Federal judge rules lone Jesus painting in Louisiana courthouse was unconstitutional

Then it shows how dumb they are and how they need to take a chill pill.

I could see the removal as some asshole left wing removing even more morals from the country. Show some respect. No need to start in with calling a right wing person an asshole.

 

Ok lets break your little argument right here.

According to the bible, you know that thing that Jesus is apart of.

We should follow GODS LAWS not mans.

Boy that was easy.

 

Nota god. A good man. Whether you believe in him or not. You could believe he was just a story. But then he woud be a good character.

You are now playing word games. Recognize as in know who Jesus is or who he supposedly was. Do not play with me. You know I did not mean recognize him as a god.

Nope as I have provened to you yet you keep choosing to ignore.

 

Good thing I do not believe in the Bible. And also that is why the Constituion says separation of church and state. Says the government will not be ran by the church. Which is what this argument is supposed to be about but guys refuse to actually discuss that. A picture is not the government being ran by a religion.

 

I think you #1 need to know more of the definition of recognize.
http://www.answers.com/recognize&r=67

#2 You're trying to sell us on the fact that it's a good thing to put up an image of a person who's book says NOT TO FOLLOW MANS LAW in a court room. Wow what are you smoking?

Seriously man your arguments in this thread aren't even weak, they are horrible and that's about it.

 

The fact remains the point of him is RELIGION no matter what you believe or do not believe of him.

Nope not at all, some do not recognize him one bit, I suggest you do some research on the definition, I linked you to it in the post above.

All you've proven is that you honestly do not know what you speak of, you have proven nothing else.

 

http://www.answers.com/recognize&r=67
Wow you just continue to prove me right.
"To know to be something that has been perceived before: recognize a face."

As in recognize a face. Everybody in America recognizes Jesus' face. Exactly what I was saying and you kept saying otherwise. So thanks for proving me right.

Since most of all laws are based upon moral things. Like rape and murder and many more. Then you are saying those should be removed for being moral/religious laws. Mans laws are based off of morals. What are you smoking? Cause I'm smoking salvia. And its not his book it is Gods lol.
I am saying tehre is nothing wrong wit having an image of a moral man. But you cannot understand that for some reason.

My arguments have provened yours wrong again and again yet you continue to deny that and keep on sayin otherwise. For everything you say I have a counter argument to disclaim it. You wont even touch up on the Constitution for some reason because you know you would lose that argument as well.

 

The point of religions is to have people living a good life. I am not religious but I still have morals and believe that Jesus (as a fake character) was a good person. So even atheists can see the point of having that image. In a courtroom it makes sense to have a religious/good figure saying to be good.

Yea the definition that proved me right. Thank you for that.

Whatever you say man.

 

Yet not everyone 'recognizes' that he was is the point. If they do not believe in him they will not 'recognize' him as in their mind he does not 'exist'

Honestly I can't understand most of what you're saying as it's not coming off very well

LOL I don't even need to get to the constitution as of yet as your own arguments destroy themselves.

You talk about not following Paris as she breaks the law, yet you want a picture of a 'guy/god/whatever' who is based upon a book that says DO NOT FOLLOW MANS LAWS 'mans laws of the court' but to follow the bible law.

Wow, P&R truly has gone down the shitter.

 

I dont have any problem with Jesus or with Christianity. But putting that picture and those words there mean court or judge is just supporting Jesus and Christianty, and calling others to obey his laws (Jesus).
First of all Jesus is religouse , if someone believes to him as god or not. That picture with those words are having religouse meanings.

 

I agree with you 100%

 

I am Christian and I can see why people would have a problem with this

----To the 'salvia' smoker above.

BTW many people look at Jesus as 'the son of god' and or 'god on earth'................Hence the bible could be called his book as he in many peoples eyes are on in the same..

 

My definition is still correct. My point was that people in America recognizes the name and face. You are choosiing to ignore that and try to put a different definition into the place of my words. So just stop you are wrong there and I will no longer be addressing that point from you since you are just wasting my time by making me say it again and again.

Sorry it is too complex for you.

Well since you have ignore the points I have made in which the Constitution says it is legal then you must not be able to argue back. Just by saying I am wrong does not make me so. I have been proving you wrong again and again. And you just keep ignoring that.

I want a picture of a GOOD man saying to follow laws and morals in a place that is all about following laws and morals.

And since you want to go on about the bible saying not to follow man's laws I would like a biblical passage for that please. And you are saying nothing the least bit religious should be allowed in government or anything. Since laws are from the government you do not want laws based on morals. If we cannot have a picture of a religious figure then we cannot have laws based on religious ideas. So if it was up to you rape and murder would be legal.

Thanks to people like you.

 

I am not wrong there, NOT EVERY SINGLE person in the US recognizes him. You could say the majority does, NOT EVERY SINGLE person. You are in fact wrong.

Sure, keep telling yourself that.

I don't need to go to the constitution as I am using your own arguments against you. You have not proven me wrong yet

A man who says not to follow the laws of man, you know what a court is. Yeah that makes sense.

Ahh bible passage I can not give you here, I have heard it many times on Sunday in church

Many man made laws can be similar or the same as Gods laws, overall they do differ as they are not 100% the same.

A picture of a religious figure is totally different than having similar laws. Man put the pipe down for a few moments, you seriously make absolutely no sense.

