Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Must be there's a vestige of optimism left in me.
I was expecting something more like...
"Those are good points. I admit to not having given this particular case enough thought."
Guess it was just wishful thinking.
you are right, we all can't be perfect that is wishful thinking. But this case is just another example of what a joke we have become. A state breaks the law and we can't make it right in 10 seconds. Plus, everything I said is true. That kind of puts a dinger in his well written poem.
you are right, we all can't be perfect that is wishful thinking. But this case is just another example of what a joke we have become. A state breaks the law and we can't make it right in 10 seconds. Plus, everything I said is true. That kind of puts a dinger in his well written poem.
That was my point. We agree that the state's actions were wrong, and yet you do not criticize the people doing wrong, you belittle the people trying to make it right.
How in the world can you envision a just, democratic society that can make deliberate abuse of the law by those in power a matter of "10 seconds"? First you advocate states rights, and then you pretend that there should be some governing body who can come in and instantly, without court cases, hearings, or process force a state to comply with some other law? Make up your mind! Either states have the authority to govern themselves regarding state law, in which case this is an example of the system working beautifully, if a bit slowly, or you want the "fedz" to come in and make the states comply with their own laws. You can't have it both ways.
Bottom line, the right answer is for lawmakers to respect the law and stop trying to use the government to push their religion, and secondly for voters to wise up to the ideological opportunists. Ultimately this battle will go on as long as we have segments of the religious who believe that the 1st Amendment only applies to their belief. And we will have brave souls who are willing to confront this behavior openly and loudly, and in so doing, protect everyone's first amendment rights. Even those of short sighted accomodationalists (Thanks for the great word, Arq!) who are willing to jump on the bandwagon and demonize their own defenders.
Let the states decide, keep the fedz out. Leave old buildings old and new building without them. it aint rocket science.
religious extremist want to go and waste a ton of money removing anything from other religions or items from people that don't think like them.
You can't let the states decide because allowing any courthouse to display the 10 Commandments violates the federal Constitution. And the Primacy Clause already ensures that any rule in the federal Constitution trumps anything said in a state constitution.
I.e. the states do not have the power to decide whether they want to obey one of the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
I agree that I'm not for the tearing down of older courthouses that might have a 10 commandments somewhere in it (though it should never be inside a courtroom itself). I don't even care if there are carved depictions showing Moses receiving the 10 Commandments or whatever -- or if there are Bible quotes carved into the walls.
But I do have a problem with the 1st four commandments if the sculpture is relatively recent -- like, from the 1980's on given that fundamentalism all but destroyed that decade.
That was my point. We agree that the state's actions were wrong, and yet you do not criticize the people doing wrong, you belittle the people trying to make it right.
-NoCapo
really NoCap? look at the line you quoted. Something else is bothering you. Look at our school system and legal system. Religion did not screw them up. So just who do you suggest I belittle for allowing kentucky to be able to pull this off?
really NoCap? look at the line you quoted. Something else is bothering you. Look at our school system and legal system. Religion did not screw them up. So just who do you suggest I belittle for allowing kentucky to be able to pull this off?
You can blame anyone you like for Kentucky, we are discussing Oklahoma. But, you would actually have to examine the evidence about this particular case to know that...
You were arguing that the people who stood up to religious legislators who were breaking the law with impunity were the:
religious extremist want to go and waste a ton of money removing anything from other religions or items from people that don't think like them.
You have already agreed that the installation of the monument was an abuse of the law, and that proper process was followed to oppose it. How in the world can you argue that citizens who are willing to stand up to abusive government, to challenge blatant overreach are the ones who are "extremist" and who are trying to impose their views on others? They are merely demanding the government abide by the law which is already in place.
In the case of the Oklahoma monument, blame can very clearly be laid at the feet of politicians who use religious beliefs to polarize and divide, and to generate unquestioning support for themselves, and the religious voters who blindly allow them to do it.
But of course,even though the evidence here is crystal clear, you apparently have an emotional need to demonize secularists. Even when, by your own admission, they are entirely in the right to oppose an unconstitutional law in the proper venue, in the proper way.
Who you choose to blame for other societal ills is your issue. I would suggest, however, that in a quasi-democratic society, blaming a minute portion of the voting population for the nation's ills smacks again of emotional need, not evidence based reason...
You can blame anyone you like for Kentucky, we are discussing Oklahoma. But, you would actually have to examine the evidence about this particular case to know that...
You were arguing that the people who stood up to religious legislators who were breaking the law with impunity were the:
religious extremist want to go and waste a ton of money removing anything from other religions or items from people that don't think like them.
You have already agreed that the installation of the monument was an abuse of the law, and that proper process was followed to oppose it. How in the world can you argue that citizens who are willing to stand up to abusive government, to challenge blatant overreach are the ones who are "extremist" and who are trying to impose their views on others? They are merely demanding the government abide by the law which is already in place.
In the case of the Oklahoma monument, blame can very clearly be laid at the feet of politicians who use religious beliefs to polarize and divide, and to generate unquestioning support for themselves, and the religious voters who blindly allow them to do it.
But of course,even though the evidence here is crystal clear, you apparently have an emotional need to demonize secularists. Even when, by your own admission, they are entirely in the right to oppose an unconstitutional law in the proper venue, in the proper way.
Who you choose to blame for other societal ills is your issue. I would suggest, however, that in a quasi-democratic society, blaming a minute portion of the voting population for the nation's ills smacks again of emotional need, not evidence based reason...
-NoCapo
"religious extremist want to go and waste a ton of money removing anything from other religions or items from people that don't think like them."
The only question I have: is the statement more correct or more incorrect?
Now, how do I tell who is an extremist on the internet. I say look at how they react to a simple statement of truth. ok, a little out of context, but that is needed to smoke out. three pages NoCap, I even agreed that its against the law.
"religious extremist want to go and waste a ton of money removing anything from other religions or items from people that don't think like them."
The only question I have: is the statement more correct or more incorrect?
As applied to the Baptist minister that stood up for the Oklahoma State Constitution and the principle of seperation of church and state? Utterly and completely incorrect. False, bordering on slanderous. It was an attempt to meet your emotional need to paint secularists as intolerant meanies, and it backfired horribly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
Now, how do I tell who is an extremist on the internet. I say look at how they react to a simple statement of truth. ok, a little out of context, but that is needed to smoke out. three pages NoCap, I even agreed that its against the law.
A little out of context? That is like saying me implying you are pedophile would be out of context! You clearly and unambiguously implied something that is even inconsistent with your own position!
Arach, I can't help what the evidence shows. If I am to not use emotional logic, I must follow where the evidence leads me. An no amount of emotional rationalizing, name calling or finger pointing from you will change what the evidence shows.
Face it, you got caught up in your own narrative, didn't bother to educate yourself about the issues, and made some ludicrously ignorant statements. Then instead of admitting you screwed up, you doubled down.
And finally you want to pretend that people who call you on your ignorant, fact free, misguided rambling are somehow "extreme". No, I think that people who abandon facts and reason to cling to their predetermined irrational prejudice, in the face of all evidence are more worthy of that title, meaningless though it is.
But I do appreciate the brilliant illustration of how seriously we should take your declarations of being strictly evidential in your evaluation of reality...
As applied to the Baptist minister that stood up for the Oklahoma State Constitution and the principle of seperation of church and state? Utterly and completely incorrect. False, bordering on slanderous. It was an attempt to meet your emotional need to paint secularists as intolerant meanies, and it backfired horribly.
A little out of context? That is like saying me implying you are pedophile would be out of context! You clearly and unambiguously implied something that is even inconsistent with your own position!
Arach, I can't help what the evidence shows. If I am to not use emotional logic, I must follow where the evidence leads me. An no amount of emotional rationalizing, name calling or finger pointing from you will change what the evidence shows.
Face it, you got caught up in your own narrative, didn't bother to educate yourself about the issues, and made some ludicrously ignorant statements. Then instead of admitting you screwed up, you doubled down.
And finally you want to pretend that people who call you on your ignorant, fact free, misguided rambling are somehow "extreme". No, I think that people who abandon facts and reason to cling to their predetermined irrational prejudice, in the face of all evidence are more worthy of that title, meaningless though it is.
But I do appreciate the brilliant illustration of how seriously we should take your declarations of being strictly evidential in your evaluation of reality...
-NoCapo
wow. you just keep going. yeah, it's me over reacting. all you have to do is look at your responses and responses and responses to the same things I said. I mean you just keep on adding layers and layers. yuppers, its me.
Let me just get it back to what I said.
1) "religious extremist want to go and waste a ton of money removing anything from other religions or items from people that don't think like them."
2)"states should have more say in most cases". You are correct again, totally out of bounds statement in the use today. Only ignorant, uniformed people think that.
3) if the state broke the law the state broke the law. whats the hub bub, bub.
I haven't change a thing yet. But you keep adding and adding more stuff. Now including ad hominem attacks. yeah, I think I'll keep with more logical then emotional solutions.
the evidence shows you seriously over reacting. I mean now everything I say is suspect because you don't agree that I agreed in the "Right way"? lmao. I smell hidden agendaaaaaa.
I suggest stuffing some Vick's up your nose.
It may help to keep you from being confused by the odors.
yup, you got that right. between total bs, hidden agendas, bitterness, and flat out revenge I get wacked in the side of the head with meanings I never see coming. Like here. Let the state handle the states problems. The legal system is screwed so stupid people can abuse it. that is not religion fault. There is a ton of money wasted on stupid cases all over the place. this is just another example of it.
.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
