Suit: Remove Ten Commandments

[odeezie]

:panic::panic::panic:


LOCKLAND - A Lockland resident has filed a lawsuit against the village, claiming a display of the Ten Commandments outside the town hall (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=101+north+cooper+lockland+&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=32.335236,78.662109&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=101+N+Cooper+Ave,+Lockland,+Hamilton,+Ohio+4 5215&ll=39.226868,-84.452462&spn=0.007713,0.019205&z=16&iwloc=A) is unconstitutional.
Christopher Knecht wants the sign removed and a court order to prevent any future displays of “religious fables and myths.”


Follow link to read full article:
Suit: Remove Ten Commandments | Cincinnati.com | The Cincinnati Enquirer (http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091006/NEWS010702/910070313)

[eighttwelve]

ftw.

[DBerg649]

A stubborn a-hole with identity and security issues.

[sharkmx62]

good lord, what a whiny little *****. He has a problem with his neighbors dog so he takes it out on a display?
Im very interested in hearing how the 10 Commandments outside of a building has any effect at all on his ruling.
Title should be "Man doesn't get his way, seeks to remove old display for revenge"

[Mitch]

I need to find a lawyer. I'm sick of seeing fat b!tches.

[KTM CLUB MOTO]

Knecht claims he was bitten and attacked several times by a neighbor’s Rottweiler and officers not only failed to cite the neighbor but instead began retaliating against Knecht for his frequent complaints.
The display of the Ten Commandments, he claims, enables the Police Department – with village support – to pick and choose who they criminalize.


This makes no sense to me. I think I know what kind of person this dude is.

[Falcon991]

Sounds like the dude just needs to move, but I wholeheartedly approve of the absolute separation of church and state. (And I'm a Christian.)

No religiously-intertwined government can claim to offer "justice for all." It's more like "Justice for all, as long as you agree with our church."

[sharkmx62]

Sounds like the dude just needs to move, but I wholeheartedly approve of the absolute separation of church and state. (And I'm a Christian.)

No religiously-intertwined government can claim to offer "justice for all." It's more like "Justice for all, as long as you agree with our church."I agree with seperation as long as it makes a difference. having the 10 commandments outside where they never look at it, will have in no way, any effect on any decision

[odeezie]

I agree with seperation as long as it makes a difference. having the 10 commandments outside where they never look at it, will have in no way, any effect on any decision

Instead of the ten commandments, would you guys be cool with scripture from the Qur'an or Hadith etched onto a monument sitting outside the courthouse?

[KTM CLUB MOTO]

Instead of the ten commandments, would you guys be cool with scripture from the Qur'an or Hadith etched onto a monument sitting outside the courthouse?

Wouldn't bother me. Throw in a quote from the Book of Mormon while you're at it:-D

[an_hero]

And a little from the Analects.

[sharkmx62]

Instead of the ten commandments, would you guys be cool with scripture from the Qur'an or Hadith etched onto a monument sitting outside the courthouse?
Would not bother me at all. It really would have no real effect, but I am certain some bible-thumpers would be livid.
But this guy isnt doing it based of religous beliefs, he is just doint it out of bitter spite.

[eighttwelve]

Let's get some Satanism in this! Scientology too! And atheism!

[sharkmx62]

Let's get some Satanism in this! Scientology too! And atheism!
A blank monument with no writing on it?

[eighttwelve]

A blank monument with no writing on it?
How bout just 'There is no God.'

or nihilism
"There is no meaning."

[sharkmx62]

How bout just 'There is no God.'

or nihilism
"There is no meaning."
:lol: that could work

[DBerg649]

As long as it isn't a monument with derogatory statements or symbolism, I couldn't care less what kind of religiuos book it came from. I personally don[t believe in any of them, so if I can ignore a christian symbol without caring, I'm sure I can do the same with any other religion.

[CR125guy]

Instead of the ten commandments, would you guys be cool with scripture from the Qur'an or Hadith etched onto a monument sitting outside the courthouse?

