swede316 Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 There is no room for the Ten Commandments in any government building, just as there shouldn't be for the Torah, Koran, or the teachings of JR "Bob" Dobbs, either. Me personally...I could care less about the ten commandments being in a courthouse...It dosen't bother me 1 way or the other....It was written by a man...Just 10 decent rules to live by if you ask me...but hey..too each his own...The problem here in lies with people restricting the rights of others....How is the 10 commandments offesive to you..I just really wonder...Do you object to what they have say or mearly the fact they are religious. Political correctness is going to sink this country....I really believe that....We have or had common sense values and laws in this country for 200 + years...This empire is dire straights. Not saying every law was just ie. slavery and such...but what is taking it too far? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Me personally...I could care less about the ten commandments being in a courthouse...It dosen't bother me 1 way or the other....It was written by a man...Just 10 decent rules to live by if you ask me...but hey..too each his own...The problem here in lies with people restricting the rights of others....How is the 10 commandments offesive to you..I just really wonder...Do you object to what they have say or mearly the fact they are religious. Political correctness is going to sink this country....I really believe that....We have or had common sense values and laws in this country for 200 + years...This empire is dire straights. Not saying every law was just ie. slavery and such...but what is taking it too far? 88699[/snapback] It's wallowing around in the minutia and that's what our society has been reduced to. Instead of concentrating on the greater problem, which is overbearing and far too expensive government, we are reduced to arguing over things that have very little affect on everyday life. And Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 And Nero fiddled while Rome burned. We aren't learning from history...and we shall fall upon a great defeat much like Rome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Me personally...I could care less about the ten commandments being in a courthouse...It dosen't bother me 1 way or the other....It was written by a man...Just 10 decent rules to live by if you ask me...but hey..too each his own...The problem here in lies with people restricting the rights of others....How is the 10 commandments offesive to you..I just really wonder...Do you object to what they have say or mearly the fact they are religious. Political correctness is going to sink this country....I really believe that....We have or had common sense values and laws in this country for 200 + years...This empire is dire straights. Not saying every law was just ie. slavery and such...but what is taking it too far? 88699[/snapback] I don't have a problem with the 10 commandments. I was raised a catholic. They aren't offensive to me, I just don't think there is any room for them in a government building. I don't think anyone is "offended" by the commandments per say, but what do you think the reaction would be if that same government building lobby had a Koran on display? I doubt you or I would even care, but I bet it wouldn't last the day...and who do you think would be shouting the loudest to have it removed? The answer is not Nero, by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 You just made my point. Why should you care....It's not that offensive...If they wanted to hang the Koran, Budda, and The 10 Commandemnets together ..who am I to complain..Like I said..Each his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 I don't have a problem with the 10 commandments. I was raised a catholic. They aren't offensive to me, I just don't think there is any room for them in a government building. I don't think anyone is "offended" by the commandments per say, but what do you think the reaction would be if that same government building lobby had a Koran on display? I doubt you or I would even care, but I bet it wouldn't last the day...and who do you think would be shouting the loudest to have it removed? The answer is not Nero, by the way. 88713[/snapback] So, it's OK to play a call to prayer in Michigan, but it's not OK to put up a Nativity at Christmas in Nebraska. The people who wrote our Constitution never meant for what has happened. The world at the time, did not tolerate seperation of church and state. Most nations were one and the same. What they wrote was tolerance. Oh, has that been abused, warped, bastardized and changed. This nation was founded on the old Judeo-Christian ethic. And now, we're not allowed to mention it because some aethist in California might be offended. Once again, mark my words-we will regret this. I'm still convinced, personally, that the Dem-Libs are still pining for the Clinton days when everything was "so what, blow jobs from interns are good-what does that have to do with running a country?" everyone do whatever the hell they want for the short term instant gratification. This country has lost all sense of personal responsibility through that, and folks miss it. Who doesn't like the idea of "do whatever you want?" It's attractive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 You just made my point. Why should you care....It's not that offensive...If they wanted to hang the Koran, Budda, and The 10 Commandemnets together ..who am I to complain..Like I said..Each his own. 88720[/snapback] No. The idea isn't to just get rid of the ten commandments. A lot of this stuff is not as simple as people would like you to believe. Look, no one cares about the ten commandments. The thing is to treat everything