, over Judiasm?
Where do you draw the line as far as what constitutes endorsement? Would religous art be considered an endorsement? What if multiple religious pieces are displayed? Which religion is being endorsed then?

I honestly have not met a Christian yet who thinks the church needs to play an active role in government. Though I'm sure there are some who exist, I don't believe they're anywhere near a majority. I think the people against this are fueled more by an anti-Christian agenda than they are pro-freedom agenda. That's been my experience, at least.

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The important question is simply this: Is it a good idea for government to become involved with religion?

[/ QUOTE ]
My take on it is this. Religion and government should not have active roles in the affairs of each other. But a totally hands-off rule is a little ridiculous. I advocate common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that you are confusing levels of abstraction. I agree that it is just fine for a person involved in government to be religious, and just fine for a religious person to get involved with government. The harm comes when government itself becomes religious, or when religion itself gets involved in governing.

Do you see the distinction? It is quite OK for a Senator to say "I am a Christian.", but it's very dangerous to assert that "This is a Christian Senate."


GG

[BCPVP]

I'm in total agreement with this post. I disagree that the TC endorse a religion, becaust that is not the intent or purpose of their display.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]

How exactly do bible passages, specifically the Ten Commandments, endorse Christianity, over Judiasm?


[/ QUOTE ]

Jews, Catholics, and Protestants all have different versions of the TC. The posting of the Protestant TC seems to be an endorsement over the other two versions.

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm in total agreement with this post. I disagree that the TC endorse a religion, becaust that is not the intent or purpose of their display.

[/ QUOTE ]

The TC is a religious document, plain and simple. For a person in government to endorse this document is perfectly OK. But a monument on public property puts government itself in the position of endorsing the TC.

This is an important distinction. We can vote the person in government out of office if we disagree with his/her beliefs. But when government itself endorses a religious document, what recourse do I have if I disagree?


GG

[BCPVP]

Mere wording is the difference. They say relatively the same thing. The Protestant one might have been chosen simply out of local tradition.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
Mere wording is the difference. They say relatively the same thing. The Protestant one might have been chosen simply out of local tradition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nevertheless, it is still choosing one over the other.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The TC is a religious document, plain and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]
What makes it a religious document? That it invokes the Almighty?

[ QUOTE ]
But a monument on public property puts government itself in the position of endorsing the TC.

[/ QUOTE ]
Explain. I'm interested in why this display endorses a particular religion and why it's purpose isn't to give a hat tip to some of the foundations for our moral and legal society.

[ QUOTE ]
But when government itself endorses a religious document, what recourse do I have if I disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]
Vote in someone who will take it down?
Hold a referenda on whether it should stay or go?

Again, what if it is art we're talking about? Should religious art be removed from all public places? To what extent should we purge anything smelling of religion?

[ACPlayer]

Or perhaps simply acknowledged as one of the foundations of the country?

Ummm, and where did you find this?

[goofball]

The TC being posted in no way endorses christianity over judaism. Amazingly there are more religions than these two. It endorses it over islam, athemism, wiccan, belief in greek gods, etc etc etc

[ QUOTE ]
What makes [the TC] a religious document? That it invokes the Almighty?


[/ QUOTE ]

yes. Did you really ask that?

[ACPlayer]

There are other religions in this country.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Amazingly there are more religions than these two.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't say...
I still disagree that it's an endorsement and not that it is an acknowledgment of principals that are found in the U.S. legal system as well as general morals.

[ QUOTE ]
yes. Did you really ask that?

[/ QUOTE ]
Is the Declaration of Independence, one of the founding documents in a sense, a religious document because of it's invokations of a higher being? Should we remove the original DoI? Should it not be taught in public schools?
What about speeches by government officials that mention God? Are they religious documents? Would the part of the Inaguration speech that had the minister praying make that speech a religious document? Where is this line??! /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[goofball]

when they say what the first commandment says.

[Dead]

If you allow the Ten Commandments inside a government building, then you have to allow every other religion(that doesn't hold the Ten Commandments as sacred) to put something there(assuming they want to). I can put a gigantic GI Joe figure in there because maybe he's important to me.

Otherwise you're favoring some religions over others, and that's wrong.

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The TC is a religious document, plain and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]
What makes it a religious document? That it invokes the Almighty?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you seriously contend that the TC is not a religious document, then you are not debating honestly. Of course it is religious. "I am the Lord thy God ... " Can you really say that has nothing to do with religion? Be serious.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But a monument on public property puts government itself in the position of endorsing the TC.

[/ QUOTE ]
Explain. I'm interested in why this display endorses a particular religion and why it's purpose isn't to give a hat tip to some of the foundations for our moral and legal society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its purpose is not at issue. It is a religious document, and its display tacitly endorses the Judeo-Christian religious belief system to the exclusion of all others.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But when government itself endorses a religious document, what recourse do I have if I disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]
Vote in someone who will take it down?
Hold a referenda on whether it should stay or go?

Again, what if it is art we're talking about? Should religious art be removed from all public places? To what extent should we purge anything smelling of religion?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the issue. There is no intent on my part to purge anything smelling of religion. Let me give an example: In case you haven't guessed it yet, I am not a Christian. As it happens, one of my favorite pieces of music is Handel's "Messiah", an example of religious art. But if government required the playing of the "Messiah" in the schools, I would oppose that. It is not government's place to favor one religion over another in any way whatsoever.


GG

[ACPlayer]

I still disagree that it's an endorsement and not that it is an acknowledgment of principals that are found in the U.S. legal system as well as general morals.

Lets see ... I believe there is something about not blaspheming in the TC. I believe that the constitution permits me to blaspheme. It is called freedom of speech.

The legal system has nothing in it about adultery. Not a crime.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
The legal system has nothing in it about adultery. Not a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the fundies had their way, it would be.

[ACPlayer]

Mentioning God (or if you prefer god) is not a problem IMO(although some seem to make it out to be).

Displaying the Ten Commandments in a town hall is problem.

[goofball]

more to the point, if i want put "there is no god" on the courthouse would you take issue with it?

how about "god is dead, and we have killed him - nietsczhe"

or "faith is blind"

what about some basic principles of physics or chemistry?

what about darwin's theory of evolution?

what about "nationalism is an infantile disease - einstein"

what about "religion weakens the mind"

what about...

you get the idea

[Dead]

I'd have no problem with that. We'd have to allow it if we allow the Ten Commandments.

Obviously I don't want any of this. I'm just trying to prove to our fundie friend here that he's being exclusive.

[goofball]

right. I was talkign to him, should have made that clear.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
If you seriously contend that the TC is not a religious document, then you are not debating honestly. Of course it is religious. "I am the Lord thy God ... " Can you really say that has nothing to do with religion? Be serious.

[/ QUOTE ]
Arg..you people are frustrating. Could we please stop reading in motives and saying things I'm not?
I was asking what qualifies a document as religious. I've never said anything to the contrary of the TC being religious. That's why I need to know what qualifies something as religous. There have been many historical documents that may qualify as religious (and thereby in need of banishment from public property, if I understand your position correctly).

[ QUOTE ]
Its purpose is not at issue. It is a religious document, and its display tacitly endorses the Judeo-Christian religious belief system to the exclusion of all others.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's this kind of ignorance that is pushing people to wish to ban things like the Declaration of Independence. You all know damned well that the reason the TC are in a few public buildings is NOT to convert everyone to Christianity or Catholicism or Protestantism. So stop pretending like it.

[ QUOTE ]
But if government required the playing of the "Messiah" in the schools, I would oppose that. It is not government's place to favor one religion over another in any way whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]
As far as I know, there haven't been any governments forcing the TC to be displayed in all the courts. I would also be opposed to such a law. But by your own admission, doesn't the mere existance of "Messiah" in a school create an endorsement of Christianity?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
more to the point, if i want put "there is no god" on the courthouse would you take issue with it?

[/ QUOTE ]
My question would be "what's the purpose of displaying these phrases?" If it's merely to snub those who do believe in a God, I'd say go for it and see how long it stays up. But our country wasn't founded on principals derived from the beliefs in atheism. So it isn't as relevant as the TC would be.

[Dead]

Messiah is a pretty kickass song though. It's Handel's best.

I'm not even that religious and I can appreciate that song.

Oh wait, no. I'm thinking of Hallelujah. But both are good.

[Dead]

I happen to find a lot of religious songs very cool. I think that hymnals are very cool. I have CDs of them that I play in my car sometimes.

[BCPVP]

Good for you.
Could you answer the question of whether such music should be allowed to be performed by kids in school? Isn't this a breach of the 1st Amend?

What are the clear qualifications of what makes a religious document religious?

[ACPlayer]

So, the TC snubs those of us who enjoy blaspheming and adultery or to those who think that religious writings rock only in Sanskrit, Arabic, and Mandarin or to those who prefer the constitution to words that no longer have much relevance.

