Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Supreme Court allows "Under God" on a technicality...

nanofever · 06-16-2004, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pan6467
First of all, the judge's job is to hear the case before him unbiasedly, as a representative of LAW not the government. If you choose to believe he represents the government, fine but if that were the case no lawsuits against the government would ever be heard and won.

Are you honestly suggesting that a judge isn't a state actor and thus is not bound by the regulations on government? Regulations apply to both people and policy.

Quote:

Secondly, it is his workspace, he should be able to have whatever he chooses to have before him. If the Majority of people do not like what he has in his workplace then they vote him out of office or whatever. He is not forcing his views on anyone, noone has to read the 10 Commandments in his courtroom.

Bullshit, judges are state actors and bound by the constitution when in that role.

Quote:

(By the way the 10 Commandments are from the OLD TESTAMENT and are Jewish also not just Christian as you have argued. It tells me you have a true hatred for Christianity not spirituality.)

No, you are quiet mistake. I am fine with the "love your neighbor" Christians who take Jesus's teaching to heart. However, judges who put the 10 commandments on their walls are not following any teaching of Jesus I know of. They seem to be following their own selfish motives and justifying it with their religion.

Quote:

Thirdly, a vast majority of people are religious and spiritual, and whether we like it or not the vast majority run their lives by their spirituality. Therefore YOU WILL AND CAN ONLY ACHIEVE TRUE SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE BY ELIMINATING ALL RELIGION. Because the people in government are going to rule by their religious beliefs and their perspectives which have been set by the religious and spiritualities they hold. So you will never achieve true seperation.

If that is your dim view on the prospects involving future seperation of church and state, I find that the only course of actions is that we promptly make Christanity unconstitutional, build a coliseum and start feeding Christians to the lions, tigers or atheist drunk on their dis-belief in a higher power.

Quote:

Fourthly, I did not say those without a spirituality lacked morals, I said a SOCIETY lacking spirituality becomes immoral. Even Atheism is a spirituality and a belief.

Society is made of people, you can't seperate the two. By suggesting that you need spirituality to be moral; you also suggest that a lack of spirituality, atheism, is immoral. I think that is clearly an attack to suggest that people without spirituality are immoral.

Quote:

I did not attack you personally, I did not call you names. YOU HAVE DONE BOTH TO ME. If you want to debate fine but do so without attacking me. I do not like being called ignorant and threatened to be called choice words because my beliefs differ from yours. Is that not EXACTLY the major part of your argument against this "Christianity" ruled government.

The statement of "ignorant" was not directed at you but rather your belief that spirtuality is inherrently moral and a lack of spirituality is immoral. That belief *is* ignorant as both a sweeping generalization and as a personal insult to people who lack spirituality. Morality comes from your own actions, not your religious beliefs or what those beliefs *suggest* as actions. I am quite sure that people with ignorant beliefs are upset when people call them on said ignorant beliefs. You have your right to say ignorant thing. I have my right to call you on them and to also be shown when I say ignorant things. Since neither of us are state actors at the moment, this is clearly not " EXACTLY the major part of [my] argument against this "Christianity" ruled government.".