More Ten Commandments BS

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-19 11:10pm

http://www.wcnc.com/sharedcontent/APSto ... 1R3G1.html

This is really getting old...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-19 11:13pm

They should charge these little shits with vandalism. If somebody took a can of spray paint and marked up government buildings with anarchist slogans or dumped a ton of garbage on the steps of the legislature, he would be arrested and charged with vandalism or some similar offense. But if somebody decides to put his personal proclamations of religious faith on government property, they ask "would you take it away, pretty please?"

justifier · Post by **justifier** » 2004-01-19 11:27pm

Darth Wong wrote:They should charge these little shits with vandalism. If somebody took a can of spray paint and marked up government buildings with anarchist slogans or dumped a ton of garbage on the steps of the legislature, he would be arrested and charged with vandalism or some similar offense. But if somebody decides to put his personal proclamations of religious faith on government property, they ask "would you take it away, pretty please?"

But he's black! You can't arrest a black man of that! You awful, awful racist, now you're going to burn in HELL! (/jk)

Newtonian Fury · Post by **Newtonian Fury** » 2004-01-19 11:50pm

These conservatives are unlikely to play the race card.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-19 11:51pm

They should just tip it over so the Bill of Rights are on top and the Ten Commandments are underneath on the ground, hidden from view.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-01-20 12:00am

Newtonian Fury wrote:These conservatives are unlikely to play the race card.

More likely the religious oppression card.

Burak Gazan · Post by **Burak Gazan** » 2004-01-20 12:03am

Grind the cute little block into powder, use it for landfill, and charge the fella with littering......

justifier · Post by **justifier** » 2004-01-20 12:17am

neoolong wrote: More likely the religious oppression card.

Why not both?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-20 12:32am

Joe wrote:http://www.wcnc.com/sharedcontent/APSto ... 1R3G1.html

This is really getting old...

What a motherfucker. This asshole is intentionally showing disrepect for the law, and by defering to that asshole Moore, is showing he fully is aware it is illegal.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-01-20 02:25pm

Do these people honestly think they'll get their way with stunts like this? They're just making themselves look stupid and giving the Religous Right something else to cry persecution over.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-20 03:04pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:Do these people honestly think they'll get their way with stunts like this? They're just making themselves look stupid and giving the Religous Right something else to cry persecution over.

That's the idea; they're trying to martyr themselves for the cause, except that Christians are not really being persecuted in the US, so they have to deliberately break laws, dump multi-ton objects on state property, etc. in order to generate the appearance of persecution when the state finally, reluctantly does something about them. Then they can shout "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!"

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-01-20 03:25pm

This IS getting really old. I mean, jeez...come on. It's already been ruled on by the supreme court, what's this guy trying to proove? He's only making himself look like a moron.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-01-20 06:43pm

it's not as though christians aren't the biggest predominant religion in the country. why do they feel the need to bother getting their philosophies involved in government practices too? do they simply not grasp the concept of separation between church and state?

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-20 06:48pm

If he is charged with vandalism, and I doubt he will, then he should continue his example of civil disobedience and accept the punishment. Other than the fact he didn't get a permit first, I certainly have no problem with it.

Rev Prez

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-20 06:49pm

Darth_Zod wrote:it's not as though christians aren't the biggest predominant religion in the country. why do they feel the need to bother getting their philosophies involved in government practices too? do they simply not grasp the concept of separation between church and state?

Sure we do, we just have a different view on what the establishment clause means.

Rev Prez

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-01-20 07:30pm

revprez wrote:If he is charged with vandalism, and I doubt he will, then he should continue his example of civil disobedience and accept the punishment. Other than the fact he didn't get a permit first, I certainly have no problem with it.

Rev Prez
---------
Sure we do, we just have a different view on what the establishment clause means.

Rev Prez

Whoa there...

You do realize that separation of church and state is for the betterment of BOTH, don't you? Once you start getting big government and politics involved in the church, and vise versa, you start getting major corruption in both. Heck, I'm as devout a Christian as they come, but I'll tell you right now that the government has no place in my religious beliefs, and my religious beliefs shouldn't be in the state government.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-20 07:44pm

Nathan F wrote:You do realize that separation of church and state is for the betterment of BOTH, don't you?

I sure do, but I think we have different conceptions of what separation means and how it is implied in the establishment cause.

Once you start getting big government and politics involved in the church, and vise versa, you start getting major corruption in both.

I don't see how the act of placing the Ten Commandments on public property constitutes a violation of church-state separation or necessarily promotes corruption.

Heck, I'm as devout a Christian as they come, but I'll tell you right now that the government has no place in my religious beliefs, and my religious beliefs shouldn't be in the state government.

I'll agree with you on the first point, but I'll have to attach reservations to the second.

Rev Prez

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-01-20 07:46pm

I find it amusing how they always do stuff like this at great personal expense.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-20 07:51pm

Lazy Raptor wrote:I find it amusing how they always do stuff like this at great personal expense.

Well, if it makes him happy.

Rev Prez

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-01-20 07:53pm

The state should stay out of the church for obvious reasons. This is a fact that most Christians accept. But the church should also stay out of the state. Why? Power corrupts. Give the church power in the state, and it will soon be corrupted by people wanting to use the church's power for their own agendas. The Dark Ages in Europe are a prime example. The church had major power in just about every government on the Continent. Result? Corruption, money for indulgences, the Inquisition, and the Reformation. Church needs to stay out of government.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-20 08:17pm

Rogue 9 wrote:The state should stay out of the church for obvious reasons. This is a fact that most Christians accept. But the church should also stay out of the state. Why? Power corrupts.

Assuming I lend any credence at all to this aphorism, the state isn't the only source of power out there. What sort of private activity are you also willing to restrain religious institutions from participating in?

Give the church power in the state, and it will soon be corrupted by people wanting to use the church's power for their own agendas.

The church has wielded significant influence in American state affairs for two centuries. Where is the evidence correlating undue corruption to the pattern of church involvement in political affairs?

The Dark Ages in Europe are a prime example. The church had major power in just about every government on the Continent. Result? Corruption, money for indulgences, the Inquisition, and the Reformation. Church needs to stay out of government.

You're reaching back centuries for a theocracy as an example? Aren't we now on the verge of a slippery slope argument?

Rev Prez

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-20 08:21pm

revprez wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:The state should stay out of the church for obvious reasons. This is a fact that most Christians accept. But the church should also stay out of the state. Why? Power corrupts.
Assuming I lend any credence at all to this aphorism, the state isn't the only source of power out there. What sort of private activity are you also willing to restrain religious institutions from participating in?

Totally irrelevant. Private corporations do not have power to regulate individual behaviour. The state does.

Give the church power in the state, and it will soon be corrupted by people wanting to use the church's power for their own agendas.
The church has wielded significant influence in American state affairs for two centuries. Where is the evidence correlating undue corruption to the pattern of church involvement in political affairs?

Sunday closing laws, anti-pornography laws, anti-prostitution laws, tax exemptions for churches even when they are so wealthy that they would otherwise be on the Fortune 500 list, anti-sodomy laws, religious exemptions from child-abuse laws, etc. All of these are impositions upon personal liberties or exemptions from rules that apply to everyone else which are caused by church influence, despite the constitutional guarantees against it. Without those guarantees, it would be even worse.

You're reaching back centuries for a theocracy as an example? Aren't we now on the verge of a slippery slope argument?

Please look up "slippery slope" argument. The only one using it here is you, by implying that removal of the church from government somehow implies imminent removal of the church from all private activities as well. The use of an old historical precedent is perfectly reasonable if it applies. Has the Bible changed since the Inquisition? No.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-01-20 08:23pm

revprez wrote: I don't see how the act of placing the Ten Commandments on public property constitutes a violation of church-state separation

When placed in a court house, it implies that the Ten Commandments are the basis of the law, and thus, that Christianity is the one true religion. (Or do you not understand "Thou shalt not have any gods before me"?)

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-01-20 08:25pm

revprez wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:The Dark Ages in Europe are a prime example. The church had major power in just about every government on the Continent. Result? Corruption, money for indulgences, the Inquisition, and the Reformation. Church needs to stay out of government.
You're reaching back centuries for a theocracy as an example? Aren't we now on the verge of a slippery slope argument?

Rev Prez

Iran and Taliban Afghanistan, heck, practically the entire Middle East today. Modern enough theocracies for you?

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-20 08:28pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:When placed in a court house, it implies that the Ten Commandments are the basis of the law, and thus, that Christianity is the one true religion. (Or do you not understand "Thou shalt not have any gods before me"?)

To some, others might argue it represents a continuous thread in the development of legal thought in the Western world. Others will wonder exactly what religion is established by the act of placing the Ten Commandments on public property.

Rev Prez

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

More Ten Commandments BS

More Ten Commandments BS

Re: More Ten Commandments BS