Incidentally you have ducked the question of how TC is a basis of the country's foundation.

[Dead]

No this music should not be performed by kids in public school. Religious symbols should not be allowed in school, unless worn by kids. I support the right of kids to wear stuff like yarmulkes and other head coverings, or if they wanna wear crosses that's cool too.

But the school conducting kids with Christian music, for example, is just wrong.

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
Messiah is a pretty kickass song though. It's Handel's best.

I'm not even that religious and I can appreciate that song.

Oh wait, no. I'm thinking of Hallelujah. But both are good.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "Hallelujah" chorus is part of the "Messiah"


GG

[BCPVP]

Last one for tonight. Last day till break is today!!! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally you have ducked the question of how TC is a basis of the country's foundation.

[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't been ducking. You'll notice that for every one post of mine there are like 3-6 other ones, so I can't keep up with all of them.

Are you going to argue that this country doesn't have a very deep history of Judeo-Christian principals that goes all the way back to the Pilgrim landing? Are you seriously going to argue that the founding and founders were all absolute atheists and their religion played absolutely no role in the shaping of this country?
If the answers to any of these questions is yes (which I believe), then you trace where Judeo-Christian principals have been derived from and the TC is one such document.
Are we governed by all the rules of the TC? Of course not, but we are governed by some.

[ QUOTE ]
So, the TC snubs those of us who enjoy blaspheming and adultery or to those who think that religious writings rock only in Sanskrit, Arabic, and Mandarin or to those who prefer the constitution to words that no longer have much relevance.

[/ QUOTE ]
We have laws that snub those who would like to murder others. Should we get rid of those laws to satisfy the murderers? I'm not equating the two. I'm just demonstrating that simply because there are people who disagree with something some body of government does, doesn't mean that the government is required to satisfy that group.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Messiah is a pretty kickass song though. It's Handel's best.

I'm not even that religious and I can appreciate that song.

Oh wait, no. I'm thinking of Hallelujah. But both are good.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "Hallelujah" chorus is part of the "Messiah"


GG

[/ QUOTE ]

See, it shows how religious I am. Or, rather, how unreligious I am. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[adios]

Did you know that Moses and the 10 commandments are portrayed on the Supreme Court building? Here's an article that describes why the author believes these portrayals are secular.

Moses and the 10 Commandments are Featured Prominently on the Supreme Court Building (http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg8.htm)

Personally I get suspicious when an author writes the following:

No one thinks that the art of the Supreme Court building is intended as an endorsement of the 10 Commandments, and there is no question that the overall effect of this art is secular.

Not one solitary sole would think otherwise ? Hmmmm.............

[gasgod]

Your arguments grow increasingly more desperate and disconnected. Maybe we both need some sleep.


GG

[ACPlayer]

Sorry charlie -- you are the one who brought up that the TC is an integral part of the founding of the country. It is up to you to find some eviddence other than your opinion.

I'm not equating the two
Then why bring up the non-sequitor?

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
The TC is a religious document, plain and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. You might want to consult some of your precious liberal scholars about that one.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
you are the one who brought up that the TC is an integral part of the founding of the country.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where exactly did I say that the TC was an integral part of the founding? That's right I didn't. Stop putting words in my mouth. This country was not founded in a complete vacuum from religion. Many of our laws are derived from Judeo-Christian principals which themselves are partly derived from "religious documents" such as the TC.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not equating the two
Then why bring up the non-sequitor?

[/ QUOTE ]
As an example of what you said to the extreme. I was making the point that simply because a group disagrees with something some part of gov't does, doesn't mean that the gov't must stop doing whatever that is.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
If you allow the Ten Commandments inside a government building, then you have to allow every other religion(that doesn't hold the Ten Commandments as sacred) to put something there(assuming they want to).

[/ QUOTE ]

no you don't.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
The legal system has nothing in it about adultery. Not a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends on where you live.

[ACPlayer]

OK, forget integral. Just show that this is the basis of the founding of this country.

Trace which of the TC form part of the laws and show that these are any different from laws in a non-christian country like say India. Your points are BS.

The TC are being promoted by people who wish to fight against the secular trends in the country.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Displaying the Ten Commandments in a town hall is problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

No its not. If you can prove to me that it damages someone, I might reconsider, but I doubt you can.