I'm sure we are not far away from seeing that. People throw around the separation of church and state comment like a hot potato. It's stated in the constitution that the government cannot force religon on you. Nowhere does it specifically say "separation of church and state" Unless you are a idiot with no mind for yourself, displaying the 10 commandments is not forcing you to become Christian. It's not saying if you don't agree with these commandments you will be persecuted. I have no problem with the displaying of religious items, especially since Christianity was a big influence on our founding fathers. Can't we display a little friggin item that was/is a big part of our culture. Yes the church and the state should be separate. But whats this guys problem if he thinks its all a myth anyways. Is he offended by Harry Potter posters as well :nuts:

[odeezie]

I'm sure we are not far away from seeing that. People throw around the separation of church and state comment like a hot potato. It's stated in the constitution that the government cannot force religon on you. Nowhere does it specifically say "separation of church and state" Unless you are a idiot with no mind for yourself, displaying the 10 commandments is not forcing you to become Christian. It's not saying if you don't agree with these commandments you will be persecuted. I have no problem with the displaying of religious items, especially since Christianity was a big influence on our founding fathers. Can't we display a little friggin item that was/is a big part of our culture. Yes the church and the state should be separate. But whats this guys problem if he thinks its all a myth anyways. Is he offended by Harry Potter posters as well :nuts:


They actually made it very clear that religion and government should be kept separate.


Many Religious Rights activists have attempted to rewrite history by asserting that the United States government derived from Christian foundations, that our Founding Fathers originally aimed for a Christian nation. This idea simply does not hold to the historical evidence.
Of course many Americans did practice Christianity, but so also did many believe in deistic philosophy. Indeed, most of our influential Founding Fathers, although they respected the rights of other religionists, held to deism and Freemasonry tenets rather than to Christianity.


The U.S. Constitution
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being. The U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.
Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the 1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:
Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers.
If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church & State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of religion and non religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have more churches than Seven-Elevens.
Although many secular and atheist groups fight for the wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems, regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

[Squeaky192]

This same thing happened here in Manhattan, KS over the 10 commandments being on display inside of the courthouse. In the end, they statue was moved to the front of the Christian college across the street from KSU, on a busy road.

[CR125guy]

They actually made it very clear that religion and government should be kept separate.

I certainly don't argue that, as I stated it should be separate, but display of the 10 commandments has nothing to do with making a law respecting establishment of religion. No law saying it MUST be displayed. Displaying the 10 commandments is not prohibiting you from practicing your religion. It's certainly not hampering your efforts at free speech, or the press. The fact that people are publicly crying about it and the story making it to the news proves that. Its not keeping you from assembling peacefully either. I guess people can broadly interpret anything to justify their whining.

[eighttwelve]

I certainly don't argue that, as I stated it should be separate, but display of the 10 commandments has nothing to do with making a law respecting establishment of religion. No law saying it MUST be displayed. Displaying the 10 commandments is not prohibiting you from practicing your religion. It's certainly not hampering your efforts at free speech, or the press. The fact that people are publicly crying about it and the story making it to the news proves that. Its not keeping you from assembling peacefully either. I guess people can broadly interpret anything to justify their whining.
If you put the 10 commandments in front of a courthouse as decoration for the building, you are definitely implying that those rules are implemented at that court. rules based on religious doctrine. that's the issue.

[odeezie]

If you put the 10 commandments in front of a courthouse as decoration for the building, you are definitely implying that those rules are implemented at that court. rules based on religious doctrine. that's the issue.

Thank you.

[Falcon991]

If you put the 10 commandments in front of a courthouse as decoration for the building, you are definitely implying that those rules are implemented at that court. rules based on religious doctrine. that's the issue.

x3.

[IGASAURUS]

That's pretty obvious. I don't understand the argument. It's in the Constitution for the seperation of church and state. Case closed. :confused:

[KTM CLUB MOTO]

That's pretty obvious. I don't understand the argument. It's in the Constitution for the seperation of church and state. Case closed. :confused:

The wording "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitution.

[IGASAURUS]

I never quoted the Constitution.

[CR125guy]

If you put the 10 commandments in front of a courthouse as decoration for the building, you are definitely implying that those rules are implemented at that court. rules based on religious doctrine. that's the issue.That's just opinion and open to argument. Still not law forcing you to believe in that religion. When the government starts FORCING you to believe in that religion, then you can cry about it. No one here has shown which EXACT part of your so called separation of church and state rules this display has broken.

[sharkmx62]

That's just opinion and open to argument. Still not law forcing you to believe in that religion. When the government starts FORCING you to believe in that religion, then you can cry about it. No one here has shown which EXACT part of your so called separation of church and state rules this display has broken.
If it was infact implying that the court follows those laws, there would be very limited divorces there, and everyone serving multiple gods, or no god, would be in jail.

[CR125guy]

If it was infact implying that the court follows those laws, there would be very limited divorces there, and everyone serving multiple gods, or no god, would be in jail.

Exactley! While we were founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs and the laws back then may have been influenced by Christianity, the federal government does not enforce or create laws regarding which religion you follow. Unless you live in some small Puritan/Amish/Mormon town, which is at a city level anyways, not a federal issue. It's just a display people, showing where this country came from. If they had shown a Qu-ran, it would piss people off, but I am not dumb enough to believe it is the government trying to make me practice Islamic Religion. I would think its the government just trying to appease Muslims to feel equal. Relax!!!!

[eighttwelve]

That's just opinion and open to argument. Still not law forcing you to believe in that religion. When the government starts FORCING you to believe in that religion, then you can cry about it. No one here has shown which EXACT part of your so called separation of church and state rules this display has broken.
I guarantee you that if it was a religion that Christians were threatened by like Islam, it would have been removed years ago and you would have agreed. You can deny it all you want, but we both know that if this was not the Ten Commandments, in a realistic context you would want it removed because "American values don't have anything to do with Islam. (insert insult here)."

[DBerg649]

While I couldn't care less if they put Buddah infront of the court house, I have to say that the founding fathers arguement is pretty commonly used but many of the founding fathers have been quoted as saying that the bible and religion in general has no place in government. Again, not argueing for the removal of anything, just saying.
One thing I will absolutely refuse, is swearing in on the bible at some court hearing. I caused a little stink about that once in a court matter related to my residency here. They tried to get me to put my hand on the bible and swear to tell the truth, and I told them my word is my word and the bible has no effect on that, and I will not pretend to use that as a moral crutch to tell the truth.

[eighttwelve]

ya, im not saying I care if it's removed, I'm just debating the principle of it.

haha, and dberg that's ****ing awesome you actually did that.

[sharkmx62]

I guarantee you that if it was a religion that Christians were threatened by like Islam, it would have been removed years ago and you would have agreed. You can deny it all you want, but we both know that if this was not the Ten Commandments, in a realistic context you would want it removed because "American values don't have anything to do with Islam. (insert insult here)."I disagree. While I dont doubt that it would be taken down quickly, I personally (you said "you" which could refer to me or cr125) couldnt care less about what writings a courthouse has in front of it. I am intelligent enough to know that whatever crap they put in front of the courthouse has no effect on what decisions are made there.

[eighttwelve]

I disagree. While I dont doubt that it would be taken down quickly, I personally (you said "you" which could refer to me or cr125) couldnt care less about what writings a courthouse has in front of it. I am intelligent enough to know that whatever crap they put in front of the courthouse has no effect on what decisions are made there.
i was talking specifically about people who are usually hypocrites about **** like this where if it's in they're belief set, they're fine with it, but if it's not, then they're against it.

[KTM CLUB MOTO]

I never quoted the Constitution.

Ah I see. I thought you we're implying the phrase was.

[KTM CLUB MOTO]

If you put the 10 commandments in front of a courthouse as decoration for the building, you are definitely implying that those rules are implemented at that court. rules based on religious doctrine. that's the issue.

I would have to disagree. Just because there is a 10 commandment monument, IMO, doesn't imply that the courthouse implements those commandments in it's rulings.

In the same light, if there was a statue of Buddha or a Star of David I wouldn't assume that there was a bias in the court towards Buddhism or Judaism.

I see the monument as a tribute to a religion the Founding Father's believed in which influenced the formation of this country.

[sharkmx62]

i was talking specifically about people who are usually hypocrites about **** like this where if it's in they're belief set, they're fine with it, but if it's not, then they're against it.
Gotcha, and I agree

[eighttwelve]

I would have to disagree. Just because there is a 10 commandment monument, IMO, doesn't imply that the courthouse implements those commandments in it's rulings.

In the same light, if there was a statue of Buddha or a Star of David I wouldn't assume that there was a bias in the court towards Buddhism or Judaism.

I see the monument as a tribute to a religion the Founding Father's believed in which influenced the formation of this country.
Than I guess the people who built it were just as uninformed and/or bias as you are?

