Kentucky county removing Ten Commandments from schools

[Wickabee]

Answer Post #67 and 68 then!

Why did you say "Why is it only atheists who can't discern there's a non religious meaning to those commandments?"


C'mon, TELL ME, what is this non-religious meaning that I (as an atheist) can't discern?Why did you say the satanic commandments are more religious when only ONE commandment deals with religion and the Jewish commandments have FOUR dealing with religions?

C'mon, explain these statements.

I've explained it all over this thread. Again, why should I pay attention to you whining and carrying on if you won't read my posts? Answer that. I'm not repeating myself AGAIN.

[Wickabee]

By the way, alex, the "Keep yelling louder and longer" doesn't work on me. You may have to come up with a new tactic. I suggest reading the posts before responding to them and making thoughtful responses. Might work.

[JustAlex]

I did, but I'll repeat (not that you'll read it).
The Ten Commandments hold historic value beyond religious because it's one of the oldest sets of organized law in history. The Satanic Commandments are nothing more than commandments for that religion.
If the Ten Commandments hold no historical value, then no piece of art depicting any sort of religious imagery holds any historical value. Da Vinci's Last Supper? Just propaganda right?

Forget the part where you finally admitted the Ten has historic value. What historic value does the Satanic have? What societal reach has it had that brings it up to the level of the Ten?

So again, you ARE saying that the ten commandments hold historical value....is this or not your argument for having these commandments in public schools?

or is it solely your refutation to my satanists claim?

That's the last question I want to ask you.

I will answer your question.

Do the satanic commandments hold historical value....Yes, I suppose they do, but not a lot....their value would be based on the same value that the Jewish commandments have.

A set of rules established by a religion and passed down by generations.

The satanic commandments have been around for over 40 years BTW.

[JustAlex]

IMO, your argument IS that because the ten commandments hold historical value that is enough to let them in schools.

Yes, I know you used that as a refutation to my satanist claim, but your argument also works for the topic on hand.

Then when you said that atheists can't discern that there's a non-religious meaning to those commandments.....I implied that your non-religious meaning is based on it's historical value.....BTW, you didn't make ANY other argument.

So, I'm waiting....if the historical value argument is NOT the reason, then what is?

[mrveggieman]

I agree with Alex on this one. There is no secular, non religious purpose for schools to display the ten commandments. By placing them in public schools which are agenents of the gov't it is giving an implied endorsement of christanity/judiasm. Gov't must remain neutral when dealing with religion. The other alternative would be to include pieces from every other religion and you all know the conservatives would not have that.

[Wickabee]

Ok. I'll explain this all out one last time, then I'm done. I have my own child to look after, I don't need you too.

You started a thread peeing yourself over the Ten commandments being in the schools. When no one cared, you started talking to yourself asking why tthey would be there in the firt place. I speculated that history could be the reason and Jay agreed. Veg then mentioned the Egyptian Commandments, which was actually a good point, though I might argue the Ten Commandments has more historic valuye within Western Society and culture than the Egyptian, but we never got to that because you immediately posted about the Satanic Commandments and that was a terrible point. That's when I said the Ten Commandments have more reach throughout society than the Egyptian or the Satanic. Then you posted the Satanic, saying "destroy those who annoy you" is a much better moral value than "love thy neighbour".

That's page one. As you can see, all I said on page one was that history may be a reason and the Ten has more intrinsic historic value to our society than either the Egyptian (though there is a case for that) and the Satanic (no historic value at all).

Over the next 7 pages you peed yourself trying to make that mean the following:
1 - The Ten Commandments only has historic value and holds no religious value.
2 - The Ten Commandments holds More historic than religious value.
(quick pause, I have to ask...which is it alex? Do I think it holds only historic or just more historic than religious? It can't possibly be both and I assume you know every thought of mine because you read one word I posted a few days ago, so please, which is my belief, alex?)
3 - I was going directly against the SCOTUS ruling by saying the Ten holds some historic value.

and then you repeated these three ad nauseum. I really couldn't care less if they're in schools or not. If enough people want them taken down, so be it. If enough people want them to stay up, that's fine too.
What I DO NOT like, is people who go on about how their rights are being violated by a statue nowhere near them. What I don't like is atheists* claiming if something has any religious attachment it can't be historic. I don't like people who read one word of mine and assume they know everything about me, but refuse to read anything else I write. I don't like people who do nothing but pigeonhole everyone else into groups and then treat tho9se individuals based on the groupings in their own mind. Those people are ignorant and worthless. You are one of those people.

Am I defending religion? No. I'm defending the Ten Commandmwents as being more than religious. Not non religious as I've never claimed but you seem to think I did. Not more historic than religious, as I never said but you seem to think I did. I'm defending a person's right to think for himself and NOT be a parrot. That goes both ways. You're as much a parrot as any believer.

