Court rules Ten Commandments can stay at Capitol

[wallie_x]

Hey MTAtech,
Why did you delete that out of your post.
(Is this the way all your arguments go?)

MTAtech's original statement (before he deleted it):

That's a Texas state court where the judges are elected and therefore must pander to the will of the electorate. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, doesn't have that limitation. The SC has rules against this in many cases http://www.findlaw.com/01topics/06c...nal/cases2.html

[MTAtech]

I originally posted it. Then I checked the link and it said it was theU.S. District Court, so I deleted it - all before you replied. Perfectly ok. Some of us admit we were wrong we are.

Your glee at the makes me think you often don't score points.

In addition, the 5th District is hardly the final word on this. Courts make mistakes frequently. Even the Supreme Court reverses rulings. (e.g. Plessey v Furgusson).

[wallie_x]

MTAtech sez:

Your glee at the makes me think you often don't score points.

And in another thread:

these are exactly the same arguments wallie made in his thread "Separation of Church and State: the leftist fallacy exposed." (see link several posts up) Every point he made was refuted (and I must say, elloquently)

Wrong again.
I just like popping the balloons of people who continually try to impress others with self-aggrandizement.

[MTAtech]

As it stands, there are two District Courts that have opposite views. The SC must resolve the difference.

[osprey4]

Actually, the opinions address different issues, so they are not contradictory, although the outcome appears contradictory to the casual observer.

Originally posted by wallie_x

I just like popping the balloons of people who continually try to impress others with self-aggrandizement.

I think it's a shot at MTAtech and in poor taste. I personally, think it's pretty cheesy for you to post a comment he deleted within 20 minutes after rethinking his statement and editing.
I Don't understand why one would do something like that, are people debating a subject they feel strongly about?
Looks more like kindergarten debate, nah ne nah ne boo boo followed by a raspberry. (high 5! high 5! w00t I showed him! )

And wallie_x isn't the only guilty party here.... Right?

When I take the time to comment on political or moral subjects, I would hope the people I'm talking to listen and think about what I said and then respond with their reasoning on the subject, why else would one spend the time discussing something if you had no interest what so ever in opinions made by people of opposing views? That is lecturing and defiantly not conducive to making your point in such a manor someone with an opposing view might actually consider your words.

A little refresher

de·bate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-bt)
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v. intr.
To consider something; deliberate.
To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
Obsolete. To fight or quarrel.

dis·cuss ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-sks)
tr.v. dis·cussed, dis·cuss·ing, dis·cuss·es

To speak with another or others about; talk over.
To examine or consider (a subject) in speech or writing.
v 1: to consider or examine in speech or writing;
[syn: discourse, talk about]
2: speak with others about (something);
talk (something) over in detail;
have a discussion; "We discussed our household budget" [syn: talk over]

ar·gue ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärgy)
v. ar·gued, ar·gu·ing, ar·gues
v. tr.
To put forth reasons for or against; debate:
To attempt to prove by reasoning; maintain or contend:
To give evidence of; indicate:
To persuade or influence (another), as by presenting reasons: Now that's a wacky concept!
To put forth reasons for or against something:
To engage in a quarrel; dispute.Uh, forget that one, it's against the FAQ's because fighting is not allowed.

[J-Excel]

I think it all boils down to intent. And it is not only the intent to establish a national religion that is unconstitutional, but also an attempt by the government to endorse any religion. In the 1st amendment the word "establishment" doesn't mean the act of establishing, but rather an organization. The 1st amendment states that there shall be no laws respecting (endorsing) an establishment (organization) of religion. Since government can't do anything without a law giving them the power to do it, and based on the 1st amendment they will never get that law, they can never endorse an organization of religion.

I believe the original intent of the 1st amendment was to prevent government from endorsing a particular denomination of Christianity, but as the nation grew and more religions were brought to the country, that definition has grown to preventing the government from endorsing not just a denomination, but any major religion. This has the hardliner Christians all worked up because it is their religion that is most likely to be endorsed, and they have a strong desire to proselytize wherever and whenever they can. They want to use the government as a forum for proselytizing, while others don't want their government to be used as a tool for proselytizing. That's the crux of the SoCaS argument.

[shahani]

I can't understand one point in all this.

Why is it necessary to have this outward, aggressive display of religion in public places?

I should think it would have a contrary effect on people by their getting turned off.

Religion is an intensely personal issue and an emotional one. Every one of us have the freedom to practice and have faith in the religion of our personal choosing. It is a private and personal matter.

To bandy it about in public places frequented by people from different religions is just degrading that particular religion.

I would never dream of an extrovert display of my religion, much less try and convert anyone.

Today, the greatness of this country lies in freedom- of speech, of religion, of thought.

I see Moore and other misguided fundamentalists like him a throwback into the Victorian era.

This is the 21st Century not the dark ages.

[wallie_x]

surreal sez:

I think it's a shot at MTAtech and in poor taste. I personally, think it's pretty cheesy for you to post a comment he deleted within 20 minutes after rethinking his statement and editing.

I think I am human; and yes I will openly admit that my motives were to get back at him for his shallow goading taunts of self proclamations of victory (to antagonize) me in other threads.

MTAtech sez:

"Wallie, you are rearguing a point you already made and lost in a thread devoted to that topic."

and:

"Shahani, these are exactly the same arguments wallie made in his thread "Separation of Church and State: the leftist fallacy exposed." (see link several posts up) Every point he made was refuted (and I must say, elloquently). He either does not accept them or lacks the capability to change views based upon contrary facts."

Reference HERE!

If this isn't trying to poke me in the ribs, then I dont know what is.

I plead guilty, but with mitigating circumstances. (see above)

[wallie_x]

shahani,
When interpreting or looking at law we must take history and tradition as our guide. My point is that most societies have held tradition in high esteem as it is an ongoing expression of their core values or 'ethos', this 'ethos' is the core fundamentalism of: who we are! (as a people)

Regardless of what the ACLU or the other absolutists tout, religion is a very integral part of our culture and our laws.

"The Ten Commandments are undoubtedly a sacred religious text, but they are also a foundational document in the development of Western legal codes and culture,"

To many, this idea of modern 'absolute separation' is totally contradictory to our tradition and our culture; and worse, flys absolutely in the face of history.
I am on that side, and believe the ACLU is pushing a false rendering of the founding fathers intent. That means it must be refuted and exposed for what it is: a lie.