Ahh yet I was here way before you, goes to show what great arguments you come up with.

 

You have to use a general statement to disprove me. It is like when they say unemployment is unexistant. Anything under 7% or so is considered unemplyment for the nation. Because the large majority is. You know I was generalizing. This is the exact same thing.

Show me how your arguments have been correct. Literally. I want you to show me your arguments against mine and tell me how yours are right.

Well if you hear it again. I would love to know the passage.

The 10 commandments

Things like do not kill or steal. Those are laws now. Religious and moral laws.

You are missing my point which is why it makes no sense to you.
My point is this. You are saying that we cannot have a picture of Jesus in a government building because the government cannot and should not have anything to do with religion. Jesus is a religious figure so he should be removed even though the intentions are good. If something as petty as that should be removed due to the fact that religion does not belong in government operations then all laws based on any religious idea whatsoever should be removed. They are religious and seeing as your argument is saying religion does not belong in government then neither does the religious based laws. Which is basically everything based on the concept of morals.

That is my point

Now I will expand a little bit just for the sake of things. I am bored and the salvia is wearing off. Not every religion in the world shares the same ideas and sense of morals. Some religions find things like polagmy to be alright. Since the government cannot favour one religion over another that law needs to be removed. Not every religion finds pedophillia to be wrong so we need to remove those laws as well.

I am pointing out the flaws in your arguments. You are presenting ideas which make sense but at the same time they are flawed with concepts such as this.

 

And just to top things off I found this in the Bible
Romans 13:1-7
Look it up.

In that it tells you Christians are instructed to obey the laws of the nations in which they live

 

I have read many of your posts in this thread and you are ridiculous man.

Jesus is the figure of the 3 major religions of the world, the three largest and even the fastest growing religion. It is not just Christianity. Even if you are not religious, Jesus was a historical person in history.

Anyways,

You keep saying that these images should be removed, but you never really give a legal standing on why they should be removed.

The constitution does not prohibit the display of religious icons. To make a law against displaying these icons is prohibited by the constitution.

So, please explain to me how the hanging of a picture of Jesus is the same thing as " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

You are wrong and ridiculous.

 

A picture of Mecca would mean the same thing to Muslims as a picture of Jesus would to Christians - It makes you think of your religion which would in turn make you want to "folllow the laws and have morals"

Jesus is the main symbol in Chrisitanity, in order to be saved you have to claim him as your lord and savior, it is arrogant to place a picture that symbolizes one religion in a country with so many different religions.

As far as muslims, In Islam pictures or Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and other holly figures are not allowed, so right away this picture is offensive to the Muslims, (they went after wikipedia for posting pictures of Muhammed PBUH)http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/249828/Muslim_Muhammed_Wikipedia_Controversy

I think you are looking at this a little one-sided, the first ammendement wasn't just to support freedom of religion but also freedom from religion - you can't press your religious beliefs on others. especially, if you are in an position of power. PERIOD. THE END.

 

Generalizing does not equal a fact. You keep saying over and over every single person knows him, that is not a fact.

Plenty of them. The best one was at the following


http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=7442008&postcount=82

Just because something is a 'law' in the US does not make it a religious law.

Can you not see the difference between laws from a nation to laws of a religious book?

Sigh, you make no sense at all. Simply because the laws of the US in many cases are similar to the laws of the bible does not make them religious laws. Murder is against the law in other countries, it does not make it the same as the US following those other countries 'or' other religious laws now does it?

Your argument is so filled with flaws there is not enough cement in the free world to fix them. You are trying to claim simply because murder is against the 10 commandments that makes murder a religious law when in fact it is not.

I suggest you do some more research as that only applies when the laws do not go against gods laws.

Coming from you, I wont shed a tear

He is 'the figure' of the 3 major religions? Really now...
I knew he was in the Muslim faith, did not know he was 'the figure'

I have not had to as of yet as you and your buddies arguments thus far have been so extremely weak there has been no point. I only strike as needed, when/if I need to go into constitutional issues I will.

It does not specifically state it can not be displayed, it does not specifically state allot of things. That is where interpretation is key, especially when a court I don't know, puts an image above words about obeying laws. Government laws with a picture of a religious 'god'. hmmmm

You do understand the constitution needs to be interpreted? Hanging a picture that displays religious laws with a religious 'god' in a government building of laws surely to me appears a government sanction of a particular religion and the combination of it's laws and the religion.

 

You refusing to accept the facts and just go on and on about something of no importance at all. And Jesus has been voted as one of the most recognizble figures in America.

Plenty of them. The best one was at the following


http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=7442008&postcount=82

You are ignoring everything I am saying to make this point. If you are going to do this then I am just going to stop. I am really getting tired of you people on this forum that keeps on ignoring every concept that is put out there. I thouroughly explain this to you and yet you take it all out and break it down past the point of what I was saying.

They are based off of religious ideas. Even if they are not religious laws they are based off of them. If you take a government class you learn the evolution of laws. And it includes laws based on religions. American laws are based on religous and moral ideas. You can accept that and admit your argument is wrong when it concerns religion in government. Or you can deny that and I will prove to you the evolution of laws.

Then tell me. Why is murder illegal? No other species on the planet gets all uptight about one member killing another member of the same organism. Murder is wrong for us due to the fact that it is based on morals.