Moron christians cling to Alabama Ten

it was wrongly asserted that the 10 are the basis of law. are you not aware that a world existed long before the first biblical books were written? complex ancient societies formed on justice and reason were the inspiration for modern political theory.

"Those religious symbols have been there for the last 227 years with no significant difference being made."
indeed but ain't no one ever accused this country of being a just place. the fact that there is no change IS the problem.
 
That kind of goes along with the whole "with liberty and justice for all"
just..justice...get it?
 
there is a lively little parody that goes "with liberty for just us, not all"
i do believe it is more accurate
 
Christianity: Where "equality" means "we rule!"

What surprises me most is that, as we've just had cable TV installed (and PBS is still the best thing on ... MTV Hits? What is that?) and I was stunned to find this story still paralyzed on certain arguments.

With hosts making a point of asking guests what they thought, I was impressed by Nachman's response to Lester Holt, which basically put a brief review of the law as it stands and then discussed the impropriety of the monument. I had a good moment Sunday with Bill Maher, first watching an interview with Larry King, and then Real Time; having been away from cable from months, it was nice to be back in the rhythm with someone whose method results in my learning when I disagree with him. And even on Maher's show, the argument was stuck a light-year behind reality.

The Christians who saw the preservation of the monument as protected by the First Amendment return to a classic complaint I've had about Christianity since childhood: Why is it that Christians always want "freedom" and "equality" to be defined as Christian supremacy? Why is equal not good enough? Why is it that for Christians equal is only equal if Christians get more than anyone else?

I hope South Carolina is next on the block. Maybe we should locate the Carolinians to Africa and give SC to the Liberians. Give Floridians to Castro and take the rest of Cuba in Florida? Give Texas to the Mexicans and apologize for the burden? ;)

At any rate ... the monument has been moved and the courts get to split some hairs for the benefit of Christians who just don't understand that the Constitution, and not their Bible, is the Supreme Law of the Land in this country.

Fun-fun.

Edit: Just for the heck of it: Monument to an inglorious past (WXXI)
 
I am just amazed that Christian fanatics have reached such high level in offices that it is not funny any more...Just imagine a Judge's bias against non-believers who plead their case in front of him ...


There should be a law against such people in high offices that hey have to check their fanatics at the door before entering their offices...
 
Originally posted by Guru
I am just amazed that Christian fanatics have reached such high level in offices that it is not funny any more...Just imagine a Judge's bias against non-believers who plead their case in front of him ...


There should be a law against such people in high offices that hey have to check their fanatics at the door before entering their offices...
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO, the whole crux of people's arguments is that there shall be no law regarding the establishment of religion, hence the court's interpretation that the 10 Commandments must be removed. Then, you say there should be a law against religious people in high office. :eek: Sounds just a tad hypcritical to me.

Imagine an atheist's bias against any believer. It is twistedly funny how so few think so many are crazy, fanatical, lunny, etc.
 
The trouble is not necessarily with Christians, but with fanaticism in general. Christian fanatics, Muslim Fanatics, Atheist Fanatics...They all annoy me.
 
Originally posted by truth
Then, you say there should be a law against religious people in high office. :eek: Sounds just a tad hypcritical to me.
Click to expand...

erm, the rest of us realized that it was a joke. lighten up and learn to recognize humor.
 
Originally posted by truth
ROFLMAO, the whole crux of people's arguments is that there shall be no law regarding the establishment of religion, hence the court's interpretation that the 10 Commandments must be removed. Then, you say there should be a law against religious people in high office. :eek: Sounds just a tad hypcritical to me.
Click to expand...
I believe he was saying that religious people who hold office shouldn't allow their religious beliefs to influence them when making secular decisions, not that religious people shouldn't be allowed to hold office.
 
Let me clarify my stand here!!

Let me clarify my stand here

"There should be a law against such people in high offices that hey have to check their fanatics at the door before entering their offices"...

What I meant by this was that any person who has such fanatic belief is Biased and should not let these strong belief affect his position and job in such high places which touches everyone in the society...

How will you feel if such persons are allowed to bring his/her brand of belief in these offices and intimidate non-believers. I think every person who is well read has a justifiable passion which he does like to share..but using his Govt Job is not ethical for displaying such passions....

what if I believe we were genetically created by Aliens and bring a model of Flying saucer and inscribe that we are all children of aliens and all the "belief" that goes with it in NASA's office...They would kick me out for good...

I hope I made myself clear....
 
Ok Guru, I see what you are saying. The judge in particular, whether he is Christian, Muslim, Atheist, etc. should put his beliefs aside. The problem come when an appellate court is reviewing the law, cases, etc. that personal beliefs come into play. I think one of the greatest examples of this Roe v. Wade, abortion. I don't remember how the votes were split, but basically the majority decision was based on the following premise: from the first 10 amendments to the Constitution is inferred a right of privacy, even though one is never stated, then the court concluded that abortion was an emination of a penumbra. In reality there is no right to abortion, let alone privacy. It is a matter of interpretation. That's why everybody gets worried when a S. Ct. justice retires and tries to get conservatives or liberals in there. Their beliefs will influence their decision making. It is expected to be that way.

