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.
Did they remove the law where killing is illegal ? Or maybe perjury law is gone now ? ..Then maybe stealing law is gone to ???.... See what happen when liberals become dominate in the land
Yes. They replace irrelevant laws engraved in stone because some religion demands it with laws that address killing, perjury, right of equality and right to dissent on the basis of reason and fairness.
That is why liberals dominating, humanist morality dominating and irreligion dominating in the land is long overdue - and Random Factors be thanked that it at last seems to be coming.
Yes. They replace irrelevant laws engraved in stone because some religion demands it with laws that address killing, perjury, right of equality and right to dissent on the basis of reason and fairness.
That is why liberals dominating, humanist morality dominating and irreligion dominating in the land is long overdue - and Random Factors be thanked that it at last seems to be coming.
I most certainly don't need labels dominating, simpletons dominating, or meaningless absence dominating...
I need Education, Education, and Education to be dominating.
But I think in the myth (correct me if I'm wrong hljc)
Yahweh removed the law of killing when he said "stone them to death" because murder is illegal killing, but this sort of killing is legal by Yahweh's dirty words of great supposed power and yet no responsibility.
and David removed the law of perjury when he said "handle it among yourselves before you handle it in public so that you don't illuminate shame against both of you"
and Moses removed the law of stealing when he said "there are no private-property rights based on buying, owning, and passing down for many generations, just kill them all and take their land and virgin/young daughters"
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 08-04-2015 at 04:36 AM..
That's the idea. Separation of church and state has a knock -on that government land, money and sponsorship will not be used to push any religion.
But, if some individual - or a church - wanted to put up a ten commandments in their back yard or front garden, they have every right to do so, so long as some other law is not being broken (like blocking your neighbour's sunlight).
But, in public areas, this is a bit more arguable and on state administration property with state money and state approval is that is surely unconstitutional and in fact is flying the Christian flag over and above the US flag.
If the Christian symbol, however, is allowed to stay, others have a perfectly equal right to put up statues of Shiva, Quran -text or Bahphomet. It is the exact same response to the attempt to push Christianity through public prayer in Hawaii. Prayers to the Hawaiian god were organized (or so I heard). Religious tracts is school satchels were countered by sending atheist tracts to school in satchels. Every attempt to push Christianity can be legally and constitutionally countered by an equal pushing of another religion or irreligion. The initiative to afford Christianity a particular exposure then has to be dropped or the other initiatives have also to be allowed. And as we saw from the piccie of Baphomet alongside the Moses -stone, it becomes not a megaphone for Christianity, but an exhibition of comparative religion and even irreligion.
Anyone correcting my take on the legal and constitutional rights issue may do so.
Not surprised here. Although I imagine that the state will waste times with appeals through the Federal system now.
they are wasting money in removing them, the whole thing is a joke. If the thing was built before a certain date leave it. no new builds can have it on them. But since when did the courts ever stop allowing people to force an insane stance on us. Like the new word for "innocent" is "unarmed'.
There is nothing in the United States Constitution that prohibits a state from making such a prohibition of its own. As such, any attempt to appeal this to the United States Supreme Court (the only federal court that has any power of review over state supreme court rulings) would be dismissed for a lack of standing.
This is why, so far as I've heard, the government of Oklahoma isn't even bothering to talk about tilting at that windmill.
What they will likely do is try and amend their own state constitution, now that it's been determined that Christianity has to abide by the law the same as other less popular religions.
As far as I'm concerned, this is a load of crap. People at one point as part of their history wanted to built a landmark to the 10 commandments. This is not a statement of state religion, it's a carving. Much like mount rushmore isn't a state support of those presidents but simply a landmark. They can ignore it and show state indifference. Instead they're showing their bums as anti-religious state officials.
As far as I'm concerned, this is a load of crap. People at one point as part of their history wanted to built a landmark to the 10 commandments. This is not a statement of state religion, it's a carving. Much like mount rushmore isn't a state support of those presidents but simply a landmark. They can ignore it and show state indifference. Instead they're showing their bums as anti-religious state officials.
To be clear... "at one point" was 2012. This is not some historic monument of a distant past. This is current lawmakers wanting to make a point that their state is a "Christian" state, in violation of their own state Constitution.
If OK lawmakers want to change their constitution to make this legal, they can do that, but they need to be prepared to provide space at the courthouse for Hanuman the monkey god, and the demon Baphomet at the very least, or they will be back in court for violating the U.S. Constitution by preferring the expression of one religion over another.
Sad that our courts system has to waste time and money on a monument that doesn't affect citizens instead of real problems.
Are atheists really so sensitive that they can't bear seeing any public reference to the Bible?
It is a shame that Christians cannot obey their own God and abide by the law of the land! Quite frankly, there is no Biblical interpretation I can come up with that would make erecting a graven image ( quite literally) in violation of the God appointed authorities(Romans 13:1-7) not a sin.
Talk about people calling evil, good! Every Christian who supports this monument is in direct violation of at least two explicit commands of God.
So who is wasting time and money, those who are demanding that the la be followed, or those who, in their sin, are violating the laws of God and man to demand special treatment for themselves?
Sad that our courts system has to waste time and money on a monument that doesn't affect citizens instead of real problems.
Are atheists really so sensitive that they can't bear seeing any public reference to the Bible?
I do not force the public to look at my flamingos by putting them on public land. I keep them corralled on my property. Even though they are the most awesome flamingos on the planet, and I really, really want them on the State House property. i have to settle for watching them on the back pond.
I think the ten commandments belong on your front lawn in Texas.
they are wasting money in removing them, the whole thing is a joke. If the thing was built before a certain date leave it. no new builds can have it on them. But since when did the courts ever stop allowing people to force an insane stance on us. Like the new word for "innocent" is "unarmed'.
It was erected in 2012.
So what you're saying is that the state can erect any monument, and even if that monument is immediately challenged in court and ultimately ruled unconstitutional, it stays up because "Hey, it's already there!". And somehow this makes sense to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
As far as I'm concerned, this is a load of crap. People at one point as part of their history wanted to built a landmark to the 10 commandments. This is not a statement of state religion, it's a carving. Much like mount rushmore isn't a state support of those presidents but simply a landmark. They can ignore it and show state indifference. Instead they're showing their bums as anti-religious state officials.
Compelling rebuttal.
Anyway, you're obviously wrong.
To maintain that a monument declaring "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" doesn't represent support for the Judeo-Christian religion is as ludicrous as claiming that the Shahada ("There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His messenger") doesn't support Islam.
This is so glaringly-obvious that 7 of 9 members of the state supreme court if virulently-conservative Oklahoma agree. I guess they just never considered your erudite 'load of crap' legal theory...
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.
Even though they are the most awesome flamingos on the planet, and I really, really want them on the State House property. i have to settle for watching them on the back pond. 