[ACPlayer]

It offends my religious sensibilities to see it in a town hall. It offends me to see statements that are blatantly unconstitutional -- like the one commanding me not to blaspheme on a govt property. The govt is there to defend the constitution and should be urging me to blaspheme when appropriate.

It damages me.

QED

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
It offends my religious sensibilities to see it in a town hall. It offends me to see statements that are blatantly unconstitutional -- like the one commanding me not to blaspheme on a govt property. The govt is there to defend the constitution and should be urging me to blaspheme when appropriate.

It damages me.

QED

[/ QUOTE ]

It does not damage you. You do not have the right not to be offended. Your argument does not hold any water.

[ACPlayer]

It damages because it commands me to something that is constitutionally protected - in pvt property like a church I can be commanded to do do so, but not in a govt prop.

Anyway, you dont want to be convinced and I know I am right. So we are at an impasse.

[BCPVP]

If you blaspheme in a public place with the TC on the wall, will you get in trouble? Will you be arrested? Silenced? Of course not! The day that does happen, I will agree that it does hurt you. Until that day, it does not affect you because it doesn't bind you or command you to do anything more than any other picture or statue binds/commands you to do something.

You may be offended by it. But I'm sure that there are people who are offended by the flag and we don't indulge them by removing flags from public places, nor should we.

[ACPlayer]

The day that does happen, I will agree that it does hurt you.
How can you know if it hurts me or not?

It hurts me more than it would hurt you if the TC display was banned from the town hall. You could still stroke it at home where it belongs.

[jaxmike]

You are not right. You are not damaged. Please show me the damage. Your feelings DON'T [censored] COUNT!

[jaxmike]

It does not matter if it hurts your feelings or not. You don't have the right to not have your feelings hurt. Be a freaking adult about this, deal with disappointment...

[ACPlayer]

Ah, the final reaction of the religious idiot. Name calling.

Wash your mouth out with soap.

You are not right

Am too, am too. I have full faith in my righteousness.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, the final reaction of the religious idiot. Name calling.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are right in this debate, AC, but isn't that a little ironic?

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, the final reaction of the religious idiot. Name calling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what name did I call you in that post?

[ QUOTE ]
Wash your mouth out with soap.

You are not right

Am too, am too. I have full faith in my righteousness.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not right because you are being a biggot. You religious hate speech is clearly offensive, the Ten Commandments are not. You cannot prove damage from the posting of the Ten Commandments. You cannot provide real proof as to why they shouldn't be posted. In fact, you cannot make a coherent argument against it that doesn't involve your feelings getting hurt. You have no case. You have been totally pwned.

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
You are not right because you are being a biggot. You religious hate speech is clearly offensive, the Ten Commandments are not. You cannot prove damage from the posting of the Ten Commandments. You cannot provide real proof as to why they shouldn't be posted. In fact, you cannot make a coherent argument against it that doesn't involve your feelings getting hurt. You have no case. You have been totally pwned.

[/ QUOTE ]


Your argument that one has to able to prove "damage" in order to argue that something is unconstitutional is totally wrong.

Some things are forbidden to Congress (and to the various states and their subdivisions) irrespective of any "damage" they might cause. For example, a school district cannot require that a crucifix be placed on every wall of every classroom, even though it might argue that these cause on "damage"


GG

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The TC is a religious document, plain and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. You might want to consult some of your precious liberal scholars about that one.

[/ QUOTE ]


I beg you pardon? Would you care to elaborate on why the TC is not a religious document? Perhaps this is meant as some form of hyperbolic irony or perhaps you have some deep transcendental logic that the rest of us lack.

Or perhaps you are simply a whacko.


GG

[BCPVP]

Did you ever answer my question about what makes a religious document religious and whether all such documents must be banned from public property?

[ACPlayer]

.

[ACPlayer]

TO say that I am not damaged is idiotic.

A religious guy seeing an image of Christ having Sex with a goat could claim damage and it is valid.

Whether the damage has redress in a court is a different issue. I was asked to show damage, and in fact the poster even offered to reconsider his position if i showed it. Well I showed it and got a shouting with filthy ungodlike language. I showed the damage, I offered the reasons why.

So understand this -- apart from constitutional reasons (which are completely valid even though you dont accept them), the display of religious text in a government institution is offensive to some of us.

Now perhaps, you should just say [censored] you and [censored] the constitution, the TC must stay on the walls beaming down the garbage at people going to register to vote. You have that right.

[jaxmike]

you have to prove real damage, you failed.