[copsey]

So you would agree that judges and anyone in the government should be agnostic or atheist?

[DBerg649]

So you would agree that judges and anyone in the government should be agnostic or atheist?

I would... ofcourse I would add Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, Buddist, Muslim, and worshiping the sun too. When it comes right down to it, most people will still do what they feel is right or what they feel they can get away with regardless of religious belief or lack there of.
People who use religion as an excuse to do something that general society would consider bad, would probably do that same thing either way... they'd just look for a different excuse.
If a judge wants to take the 10 commandments into consideration in a trial, he'll do so regardless of whether or not there is a damn statue outside. It's really no big deal as long as that's not all he takes into consideration, considering the 10 commandments doesn't mention child molestation and other crimes that are worse than what the commandments state. But if a judge let someone go for child molestation because it's not in the 10 commandments, it's because he's a POS pervert himself... not because of his religious beliefs.

[eighttwelve]

So you would agree that judges and anyone in the government should be agnostic or atheist?
Not necessarily atheist, but I definitely don't think they should believe in the word of any religious literature out there. I don't mind people believing in God as a big sweeping canvas of the unknown. But when they start to say God said and dictates this, we start dealing with people who are delusional.

[sharkmx62]

Not necessarily atheist, but I definitely don't think they should believe in the word of any religious literature out there. I don't mind people believing in God as a big sweeping canvas of the unknown. But when they start to say God said and dictates this, we start dealing with people who are delusional.
Your bitterness and hate gets tiresome.
If a judge was as strongly atheist as yourself, then no doubt he would be just as unfit for the job as an overly-religious judge. He would deem all god worshipping people as "delusional"

[eighttwelve]

Your bitterness and hate gets tiresome.
If a judge was as strongly atheist as yourself, then no doubt he would be just as unfit for the job as an overly-religious judge. He would deem all god worshipping people as "delusional"
It's not hate. I'm fine with people being spiritual, but by definition people who believe in God are delusional. That's not to say people who believe are completely wrong about everything in the world, haha. And I'm definitely agnostic/nihilist.

[KTM CLUB MOTO]

Than I guess the people who built it were just as uninformed and/or bias as you are?

I wish it was possible to discuss things with you without you resulting to condescending, arrogant remarks.

[eighttwelve]

I wish it was possible to discuss things with you without you resulting to condescending, arrogant remarks.
Ya, well I wish adults would stop acting like children and believing in mystical things like a five year old believes in santa claus. :rotfl:

But seriously, I do believe in respecting other people's opinions and believe everybody should be able to believe what you want. Doesn't change anything I've said in this thread though. It is blatantly HORRIBLE reading comprehension to NOT assume that there is a correlation between the court and statue of the ten commandments in this story. Saying that is just like not believing in evolution. You're straight up ignoring the facts right in front of your nose to fit whatever you want to believe.

[DBerg649]

I agree with 812 in that when the 10 commandments were placed infront of the courthouse, it's very hard to believe that the people who did it and allowed it, didn't personally believe that it should be relevent in court hearings. If they didn't find it important and believe in it, they wouldn't have put it there.
On the other hand, it's a pointless debate in my opinion because I really don't think that when the judge and/or jury is making their decisions on whatever the case might be, that they are using the 10 commandments and bible as a checklist to make their decision. If someone is morally corrupt or honest, it'll show in their actions regardless of religious beliefs or lack there of.

812 - If you have to resort to attacking someone's character in an attempt to discredit them, then you're not accomplishing anything. That kind of approach is basically like an act of desperation that actually just discredits your own opinion. If you have a strong solid point to make, your arguement should speak for it'self without having to call religious people dilusional and child-like. If you're really agnostic, you wouldn't talk as if you know without a shadow of a doubt, with hard evidence that cannot be argued that there is no God or higher being of any sort. Again, I don't believe in religion in the least bit but if I were to say that I know everyone who is, is wrong and I know what will happen when I die, I would be the dilusional one. In the same way that placing the 10 commandments infront of teh courthouse suggests a christian way of thinking within that courthouse, your comments strongly suggest that you are in fact just as dilusional (by your own definition) as people who are religious, by assuming that you actually know what can't be fully proven.

[sharkmx62]

Ya, well I wish adults would stop acting like children and believing in mystical things like a five year old believes in santa claus. :rotfl:

But seriously, I do believe in respecting other people's opinions and believe everybody should be able to believe what you want. Doesn't change anything I've said in this thread though. It is blatantly HORRIBLE reading comprehension to NOT assume that there is a correlation between the court and statue of the ten commandments in this story. Saying that is just like not believing in evolution. You're straight up ignoring the facts right in front of your nose to fit whatever you want to believe.Youre basing your entire arguement off an assumption, classic.

[Falcon991]

So you would agree that judges and anyone in the government should be agnostic or atheist?

Here's a great point - and the answer is "absolutely not!"

There should simply be no official reference to religion in the courts. Period. People (including judges and juries) can be free to believe whatever they want, but our laws and courts should be free from all religious reference or bias at the official level. It's the only way to be fair to the 1/4th of our population who are not Christian.

[sharkmx62]

Here's a great point - and the answer is "absolutely not!"

There should simply be no official reference to religion in the courts. Period. People (including judges and juries) can be free to believe whatever they want, but our laws and courts should be free from all religious reference or bias at the official level. It's the only way to be fair to the 1/4th of our population who are not Christian.
What if we had judges with every religious background, including atheist and agnostics, on a panel to decide every court-case. 100% fairness, lets make this happen.

[eighttwelve]

I agree with 812 in that when the 10 commandments were placed infront of the courthouse, it's very hard to believe that the people who did it and allowed it, didn't personally believe that it should be relevent in court hearings. If they didn't find it important and believe in it, they wouldn't have put it there.
On the other hand, it's a pointless debate in my opinion because I really don't think that when the judge and/or jury is making their decisions on whatever the case might be, that they are using the 10 commandments and bible as a checklist to make their decision. If someone is morally corrupt or honest, it'll show in their actions regardless of religious beliefs or lack there of.

812 - If you have to resort to attacking someone's character in an attempt to discredit them, then you're not accomplishing anything. That kind of approach is basically like an act of desperation that actually just discredits your own opinion. If you have a strong solid point to make, your arguement should speak for it'self without having to call religious people dilusional and child-like. If you're really agnostic, you wouldn't talk as if you know without a shadow of a doubt, with hard evidence that cannot be argued that there is no God or higher being of any sort. Again, I don't believe in religion in the least bit but if I were to say that I know everyone who is, is wrong and I know what will happen when I die, I would be the dilusional one. In the same way that placing the 10 commandments infront of teh courthouse suggests a christian way of thinking within that courthouse, your comments strongly suggest that you are in fact just as dilusional (by your own definition) as people who are religious, by assuming that you actually know what can't be fully proven.
I believe there is no way to disprove god, but I find the idea of a God in teh way that monotheistic paints any kind of idea of God is childlike. For example - a believable version of God would be the argument that there is one perfect mathematic solution. You see this when looking at microscopic form and then at galaxies. The patterns are pretty much the same. It is not unprovable that some entity we don't understand was the creator of that reality.

I disagree with you overall regarding attacking somebody's character. I've already made my points very clear earlier in the thread, and this is the part where I get sick of repeating myself and then blatantly mock those who decide to disregard my and Odeezie's points. I do say I might have gone to far, but I don't at all regret it.

Let me ask something though. Why would an agnostic or atheist judge be unlikable as a judge? He would be bound to the rules of our society, which is what the laws reflect, instead of him listening to the rules of a certain religion. At least the societal ones are the commonplace ones. It's like this Lousiana judge who recently denied an interracial couple a marriage license because he didn't think it would be good for the offspring. It's a joke that **** like that happens today.

[sharkmx62]

Let me ask something though. Why would an agnostic or atheist judge be unlikable as a judge? He would be bound to the rules of our society, which is what the laws reflect, instead of him listening to the rules of a certain religion. At least the societal ones are the commonplace ones. It's like this Lousiana judge who recently denied an interracial couple a marriage license because he didn't think it would be good for the offspring. It's a joke that **** like that happens today.812, youre right in your last sentence, that is a joke, and if that Judge calls himself a Christian, he is a liar. The biggest problem with religion is those that claim to follow it, and have no real clue about their religion. I personally would have no problem with an agnostic/atheist judge, just as I have no problem with a religious judge. Their religion should have no sway on their decision if theyre doing their job correctly. My personal feeling on this matter though, is that youre so strongly anti-religion, decisions you 812 personally would make as a judge, would be just as flawed as a religious nut. I think balance is the key, if you have a religious person that would not be swayed by personal background, theyre just fine for the job. If you had an agnostic/atheist judge who would not be swayed by his background, let him do his job.

[KTM CLUB MOTO]

Ya, well I wish adults would stop acting like children and believing in mystical things like a five year old believes in santa claus. :rotfl:

But seriously, I do believe in respecting other people's opinions and believe everybody should be able to believe what you want. Doesn't change anything I've said in this thread though. It is blatantly HORRIBLE reading comprehension to NOT assume that there is a correlation between the court and statue of the ten commandments in this story. Saying that is just like not believing in evolution. You're straight up ignoring the facts right in front of your nose to fit whatever you want to believe.

You act like the only logical way to approach this is to automatically assume that the court has Christian influence in it's rulings because of the statue. That's not fact, it's your opinion. And that's fine, but I disagree.

[eighttwelve]

You act like the only logical way to approach this is to automatically assume that the court has Christian influence in it's rulings because of the statue. That's not fact, it's your opinion. And that's fine, but I disagree.
No, I never said that. I said that's what the statue was implying. Which is why it shouldn't be there, there should be no implications of religion within the law. Simple reading comprehension.

[eighttwelve]

812, youre right in your last sentence, that is a joke, and if that Judge calls himself a Christian, he is a liar. The biggest problem with religion is those that claim to follow it, and have no real clue about their religion. I personally would have no problem with an agnostic/atheist judge, just as I have no problem with a religious judge. Their religion should have no sway on their decision if theyre doing their job correctly. My personal feeling on this matter though, is that youre so strongly anti-religion, decisions you 812 personally would make as a judge, would be just as flawed as a religious nut. I think balance is the key, if you have a religious person that would not be swayed by personal background, theyre just fine for the job. If you had an agnostic/atheist judge who would not be swayed by his background, let him do his job.
I never claimed I should be a judge. :lol:

And while I see what you're saying, I know that it would have no effect on my decisions unless it was a matter involving religious matters, which doesn't belong in the court system anyways. People are people, no matter what they believe, and they should be treated as such. I think you're confusing my hate for the religious mentality (they should always get it their way, ie Prop 8) with my view on humanity. For example, if a religious person was having their rights violated, then I would be all for helpin them. However, if they were trying to enforce their views through the law, then they could go **** themselves (ie Prop 8, it's really a great example for why religion is a failure in modern society).

[sharkmx62]

I never claimed I should be a judge. :lol:


I was merely using you as an example of an unfit agnostic judge

[KTM CLUB MOTO]

No, I never said that. I said that's what the statue was implying. Which is why it shouldn't be there, there should be no implications of religion within the law. Simple reading comprehension.

"It is blatantly HORRIBLE reading comprehension to NOT assume that there is a correlation between the court and statue of the ten commandments in this story."

That statement, to me, implies that.
I agree there should be no religion incorporated into the law.

Anyways, my opinion on the matter is this. I could care less if there is a statue out front of a court house that pertains to a specific religion. In my opinion, a statue of the ten commandments does NOT imply correlation between the court and the Christian faith.

I believe religion to be a huge benefit to society and I am incredibly grateful I have it in my life.:smiley:

[eighttwelve]

"It is blatantly HORRIBLE reading comprehension to NOT assume that there is a correlation between the court and statue of the ten commandments in this story."

That statement, to me, implies that.
I agree there should be no religion incorporated into the law.

Anyways, my opinion on the matter is this. I could care less if there is a statue out front of a court house that pertains to a specific religion. In my opinion, a statue of the ten commandments does NOT imply correlation between the court and the Christian faith.

I believe religion to be a huge benefit to society and I am incredibly grateful I have it in my life.:smiley:
You're right, that does imply that, which is what I said. :-/

I also, could care less about if there actually IS a statue there, we're just talking about the principle of the thing. Do you not agree that it makes very little sense to have a statue of the ten commandments in front of a courthouse if they are to have nothing to do with each other?! But the fact that it IS there does imply a correlation. You can't just deny it, by definition they do. I mean, now we're just arguing semantics, but seriously. This is not opinion, there is really only one interpretation of this.

And I'm glad you have such faith in your religion, I just think that you would be just as happy without it. :smiley:

[KTM CLUB MOTO]

You're right, that does imply that, which is what I said. :-/

I also, could care less about if there actually IS a statue there, we're just talking about the principle of the thing. Do you not agree that it makes very little sense to have a statue of the ten commandments in front of a courthouse if they are to have nothing to do with each other?! But the fact that it IS there does imply a correlation. You can't just deny it, by definition they do. I mean, now we're just arguing semantics, but seriously. This is not opinion, there is really only one interpretation of this.

And I'm glad you have such faith in your religion, I just think that you would be just as happy without it. :smiley:

I was saying that quote implies what I said in post #53 but....
I think we're missing each other on that point, so I'll let it go:smiley:

What do you mean by correlation to the courthouse? That the statue is apart of the courthouse because it's on it's property? Then yes. But I don't think that just because there is a statue on it's property that it implies that there is a Christian influence in it's rulings, or that it favors Christians.

Are we going in circles?

[eighttwelve]

I mean if you have an Obama sign in your yard, it doesnt mean that you, a voter who lives there, endorses Obama?

[KTM CLUB MOTO]

I mean if you have an Obama sign in your yard, it doesnt mean that you, a voter who lives there, endorses Obama?

Yes it would. I don't see that as a valid comparison because the sole purpose of an Obama sign is to say "Yes, I support Obama and you should too!"

A statue of the 10 commandments, in my opinion, does not say that. In your mind it does. It's a matter of opinion really, unlike the Obama sign.

Agree to disagree?:-D

[eighttwelve]

Yes it would. I don't see that as a valid comparison because the sole purpose of an Obama sign is to say "Yes, I support Obama and you should too!"

A statue of the 10 commandments, in my opinion, does not say that. In your mind it does. It's a matter of opinion really, unlike the Obama sign.

Agree to disagree?:-D
I love the civility, and I return it completely, but I honestly can't see how you don't see the connection between the two. There is a clear association that you continue to simply disregard. Just because you ignore it doesnt make it not true.

[Derek]

I love the civility, and I return it completely, but I honestly can't see how you don't see the connection between the two. There is a clear association that you continue to simply disregard. Just because you ignore it doesnt make it not true.

This.

And if you disagree, you need to take a logic and critical thinking class, or just learn the transitive property.

[Aus_Rider_22]

I could care less if there is a statue out front of a court house that pertains to a specific religion.


I also, could care less about if there actually IS a statue there, we're just talking about the principle of the thing.

I am pretty sure the saying is "couldn't care less".

If you could care less than you are obviously caring. I don't understand why people say this without thinking about what they are typing. It's not just in this thread but all over the internet. :thumbsup:

Sorry to post off-topic! :embarrassed:

[sharkmx62]

I mean if you have an Obama sign in your yard, it doesnt mean that you, a voter who lives there, endorses Obama?
Completely different. The article mentions that the 10 commandments have been there a very long time, who knows how long. A more fiiting example would be if you moved into a house and there was a vote for Ford sign out front. Would that mean you personally endorse him, or would it just mean you kept it there because the other person did.

[sharkmx62]

This.

And if you disagree, you need to take a logic and critical thinking class, or just learn the transitive property.
I do not agree. There is no connection. If it was a new statue, then yes, absolutely a connection, but it isnt new, so there is no connection. I dont need a class to tell me this.

[copsey]

Actually for that to apply the current presiding judge would have had to personally put the 10 Commandments there himself.

[sharkmx62]

Actually for that to apply the current presiding judge would have had to personally put the 10 Commandments there himself.
Copsey gets it.

[KTM CLUB MOTO]

I am pretty sure the saying is "couldn't care less".

If you could care less than you are obviously caring. I don't understand why people say this without thinking about what they are typing. It's not just in this thread but all over the internet. :thumbsup:

Sorry to post off-topic! :embarrassed:
I can't believe I made that mistake... I always jump on people for say "could" :lol:
Thank you good sir.

[sharkmx62]

looking for something else and stumbled upon this
YouTube - 10 Things I Hate About Commandments

[eighttwelve]

I am pretty sure the saying is "couldn't care less".

If you could care less than you are obviously caring. I don't understand why people say this without thinking about what they are typing. It's not just in this thread but all over the internet. :thumbsup:

Sorry to post off-topic! :embarrassed:

Ha, I usually never make that mistake before, I hate that ****. Whatever, it happens.

And you guys are right about my example, but that doesn't apply to the statue at all. The two have ALWAYS been made to be distinctly apart, and I doubt the statue was there before the courthouse.

[sharkmx62]

Ha, I usually never make that mistake before, I hate that ****. Whatever, it happens.

And you guys are right about my example, but that doesn't apply to the statue at all. The two have ALWAYS been made to be distinctly apart, and I doubt the statue was there before the courthouse.
I actually agree with you, I dont think it should have been put there in the first place. I just dont like that they would get rid of it for the guy who is crying about it, since he is clearly just doing it for a petty revenge.

[eighttwelve]

I actually agree with you, I dont think it should have been put there in the first place. I just dont like that they would get rid of it for the guy who is crying about it, since he is clearly just doing it for a petty revenge.
Agreed on both counts. But like in your example about Ford, if the new owners didn't want Ford, it would only make sense for them to remove it, right?

[sharkmx62]

Agreed on both counts. But like in your example about Ford, if the new owners didn't want Ford, it would only make sense for them to remove it, right?
Unless theyre really lazy

[eighttwelve]

Unless theyre really lazy

Touche, haha.

[DBerg649]

"Actually for that to apply the current presiding judge would have had to personally put the 10 Commandments there himself"

The presiding judge doesn't own the courthouse. A courthouse is a judicial entity all it's own, and having the commandments infront of the courthouse is an association of the courthouse specifically and christianity. Not necessarily the judge or jurors inside the courthouse. That's where the "problem" lies. That having been said, it's the people in the courthouse that make the decisions and for that reason, I really dont' care that the 10 commandments are there.

[Tenacious K]

I am pretty sure the saying is "couldn't care less".

If you could care less than you are obviously caring. I don't understand why people say this without thinking about what they are typing. It's not just in this thread but all over the internet. :thumbsup:

Sorry to post off-topic! :embarrassed:I think it may be a Northern America's thing? They're always saying "I COULD care less", and what's with "ALUMINUM" crap?:lol:

[copsey]

"Actually for that to apply the current presiding judge would have had to personally put the 10 Commandments there himself"

The presiding judge doesn't own the courthouse. A courthouse is a judicial entity all it's own, and having the commandments infront of the courthouse is an association of the courthouse specifically and christianity. Not necessarily the judge or jurors inside the courthouse. That's where the "problem" lies. That having been said, it's the people in the courthouse that make the decisions and for that reason, I really dont' care that the 10 commandments are there.

Please read above. I know what you are saying but it doesn't apply to the example above.

[eighttwelve]

Please read above. I know what you are saying but it doesn't apply to the example above.
what 'above' are you referring to?

[Falcon991]

I think it may be a Northern America's thing? They're always saying "I COULD care less", and what's with "ALUMINUM" crap?:lol:

And you darn foreigners say "Aluminiuminiuminnniuminum." What's your point? :lol:

I agree with you two about "could" care less, though. It's stupid to say that when you're trying to imply that you do not care.

[Aus_Rider_22]

And you darn foreigners say "Aluminiuminiuminnniuminum." What's your point? :lol:


Haha it's way easier to remember how to spell it your way. I remember when I first heard that word pronounced aluminum I didn't know what was going on. It was on a transworld vid a couple years ago. Parents own and run a scrap metal recycling business and aluminium is said a fair bit and what just really weird hearing aluminum. :lol:

Ok, I will not take this thread of course again! :embarrassed:

[sharkmx62]

wait. How is it spelled? Ive never heard it any other way then aluminum

[Aus_Rider_22]

wait. How is it spelled? Ive never heard it any other way then aluminum

Aluminium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium)

Got the pronounciation there as well. I had never heard it said "aluminum" until 2 years ago. Funny how little things can be so different around the world. :lol:

Some other interesting reading I just found

http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/aluminium.htm

[sharkmx62]

Aluminium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium)

Got the pronounciation there as well. I had never heard it said "aluminum" until 2 years ago. Funny how little things can be so different around the world. :lol:

Some other interesting reading I just found

World Wide Words: Aluminium versus aluminum (http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/aluminium.htm)
so weird, ive never heard it pronounced like that or spelled