Ten Commandments before Supreme Court

[SuperJerk 0]

Since I have ALSO said that no legitimate religious group is currently forbidden from practicing its religion, I've already shown that you have lied.

I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

 

I've never once argued that you advocate ANY banishment or reduction on the practice of religion.

 

Ahem.

 

But you're trying to force atheism onto non-atheist people.

 

the incessant attacks on any semblance of religion IS "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

 

I did not invent these quotes.

[Guest MikeSC]

Since I have ALSO said that no legitimate religious group is currently forbidden from practicing its religion,  I've already shown that you have lied.

I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Shocker. Really, a shocker. I will try and use smaller words.

I've never once argued that you advocate ANY banishment or reduction on the practice of religion.

Ahem.

But you're trying to force atheism onto non-atheist people.

the incessant attacks on any semblance of religion IS "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

I did not invent these quotes.

And they no say that you want to ban God.

-=Mike

...Was that easy enough for you? I'm not sure I can dumb it down more than that...

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Oh calm down Mike. For the sake of Christ.

How 'bout this --- when I invent moronic quotes from you (thanks for the steady flow of material, BTW. Inventing asinine quotes from you will never be needed), we can talk.

-=Mike

Um... it's a message board. You act like the guy sucker punched your dog. You made your point.

He feels he did nothing wrong. I am not letting this go.

-=Mike

No shit.

[Guest MikeSC]

Oh calm down Mike. For the sake of Christ.

How 'bout this --- when I invent moronic quotes from you (thanks for the steady flow of material, BTW. Inventing asinine quotes from you will never be needed), we can talk.

-=Mike

Um... it's a message board. You act like the guy sucker punched your dog. You made your point.

He feels he did nothing wrong. I am not letting this go.

-=Mike

No shit.

You already made your non-point.

 

Feel free to stop attempting to pretend to contribute.

-=Mike

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

I already said my part earlier in the thread on this topic. You don't exactly have much to offer on this topic other than trying like hell to derail the thread. So much for being polite to your sorry ass. Then again, passive or hostile there just is NO talking to you.

[SuperJerk 0]

And they no say that you want to ban God.

-=Mike

...Was that easy enough for you? I'm not sure I can dumb it down more than that...

It might be easier if you used the correct grammar.

 

"And they no say that you want to ban God."?

 

The hell?

 

Mike, you've become so angry that you're now completely incoherent.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

And they no say that you want to ban God.

          -=Mike

...Was that easy enough for you? I'm not sure I can dumb it down more than that...

It might be easier if you used the correct grammar.

 

"And they no say that you want to ban God."?

 

The hell?

 

Mike, you've become so angry that you're now completely incoherent.

Maybe he should have calmed dow.... awww nevermind.

[Guest MikeSC]

And they no say that you want to ban God.

          -=Mike

...Was that easy enough for you? I'm not sure I can dumb it down more than that...

It might be easier if you used the correct grammar.

 

"And they no say that you want to ban God."?

 

The hell?

 

Mike, you've become so angry that you're now completely incoherent.

No, I'm just trying to make sure you can follow me.

 

You want to replace what you think is "forcing religion on you" with "forcing atheism on people". It's just as bad to me.

 

Not in the same country that contains the ballpark that "You want to ban religion" is located in.

 

Your hypocrisy has made you an idiot here.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

You want to replace what you think is "forcing religion on you" with "forcing atheism on people". It's just as bad to me.

I've addressed this before.

 

There are THREE ways a government could act.

1) It could be pro-religious and insist everyone beleive in God.

2) It could be anti-religious and insist that no one beleive in God.

3) It could be non-religious and not tell people anything about God.

The first two are wrong, and the third one is right.

 

The 2nd and 3rd are not "just as bad", because the 2nd gives people no choice, whereas the 3rd gives people to right to choose.

 

The problem is you have absolutely no ability to comprehend the differences between positions 2 and 3.

 

Not in the same country that contains the ballpark that "You want to ban religion" is located in.

 

How is saying I want to force atheism on people not the same thing as saying I want to ban religion?

 

How is saying I want to prohibit the free exercise of religion not the same thing as saying I want to ban religion?

 

You're grasping at straws.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

So what you are saying now is that it is propoganda to entice conversions to Christianity? In other words, it is pretty much the same of putting up a statue of Ronald McDonald to entice people to eat at their restaurants. You call that propaganda. I call that advertising.

 

As far as the Constitution goes, I agree. You are absolutely correct that this monument should not be on government property. My argument is that it is even worse to spend all of this taxpayers money on something so trivial. I know it shouldn't be there (at least as long as they are using it for a symbol of religion and not an example of law), I just don't care, and neither do most people. It isn't an argument worth fighting. If a judge put up a Shinto shrine out in front of the courthouse, I wouldn't be happy about it, but I would still feel the same way.

[Guest MikeSC]

You want to replace what you think is "forcing religion on you" with "forcing atheism on people". It's just as bad to me.

I've addressed this before.

 

There are THREE ways a government could act.

1) It could be pro-religious and insist everyone beleive in God.

2) It could be anti-religious and insist that no one beleive in God.

3) It could be non-religious and not tell people anything about God.

The first two are wrong, and the third one is right.

No, the third one is right because it is the solution YOU support.

Not in the same country that contains the ballpark that "You want to ban religion" is located in.

How is saying I want to force atheism on people not the same thing as saying I want to ban religion?

Seeing as how I've stated REPEATEDLY that the government does not FORCE you to worship a damned thing, then simply replacing religion with atheism SHOULDN'T change that.

How is saying I want to prohibit the free exercise of religion not the same thing as saying I want to ban religion?

 

You're grasping at straws.

I'm saying the incessant attacks by special interest groups on ANYTHING that even REMOTELY resembles religion (like it or not, Dec. 25th is CHRISTMAS, no matter how much atheists wish to pretend otherwise) does try to limit the expression of faith.

 

I wasn't commenting on YOU personally at all, you fucking moron.

 

You really are a fucking moron.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

No, the third one is right because it is the solution YOU support.

The third one is right because it most closely holds up the founding ideals of America. Don't forget that we wound up on this rock because we were tired that some chaps back there were telling our ancestors what their religious beliefs would be.

[Guest MikeSC]

No, the third one is right because it is the solution YOU support.

The third one is right because it most closely holds up the founding ideals of America.

That'd be news to the way the country was WHEN IT WAS FOUNDED.

 

But I guess the founding fathers simply were lying to themselves then.

Don't forget that we wound up on this rock because we were tired that some chaps back there were telling our ancestors what their religious beliefs would be.

And if you're attempting to compare a statue of the 10 Commandments to the Church of England, you might wish to cease stop writing now and stop making yourself a fool.

 

Notice how you're free to worship or NOT worship wherever you want?

 

THAT was what the founding fathers wanted.

-=Mike

[Special K 0]

Let me reiterate I DO think the 10 commandments displayed on gov't property is wrong, ESPECIALLY in courts. I don't mind the prayer to lead congress, they've had Hindu prayer open Congress (over, which, BTW, some conservatives threw a shitfit. Years ago, though.)

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm saying the incessant attacks by special interest groups on ANYTHING that even REMOTELY resembles religion (like it or not, Dec. 25th is CHRISTMAS, no matter how much atheists wish to pretend otherwise) does try to limit the expression of faith.

This is another red herring. No one here has said they want to get rid of Christmas.

 

I wasn't commenting on YOU personally at all, you fucking moron.

 

But aren't you the guy who said this?

 

You think religion shouldn't be recognized by a government whatsoever, yet have NO qualms about environmentalist groups literally getting money shovelled at them

 

Now, for those of you tuning in late, here's the quote that MikeSC provided to show that my views (yes, he did mean me specifically) on religious displays contradicted my views on environmentalism:

 

 

Wow, he sure caught me, didn't he?

 

Even more hilariously, he then said this:

 

Hmm, I use your DIRECT quotes.

 

Wow, you sure did.

 

 

Anyhow, he got really, really pissed though when I said this:

 

the incessant attacks on any semblance of religion IS "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

 

But you're trying to force atheism onto non-atheist people.

 

Sounds to me like you're saying I advocate the outlawing of religion. Using terms like "prohibit free exercise thereof" and "force" in this context means the same thing as outlawing religion.

 

Mike, here's a tip, when trying to use someone's quotes against them to contradict them, it helps if you ACTUALLY HAVE A QUOTE.

 

And one last thing...

 

You really are a fucking moron.

 

If I'm a moron, then I guess it doesn't take that much to outsmart you.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm saying the incessant attacks by special interest groups on ANYTHING that even REMOTELY resembles religion (like it or not, Dec. 25th is CHRISTMAS, no matter how much atheists wish to pretend otherwise) does try to limit the expression of faith.

This is another red herring. No one here has said they want to get rid of Christmas.

 

Wow, he sure caught me, didn't he?

And nobody said you did. Hard for me to toss red herrings into arguments you pull out of your ass.

I wasn't commenting on YOU personally at all' date=' you fucking moron.[/quote']

But aren't you the guy who said this?

You think religion shouldn't be recognized by a government whatsoever' date=' yet have NO qualms about environmentalist groups literally getting money shovelled at them[/quote']

Now, for those of you tuning in late, here's the quote that MikeSC provided to show that my views (yes, he did mean me specifically) on religious displays contradicted my views on environmentalism:

Which, you unbelievable fucking moron, is worlds different than "You want to ban religion", you fucking sandy vagina.

Anyhow, he got really, really pissed though when I said this:

the incessant attacks on any semblance of religion IS "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

But you're trying to force atheism onto non-atheist people.

Sounds to me like you're saying I advocate the outlawing of religion.

So you can't read. Sounds like a personal problem, skippy.

Using terms like "prohibit free exercise thereof" and "force" in this context means the same thing as outlawing religion. 

