Court upholds 10 commandments on public land

As with the attempt to justify businesses segregating based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, it is interesting that an individual most vociferous about the constitution on this forum abandons that constitution once it doesn't serve his ideals.

It is also interesting that the Framers themselves are brought up, then, when it is clearly shown it is the Framers themselves that disprove the individual's misstatements, the individual resorts to collectivist smears, insults, and unsupportable statements, finally just resorting to "I'm right, and you're not."

Precisely why I, and others, apparently, from PMs to me, have taken issue with the individual's manner of debating, as well as his points on substance. Whether it's a call to continue the era of segregation, or the collusion of the state and private faith, they are constitutionally meritless.

 

Misrepresentation.

Lmao. Now you have adopted the term collectivist from me, for me.

Ah yes, the secret PMs from the people who agree with you.

The era of segregation continues with or without laws. Evil and goodness exists in the hearts of men, not in the breadth and depth of law books.

A good question to ask oneself, is why someone such as myself, who is not particularly religious, nor has a vested interest in one religious ideology over another, would argue for recognizing the Christian American tradition.

Perhaps its just a matter of intellectual honesty, to recognize the truth.

 

The only misrepresentation here is this poster's voicing a strict approach to the constitution out of one side of his mouth, and calling up the Framers themselves, then dropping both when both show his principles for what they are.

Segregation, or, to put it more colorfully:

Is unsupportable, constitutionally. Resorting to collectivist smears once that, and the subject of this thread have been debunked, is meritless, though typical.

Because the poster making the above statement isn't interested in the constitution, or intellectual honesty. Pound for pound, from what I can tell, pandering to emotionality, yes, but not a consistent creed in defense of the principles of this Republic.

 

I've already addressed this ad nauseaum in the gay marriage thread.

It's an irrelevant statement made here, for whatever reason, but certainly does not address the desire of some to tear down a historical monument because it has Christian values inscribed on it.

There is a point where the secular state goes from avoiding spiritual matters, to condemning and destroying them. And I have a hard time believing the Founders intended a state where this would happen.

The "principles" of the Republic. That would be a good debate. I'd enjoy having it with a poster who thinks that the majority can change and alter principles generation to generation. That there are no self-evident truths, only the truths of the state, at the time the state wishes those truths to be law.

So easy standing for everything, and hence nothing. Like a compromising politician, who is willing to ratify evil to achieve a measure of good.

 

Post #11, et seq from myself, should help with this. To avoid slander, insult, wantonly collectivist judgments, one may want to avoid post #13, and so forth.

 

I've enjoyed your research into specific writings by founding fathers that emphasized a strong separation of church and state. It certainly argues against a concept of the US being founded as a Christian nation. It argues for a strong level of disconnect between the two entities.

With regard to Madison's fears about religious entities gaining untold and never ending always growing wealth--had he only lived to current times. Recent lawsuits against various Catholic diocese around the nation have severely diminished the wealth of these regional diocese and threatened bankruptcy. He might have well rethought that writing......though it only took a little over 200 years to suggest that conditions might change. LOL.

The writings suggest a very strong and clear effort to disconnect church and state in any way whatsoever.

How that is manifested in individual cases over time does require the review of courts. I could only hope that as they review the specifics of each case they have some of the original research you provided.

Having not sent a PM to you on this or other topics, I merely want to say that I've enjoyed your research and arguments on this topic.

 

Earl, revisiting this thread (from another thread), I realize I didn't properly thank you for your thoughts, so, thanks - I appreciate your consideration.

No, you were not among the people who PM'ed with respect to all this. Your posts are always edifying as well.

Best.

 

Maybe we need a separation of lawyers and the state!!