equally. In this case, excluding things equally. On face value, a lot of this stuff seems dumb. But, our country is based on laws. Law is a history of precedents. Once a precedent is set, it opens the door to other precedents. We have laws that are supposed to ensure seperation of church and state, laws put into place by the founding fathers so that one religion would not hold precedence or power over another. The ten commandments are probably not offensive to anyone, but displaying them in a government building somewhat violates seperation of church and state because you have put something that is deemed religious in a government building, without giving equal time to other religious stuff. A constitutinal lawyer could probably describe this better than me, I'm a microbiologist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 So, it's OK to play a call to prayer in Michigan, but it's not OK to put up a Nativity at Christmas in Nebraska. 88734[/snapback] I didn't say there weren't idiots on our side. There are plenty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 I didn't say there weren't idiots on our side. There are plenty. 88743[/snapback] Including the current candidate for President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 I didn't say there weren't idiots on our side. There are plenty. 88743[/snapback] At least you admit it. Kudos to that. Young punk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 28, 2004 Author Share Posted October 28, 2004 At least you admit it. Kudos to that. Young punk. 88745[/snapback] I forgot my smiley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 If "these people" are the enemy, why are we trying to save them and "liberate them" in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why shouldn't we be happy that Saddam was killing them so we don't have to? Why are we risking our citizen/soldiers lives and losing them by the day and spending tens or hundreds of billions to protect these people and teach them to protect themselves? They are all heartless murderers, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 28, 2004 Author Share Posted October 28, 2004 If "these people" are the enemy, why are we trying to save them and "liberate them" in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why shouldn't we be happy that Saddam was killing them so we don't have to? Why are we risking our citizen/soldiers lives and losing them by the day and spending tens or hundreds of billions to protect these people and teach them to protect themselves? They are all heartless murderers, apparently. 89167[/snapback] Because we need the territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 If "these people" are the enemy, why are we trying to save them and "liberate them" in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why shouldn't we be happy that Saddam was killing them so we don't have to? Why are we risking our citizen/soldiers lives and losing them by the day and spending tens or hundreds of billions to protect these people and teach them to protect themselves? They are all heartless murderers, apparently. 89167[/snapback] Because you crown-royal drinkin bastard (mmmmm Crown Royal)...the situation will never change there unless we force the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Because we need the territory. 89296[/snapback] Aha, as I always expected, it was like England attacking the Falkland Islands, or taking over Kamchatka, which only had two armies on it. The war was all because it was our turn, and we needed a card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Because you crown-royal drinkin bastard (mmmmm Crown Royal)...the situation will never change there unless we force the issue. 89322[/snapback] I am not against forcing the issue, I am against forcing the issue with idiots at the controls and creating more issues than forcing out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 I am not against forcing the issue, I am against forcing the issue with idiots at the controls and creating more issues than forcing out. 89588[/snapback] The problem is, if you elect someone who's INCAPABLE of or UNWILLING TO USE the steering controls, you create even more problems than you had before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 The problem is, if you elect someone who's INCAPABLE of or UNWILLING TO USE the steering controls, you create even more problems than you had before. 89832[/snapback] The thing is, Kerry, although a crappy candidate, is not a pacifist. He volunteered to go to war. He voted for this war and never said anything about cutting and running, nor does he believe we should. He has pledged to add more troops and special ops. He is NOT just going to go into a shell and let people walk all over us and there is nothing in his history that says he will. People are letting sound bites from ads or antiquated cliches about flower-child liberals paint a picture of Kerry that just isn't true or accurate. He has voted for and against wars, for and against military action, for and against defense measures depending on what the situation was in his mind, NOT because he is against acction or war or using our might. In fact, he is all for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 He voted for this war.... 90002[/snapback] Actually, now he claims he didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 28, 2004 Author Share Posted October 28, 2004 Aha, as I always expected, it was like England attacking the Falkland Islands, or taking over Kamchatka, which only had two armies on it. The war was all because it was our turn, and we needed a card. 89579[/snapback] I love the ananolgy. The most critical piece of terrain on the board is the middle east, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts