captainbryce wrote:

Sorry but that is NOT a valid comparrison at all! Are you honestly comparing an internet chat forum with a display on Government property? Shale's posts are consistent with "freedom of speech". Posting the ten commandments in a government building is consistent with "government endorsement of religion". Not even in the same ballpark! Try again...

I was getting at anti-Christian views in general, being posted/put out there in any form, but yes, within the context of this thread, I suppose that a government building is different than a forum thread.

And BTW, my view are also consistent with "freedom of speech" too, lest that be forgotten. And the point I'm making with that, is that if these sorts of topics are going to be opened for discussion, then one must assume and accept that an opposing view to their own is probably going to pop up at some point--it's not just a free for all for Christian-bashing, or Aetheist-bashing by the same token.

captainbryce wrote:

Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about here so let me educate you on how it ACTUALLY works (and why your post is such a contradiction to itself).


Government funded public schools (regardless of what kind of community they are in) is still government property! That means that it doesn't matter if the community wants to put religious displays up because the government is supposed to abide by the constitution. By ignoring the constitution and complying with the demands of "the community" it is making the assumption that EVERYONE in that community is indeed of the same faith and therefore wants the same thing. BIG ASSUMPTION. Religious people in a community can put up religious displays on PRIVATE PROPERTY all day long, then the government can "look the other way" because that doesn't concern the government. But by allowing religious displays on public property now the government is not "backing the hell off from it" but in fact publically endorsing religion.


First of all, that isn't even true because according to the Supreme court (whose job it is to intepret the constitution) Seperation of Church and State means BOTH, not one or the other. Secondly, what's ironic is the fact that you can't see that by the government choosing to endorse Judeo-Christian displays, it is essentially abandoned it's protection of other religions. Here is a question that you probably won't answer, but for the benefit of others I'll ask it anyway: IF the government in a local community decided that it was okay for a public school to display the first three verses of the Qur'an on the walls of every school entrance, what do you think public reaction would be like? You think that'd be okay?

Hyacinth Girl wrote:

... And BTW, my view are also consistent with "freedom of speech" too, lest that be forgotten. And the point I'm making with that, is that if these sorts of topics are going to be opened for discussion, then one must assume and accept that an opposing view to their own is probably going to pop up at some point--it's not just a free for all for Christian-bashing, or Aetheist-bashing by the same token.

Hyacinth Girl wrote:

And BTW, my view are also consistent with "freedom of speech" too, lest that be forgotten. And the point I'm making with that, is that if these sorts of topics are going to be opened for discussion, then one must assume and accept that an opposing view to their own is probably going to pop up at some point--it's not just a free for all for Christian-bashing, or Aetheist-bashing by the same token.

I agree with all of that. The only point that I am making (and that you seem to be backing up) is that if opposing viewpoints are expected when it comes to religion, why should it be okay for the government to support and endorse ONE viewpoint, and ignore all others? Because that is the result of allowing the ten commandments to be displayed on public property.

captainbryce wrote:

I agree with all of that. The only point that I am making (and that you seem to be backing up) is that if opposing viewpoints are expected when it comes to religion, why should it be okay for the government to support and endorse ONE viewpoint, and ignore all others? Because that is the result of allowing the ten commandments to be displayed on public property.

And that's why I said, earlier in this thread, that it should be an all or nothing approach. Post 'em all, or post none, read the ones that suit you, but also leave everyone else's alone.

I don't subscribe to Hindu beliefs, Islam, Buddhism, Aetheist philosophies--but hey, if someone wants to tack up their "stuff" and immerse themselves in it--go right ahead. I'm gonna do mine, too, if that be the case.

I think schools could benefit from having Ten Commandments posted. If somebody doesn't like it, thank God we got the ability to turn our heads and look at something else.

Hyacinth Girl wrote:

Public display? Well, posting in a public forum constitutes putting it out there for all to see, so if you read many of Shale's posts on this topic that are filled with scathing hatred at times, then there's your example right there.

Quote :

BINGO! And there it is--see? It's ok and acceptable for people (not necessarily you, but in general) to go around promoting non-belief,

And I asked for examples of the promotion of these "non-beliefs" in the places where the 10 commandments, nativity scenes, etc. are prohibited. And this is not a public forum. Just because membership is free and anyone, member or guest can read what is said her, doesn't make this a public place.

Hyacinth Girl wrote:

And that's why I said, earlier in this thread, that it should be an all or nothing approach. Post 'em all, or post none, read the ones that suit you, but also leave everyone else's alone.

I don't subscribe to Hindu beliefs, Islam, Buddhism, Aetheist philosophies--but hey, if someone wants to tack up their "stuff" and immerse themselves in it--go right ahead. I'm gonna do mine, too, if that be the case.

Fair enough. I guess I missed that! Cheers.

Alan Smithee wrote:

And I asked for examples of the promotion of these "non-beliefs" in the places where the 10 commandments, nativity scenes, etc. are prohibited. And this is not a public forum. Just because membership is free and anyone, member or guest can read what is said her, doesn't make this a public place.

At this point, I'm going to bow out of this particular arguement, mainly because I just do not have the time right now to go researching examples for you. I have my daughter's birthday coming up on Friday, I have to close my pool, paint the exterior trim on my windows, and continue working at my Grandmother's place to clean it and possibly repaint the walls.

So for sheer lack of time, I'll step aside, but I do disagree and say that this place is more public than you believe it to be--you don't have to be logged in to read the forums, so that makes it fair game to anyone and "public" in my opinion.

Happy Birthday to your daughter!

Alan Smithee wrote:

Happy Birthday to your daughter!

Thanks! She'll be 16 and has already started driver-ed class. . . .here we go!! LOL

Maybe Supernova can give her some pointers

Alan Smithee wrote:

Maybe Supernova can give her some pointers

She'll need many since her road-time will happen in the winter with all the snow!

I just hope we don't run into a snag when I take her next week for her learner's permit--here in Mass, you have to report to the registry, any significant medical condition that could impair your driving, and my daughter has both a blind eye and epilepsy. (You should've seen the look I got when I went to pick up a driver's manual and mentioned that to them----"Are you freakin' kidding me, lady??) LOL

So I got letters ready to go from the eye doc and the neurologist that will hopefully make this a non-issue.


(And now that we've completely derailed this thread---lol!)