Where this judge crossed the line is that he was using his office in order to keep the monument there in violation of a higher court's order. Frankly, I think he should be brought before the ethics commitee for improper conduct. Has he acted as a private citizen, it would have been no problem.
 
We are currently far more affected by the political beliefs of judges than we are their religious beliefs. I would rather see most any case decided by a christian than a political extremest. It is both we must scrutinize closely.
 
Double Standards????

Justice USA

If you agree to a Xian extremist sitting in the place of a judge then why do we like to see a political process in Afghanistan. They also used to have religious extremist running their system of justice. I mean we would like to see moderation in other cultures but would not mind tolerating religious extremism in ours.

I know what you meant was more a choice between Devil and the Deep sea....but I just wanted to surf on that mind set....and it does not attack you in person I just wanted to throw this up for discussion.
 
Guru

I think I was trying to say that a religious extremest in political office is more dangerous because he can "change" the laws so that they are more in line with his personal religious belief.

A religious extremest judge must still "apply the law as it is written" and that usually means using a precedent. Previous similiar cases tried by other judges weigh heaviest in determining any judicial deciscion.
If the personal beliefs of a judge enter into a case it could be cause for the case to be appealed, overturned , or possibly even thrown out of the court entirely.

I appreciate your comments and I do see the situation as being the lesser of two evils. The law should be both written and applied without religious predjudice.:)
 
Send Moore to Uganda

Friends of the Ten Commandments

The Lord's Resistance Army of Uganda:
The LRA has abducted large numbers of civilians for training as guerrillas; most victims were children and young adults. The LRA abducted young girls as sex and labor slaves. Other children, mainly girls, were reported to have been sold, traded, or given as gifts by the LRA to arms dealers in Sudan. While some later escaped or were rescued, the whereabouts of many children remain unknown.

In particular, the LRA abducted numerous children and, at clandestine bases, terrorized them into virtual slavery as guards, concubines, and soldiers. In addition to being beaten, raped, and forced to march until exhausted, abducted children were forced to participate in the killing of other children who had attempted to escape. Amnesty International reported that without child abductions, the LRA would have few combatants. More than 6,000 children were abducted during 1998, although many of those abducted later escaped or were released. Most human rights NGOs place the number of abducted children still held captive by the LRA at around 3,000, although estimates vary substantially.
Click to expand...
And the BBC has a habit of pointing out:
The LRA says it wants to rule Uganda according to the biblical ten commandments.
Click to expand...
see also - Crosslines Global Report #33: "Children of Grief"
The LRA, a mysterious rebel group which claims it wants to create a society based on the 10 commandments has been waging a war of terror against villagers in Northern Uganda in its determination to topple the government of Yoweri Museveni.

Lewis says what distinguishes events in Northern Uganda from other situations he's dealt with is that, in this case, children are deliberately targeted. "The LRA prey on children and children alone," says Lewis. "It is a psychosis, it is an obsession. It is a determination to destroy children at all costs; to brutalize children, no matter what the consequences."
Click to expand...
The Ten Commandments, indeed.
 
IMO The only real problem with Christianity today is its poor implementation. The Christian sects that actually adhere to the spirit of the bible rather than the technicalities (and there are a fair number of them) don't cause problems -- you don't typically see Lutherans or Methodists or Episcopalians or any multitude of other sects trying to infuse their religions into the government.
 
Bush has toyed around with several different churches since getting into politics, however, many friends of the Bush family have said that before he got into politics, Bush only very rarely attended church at all. It really seems like Bush is using religion as a showpiece to accomplish other agendas. I'm not sure what Bush's "Official" religion is, but most of the Methodists I know are not of this fanatic type (Although there is a fundamentalist breakoff sect of the Methodist church that is VERY annoying)
 
The depth of Bush's faith seems to be in direct proportion to his need for support from the religious right.

If he is speaking before a religious group he will use the terms ,"Evil and Good" repeatedly.

In a speech before a military group he dons his magic pseudo flight jacket and reverts more to using: "the enemys of America" "The haters of freedom".

Workers and union groups are bombarded by the words "good jobs", "employment", and the promise of a good "economy".
His "key" phrases used at the proper tiimes have suduced the heartland of a dumbed down America.

Ironically it is all politics, he doesn't write any of his own material. It is all done by staff members skilled in the obfuscation of truth.
 
the scary thing about this monument is that a poll was taken and 4 out of 5 americans think it should of stayed. stuff like that makes me embarassed to be an american. people cant even understand their on constitution of its rationale
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top