No, it doesn't. Just because you have no point and thus have to pray that you're reading shit into things that isn't there is good enough doesn't mean anything.

Mike, here's a tip, when trying to use someone's quotes against them to contradict them, it helps if you ACTUALLY HAVE A QUOTE.

 

And one last thing...

You really are a fucking moron.

If I'm a moron, then I guess it doesn't take that much to outsmart you.

Well, if I was willing to just pull shit out of my ass as you are --- well, it'd be no harder undressing your babble masquerading as intellect, you child.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

[Guest MikeSC]

Yes, yes you are.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Oh ya got me.

 

on abortion

 

And the "over half" number seems to be a little high, considering the success pro-life candidates tend to have.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139841,00.html

 

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNew...poll030122.html

 

Generally, 57 percent in this ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and 54 percent favor the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 ruling that made it so.

 

A majority of Americans say President Bush's next choice for an opening on the Supreme Court should be willing to uphold the landmark court decision protecting abortion rights (search), an Associated Press poll found.

 

The poll found that 59 percent say Bush should choose a nominee who would uphold the 1973 Roe v. Wade (search) decision that legalized abortion. About three in 10, 31 percent, said they want a nominee who would overturn the decision, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs.

[Guest MikeSC]

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

 

Yeah, whatever ya say.

 

Hmm, according to the most recent of THESE polls, 63% prefer stricter limits or outright banning of the procedure. 53% support limitations or outright banning of abortion. Only 50% want a judge who will uphold Roe v Wade.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Isn't government-recognized religion a bit a problem in the middle east? It seems to make, you know, conflict.

 

And I'm laughing at Mike using OMG THEY'RE TRYING TO GET RID OF CHRISTMAS in serious arguement. That stuff is red meat that only shows up on Rush and Hannity for a reason, you know. Because they can blow it out of proportion.

[Guest MikeSC]

Isn't government-recognized religion a bit a problem in the middle east? It seems to make, you know, conflict.

 

And I'm laughing at Mike using OMG THEY'RE TRYING TO GET RID OF CHRISTMAS in serious arguement. That stuff is red meat that only shows up on Rush and Hannity for a reason, you know. Because they can blow it out of proportion.

You HAVEN'T noticed the whole "OMG, SANTA CLAUS IS TEH SUXXORZ!!" crap that has been going on?

 

Just because something has a religios connotation does not mean that it cannot be mentioned by the government.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You HAVEN'T noticed the whole "OMG, SANTA CLAUS IS TEH SUXXORZ!!" crap that has been going on?

Not really, I've heard the opposite. As far as I know, Christmas is two holidays in one. The birth of Christ to those of Christian faith, and a day when Santa Claus rides around in his sleigh and gives presents to those who don't.

 

Fine by me, the holiday is so darn big anymore that I don't see any reason to exclude people, especially since in the end it all helps the economy.

[SuperJerk 0]

Well, if I was willing to just pull shit out of my ass as you are --- well, it'd be no harder undressing your babble masquerading as intellect, you child.

If you can't handle my rebuttals to your arguments without resorting to pointless and immature name-calling, then I no longer have the desire to discuss this issue with you. At this point I'm just repeating myself, anyways. I'll let others decide if my arguments have merit or not, although I doubt many will find your fallacy-filled posts to be persuasive.

 

If anyone else wants to step up and try to have a rational discussion about this, please post your point of view and I promise to read it.

[Vyce 0]

And yet another CE thread devolves into a dick-waving contest between Mike and insert-liberal-here.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well, if I was willing to just pull shit out of my ass as you are --- well, it'd be no harder undressing your babble masquerading as intellect, you child.

If you can't handle my rebuttals to your arguments without resorting to pointless and immature name-calling, then I no longer have the desire to discuss this issue with you. At this point I'm just repeating myself, anyways. I'll let others decide if my arguments have merit or not, although I doubt many will find your fallacy-filled posts to be persuasive.

 

If anyone else wants to step up and try to have a rational discussion about this, please post your point of view and I promise to read it.

Good. Cease inventing quotes and reading your own inane conspiracy theories where they are not being matched and you'll do better in the future.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And yet another CE thread devolves into a dick-waving contest between Mike and insert-liberal-here.

Didn't happen when Mike was gone. He has his moments, but since he came back the "I don't need to reply to this arguement because the person giving it is so obviously retarded that to answer would be beneath me" levels have gone through the roof.

[Guest MikeSC]

And yet another CE thread devolves into a dick-waving contest between Mike and insert-liberal-here.

Didn't happen when Mike was gone. He has his moments, but since he came back the "I don't need to reply to this arguement because the person giving it is so obviously retarded that to answer would be beneath me" levels have gone through the roof.

Go fuck yourself.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Glad to see you finally started posting here, Mr. Cheney.

[Guest MikeSC]

Glad to see you finally started posting here, Mr. Cheney.

Well, that'd make you Leahy.

 

Yeah, you are an unlikeable fella. It makes sense.

-=Mike