So there it all is. What I said vs what you read leaves me with the conclusion that you need to clean your screen or go over your alphabet again.

* - I also don't like people who call themselves atheists when they clearly aren't. They're just angry at life.

[JustAlex]

You started a thread peeing yourself over the Ten commandments being in the schools. When no one cared, you started talking to yourself asking why tthey would be there in the firt place.

Lol...

Wow....you accuse me of not reading but you can't even tell who started a thread?

Hint....it wasn't me.....it was made by a guy that likes vegetables.

Just because we have the same avatar, doesn't mean we're the same person.

That's when I said the Ten Commandments have more reach throughout society than the Egyptian or the Satanic. Then you posted the Satanic, saying "destroy those who annoy you" is a much better moral value than "love thy neighbour".

Too bad "love thy neighbor" is NOT one of the ten commandments.

Again, you accuse me of not reading, but then post a law that is NOT in the ten commandments?

Over the next 7 pages you peed yourself trying to make that mean the following:
1 - The Ten Commandments only has historic value and holds no religious value.
2 - The Ten Commandments holds More historic than religious value.
(quick pause, I have to ask...which is it alex? Do I think it holds only historic or just more historic than religious? It can't possibly be both and I assume you know every thought of mine because you read one word I posted a few days ago, so please, which is my belief, alex?)
3 - I was going directly against the SCOTUS ruling by saying the Ten holds some historic value.

What the hell?

My one and only argument was that I DID agree that the ten commandments had value but it's still religious in nature and therefore the fact that it has historical value does NOT trump the religious part of it.

That's it....and the SCOTUS ruling along side the Establishment Clause agrees with me.

and then you repeated these three ad nauseum. I really couldn't care less if they're in schools or not. If enough people want them taken down, so be it. If enough people want them to stay up, that's fine too.

BOOM! that's all I wanted to know.

Thank you.

BTW, no, it's not about whether people want them or not, it's about what the constitution says.

If tomorrow 99% of a public school wanted to put a statue of Jesus on their hallway, they would lose that battle quite easily.

What I DO NOT like, is people who go on about how their rights are being violated by a statue nowhere near them.

I don't care if the statue is in Hawaii or Alaska....we follow the Constitution.

There are NO ifs, ands, or buts!

What I don't like is atheists* claiming if something has any religious attachment it can't be historic.

Even though I agreed with you over and over again that YES it is historic and it does have value....but that doesn't overrule the fact that it's religious in nature and therefore does not belong in a public school.


In the end, you claim you don't care if the commandments are in school or not....that's all you had to say.

Meanwhile I DO CARE.

Because I believe in our constitution, and in separation of church and state, and the fact that a student shouldn't have to be exposed to any religion in a place where it doesn't belong.

[deansayso]

Alex you forgot /Thread...

[Wickabee]

Wow....you accuse me of not reading but you can't even tell who started a thread?

Apologies. The three of you are confusing with your weeks old gay marriage support. Even George Takei isn't rocking the Transformer anymore.

Anyway, no you obviously didn't read my posts. If you had, you wouldn't have said I made all those claims you now can't actually find. The closest thing you found to ANYTHING you've accused me of in this thread is the one word post "history". Your entire vision of my whole belief system has been based on this one word post.

That's just stupid, alex.

I do have to wonder why you care about a statue at a school you'll never see in a state you'll never go to?
I'm pretty sure your claims of "caring" are actually a want. A want to have everything as YOU see fit while everyone else lives by YOUR thoughts, beliefs and ideals. YOU seek to control all and the manner you do that in makes me think it's all for attention.

Please don't respond to me in any way shape or form. I consider you talking to me an insult right now. You're a very hatefilled person and I hope you find help and happiness one day. You say you're happy, but I've never known a happy person to hold so much displaced anger.

At the end of the day, alex, you went bananas because you took my one word speculation as an absolute statement that the Ten Commandments should be taught in all schools. What I actually said was history is a possible reason for having the statue there. Everything after that came out of your warped, dangerous, spiteful "mind".

Stop making crap up and be a man for God's sake. Right now, these tirades are just sad and tiresome.

[Wickabee]

BOOM! that's all I wanted to know.

Actually, you asked what reason there could be for having them there. I gave a possible answer and you peed all over the place losing your crap about it, saying it's better to destroy the annoying than love thy neighbour (you're pretty damn annoying right now, should I destroy you?). If what I posted above was all you wanted to know, none of thise would EVER have happened. So congratulations on being caught in yet another lie.

Seriously, you're just sad right now.