User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 2:36:12 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Um, neither are Christians. Let's start with the First Commandment and the First Amendment: they are flat-out incompatible. The Founders very deliberately gave us a secular nation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Muslims didn't found this country, nor make it great. Nor are they or Satanists in line with the US Constitution. Um, neither are Christians. Let's start with the First Commandment and the First Amendment: they are flat-out incompatible. The Founders very deliberately gave us a secular nation. LOL! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 2:44:25 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whats worse is they don't even realize how Liberal thinking they are Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
One thing is clear from this thread, and that is that many here who consider themselves conservatives based on guns are nothing more than progressive liberals who like guns. We've seen these types inundate this site since at least 2008. Whats worse is they don't even realize how Liberal thinking they are I blame the video game and internet age. We understood what conservative values meant back in the 1980's and '90's. These kids nowadays have no clue what it feels like to have the freedom we had back then under Reagan. Or even once Gingrich got Clinton under control. It seems most of these kids assume they are republican based on guns and nothing else, all while espousing the same shit liberals are. It's sad and part of the dumbing down of society as shown with the rise of reality shows. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 2:46:49 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What city service is in charge of it and where do they broadcast from? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Would people be this worked up if it had been an Islamic statue? How about Scientologist? That would be for the people of the state, through their elected representatives to decide. dearborne blasts out the call to prayer everyday. zero fucks given. I don't live in that shit hole. No they don't. Yes, they do. 5 times a day. What city service is in charge of it and where do they broadcast from? You ever been to Dearborn? The city is run by and mostly populated by muslims. Try calling and complaining about the muslim call to prayer 5 times a day and get back to me. If you broadcast helter skelter five times a day at those volumes from any building in Dearborn you'd find yourself in trouble. I'm intimately familiar with that area since I grew up with several muslim stepfathers and we went there all the time to grocery shop. You don't know shit about Islam like I do. I grew up as a Scottish descent American in a muslim household. I learned quite a bit about that culture and hated every minute of living in it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 2:48:26 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What does "establishment of religion" mean? What does it mean to "make no law respecting an establishment of religion?" Did any of the states ratifying the BoR have established churches at the time of ratification? Did any of the states ratifying the BoR have established churches after the time of ratification? What is the incompatibility between "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Muslims didn't found this country, nor make it great. Nor are they or Satanists in line with the US Constitution. Um, neither are Christians. Let's start with the First Commandment and the First Amendment: they are flat-out incompatible. The Founders very deliberately gave us a secular nation. What does "establishment of religion" mean? What does it mean to "make no law respecting an establishment of religion?" Did any of the states ratifying the BoR have established churches at the time of ratification? Did any of the states ratifying the BoR have established churches after the time of ratification? What is the incompatibility between "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?" LOL! In for the crickets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 8:29:38 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It is the fundamental basis of our law and that is the relevance, though some dismiss that and argue they are unrelated. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm a Christian and the monument should never have been placed on government property. It is being moved to private property (a conservative think tank), as it should be. The state recently denied the placement of a Satanic memorial, because they didn't want to support Satanism. Doing that made it kind of hard to argue they weren't supporting "any sect, church, denomination or system of religion" with this monument. Showing preferential treatment to one religion over another is verboten and this result was the entire reason the Church of Satan tried to get a monument put up. Had they allowed the monuments to be put up, you could at least maintain plausibility to the claim it wasn't violating the law. By showing a clear preference for Christianity over a minority religion, they made it impossible to keep the display. The Supreme Court saved the state millions in legal fees to fight the lawsuit the Church of Satan was going to bring. It will be funny reading all of the butthurt in this thread though. Carry on. It is the fundamental basis of our law and that is the relevance, though some dismiss that and argue they are unrelated. Yes "some" argue they are unrelated, because they are. Thomas Jefferson was one of those people. But you know better than he did, I am sure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 8:31:47 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This issue has absolutely nothing to do with equal protection of the laws. Even explicit favouring of one religion over others when it comes to public imagery does not deny any group equal protection of the laws. Equal protection of the laws does not mean treating people and groups equally in every manner possible. The legal term of art is much more limited in meaning (and that limited meaning is how the framers of the 14th Amendment understood it). Nothing wrong with a Western country favouring Christian iconography in its public buildings and monuments. Where society still places some value in religion, tradition, morality, etc. it should be expected, really. Christianity forms a major part of the bedrock underlying Western civilization. Something as foundational for a civilization as the 10 Commandments is quite appropriate. It also did not violate the U.S. Constitution nor any plain reading of the OK Constitution. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Everyone would be all piss and vinegar (and rightly so) if someone wanted to put in a Muslim statue. That's the thing though. By constructing a Christian monument on public grounds, Christians are the ones inviting Muslims to erect their own statue. Due to equal protection, government either has to welcome all-comers (well, at least recognized religions/beliefs) to build monuments on public property. The other way to go about it is to deny everyone the ability to erect monuments of religious connotation on public property. But it IS illegal to only allow Christian monuments but bar everyone else. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with equal protection of the laws. Even explicit favouring of one religion over others when it comes to public imagery does not deny any group equal protection of the laws. Equal protection of the laws does not mean treating people and groups equally in every manner possible. The legal term of art is much more limited in meaning (and that limited meaning is how the framers of the 14th Amendment understood it). Nothing wrong with a Western country favouring Christian iconography in its public buildings and monuments. Where society still places some value in religion, tradition, morality, etc. it should be expected, really. Christianity forms a major part of the bedrock underlying Western civilization. Something as foundational for a civilization as the 10 Commandments is quite appropriate. It also did not violate the U.S. Constitution nor any plain reading of the OK Constitution. I disagree with you. And I'm not going to change my opinion either. You are as biased as I am on this issue, just in the other direction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 8:38:44 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: All of our Presidents have been Christians and have evoked their religion.| Funny, that we have managed to be a world hyper power and have defeated all others. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Religion has no place in government. Period. If you disagree, you don't support freedom of religion which was one of the founding principles of this country. All of our Presidents have been Christians and have evoked their religion.| Funny, that we have managed to be a world hyper power and have defeated all others. Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian. It was a huge deal during the election. His opponents accused of him of being an atheist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 8:41:11 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I disagree with you. And I'm not going to change my opinion either. You are as biased as I am on this issue, just in the other direction. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Everyone would be all piss and vinegar (and rightly so) if someone wanted to put in a Muslim statue. That's the thing though. By constructing a Christian monument on public grounds, Christians are the ones inviting Muslims to erect their own statue. Due to equal protection, government either has to welcome all-comers (well, at least recognized religions/beliefs) to build monuments on public property. The other way to go about it is to deny everyone the ability to erect monuments of religious connotation on public property. But it IS illegal to only allow Christian monuments but bar everyone else. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with equal protection of the laws. Even explicit favouring of one religion over others when it comes to public imagery does not deny any group equal protection of the laws. Equal protection of the laws does not mean treating people and groups equally in every manner possible. The legal term of art is much more limited in meaning (and that limited meaning is how the framers of the 14th Amendment understood it). Nothing wrong with a Western country favouring Christian iconography in its public buildings and monuments. Where society still places some value in religion, tradition, morality, etc. it should be expected, really. Christianity forms a major part of the bedrock underlying Western civilization. Something as foundational for a civilization as the 10 Commandments is quite appropriate. It also did not violate the U.S. Constitution nor any plain reading of the OK Constitution. I disagree with you. And I'm not going to change my opinion either. You are as biased as I am on this issue, just in the other direction. I disagree with him as well. More importantly, so does the Supreme Court. He should re-read Lemon vs Kurtzman. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 8:45:29 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I disagree with him as well. More importantly, so does the Supreme Court. He should re-read Lemon vs Kurtzman. It won't matter to him. I've had several arguments in the past with BigStick that indicate to me that he's 100% committed to the concept that Christianity is/should be the national religion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 8:46:17 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What does "establishment of religion" mean? What does it mean to "make no law respecting an establishment of religion?"... Quote HistoryQuoted:
What does "establishment of religion" mean? What does it mean to "make no law respecting an establishment of religion?"... Which words don't you get? Quoted:
Did any of the states ratifying the BoR have established churches at the time of ratification? Yes. Quoted:
Did any of the states ratifying the BoR have established churches after the time of ratification? I don't know, but I bet you could look it up. Quoted:
What is the incompatibility between "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?" One says that you must worship a particular god, and the penalty for not doing so is death. The other says that you are free to worship any gods or no gods. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 9:37:10 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You ever been to Dearborn? The city is run by and mostly populated by muslims. Try calling and complaining about the muslim call to prayer 5 times a day and get back to me. If you broadcast helter skelter five times a day at those volumes from any building in Dearborn you'd find yourself in trouble. I'm intimately familiar with that area since I grew up with several muslim stepfathers and we went there all the time to grocery shop. You don't know shit about Islam like I do. I grew up as a Scottish descent American in a muslim household. I learned quite a bit about that culture and hated every minute of living in it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That would be for the people of the state, through their elected representatives to decide. dearborne blasts out the call to prayer everyday. zero fucks given. I don't live in that shit hole. No they don't. Yes, they do. 5 times a day. What city service is in charge of it and where do they broadcast from? You ever been to Dearborn? The city is run by and mostly populated by muslims. Try calling and complaining about the muslim call to prayer 5 times a day and get back to me. If you broadcast helter skelter five times a day at those volumes from any building in Dearborn you'd find yourself in trouble. I'm intimately familiar with that area since I grew up with several muslim stepfathers and we went there all the time to grocery shop. You don't know shit about Islam like I do. I grew up as a Scottish descent American in a muslim household. I learned quite a bit about that culture and hated every minute of living in it. OK, thanks for sharing.  Now back on topic...
The mosques play the call to prayer, not the city. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 10:09:39 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL! In for the crickets. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Muslims didn't found this country, nor make it great. Nor are they or Satanists in line with the US Constitution. Um, neither are Christians. Let's start with the First Commandment and the First Amendment: they are flat-out incompatible. The Founders very deliberately gave us a secular nation. What does "establishment of religion" mean? What does it mean to "make no law respecting an establishment of religion?" Did any of the states ratifying the BoR have established churches at the time of ratification? Did any of the states ratifying the BoR have established churches after the time of ratification? What is the incompatibility between "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?" LOL! In for the crickets. Some states did have official religions at the time the Constitution was ratified. I think all official state religions were gone with 10 or so years post-ratification. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 5:30:41 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Black theologians are hardly Christian. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Religion has no place in government. Period. If you disagree, you don't support freedom of religion which was one of the founding principles of this country. All of our Presidents have been Christians and have evoked their religion.| Funny, that we have managed to be a world hyper power and have defeated all others. Black theologians are hardly Christian. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 5:34:42 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which words don't you get? Yes. I don't know, but I bet you could look it up. One says that you must worship a particular god, and the penalty for not doing so is death. The other says that you are free to worship any gods or no gods. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What does "establishment of religion" mean? What does it mean to "make no law respecting an establishment of religion?"... Which words don't you get? Quoted:
Did any of the states ratifying the BoR have established churches at the time of ratification? Yes. Quoted:
Did any of the states ratifying the BoR have established churches after the time of ratification? I don't know, but I bet you could look it up. Quoted:
What is the incompatibility between "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?" One says that you must worship a particular god, and the penalty for not doing so is death. The other says that you are free to worship any gods or no gods. You do not know the meaning of "make no law respecting an establishment of religion." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 5:54:33 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You do not know the meaning of "make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Do you think that maybe Thomas Jefferson understood the meaning of it? He used the metaphor of a “wall of separation” between church and state. Doesn't seem to leave a lot of wiggle-room, does it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 6:03:45 PM EDT
[#16]
As Oklahoma goes so goes the nation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2015 10:56:33 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you think that maybe Thomas Jefferson understood the meaning of it? He used the metaphor of a “wall of separation” between church and state. Doesn't seem to leave a lot of wiggle-room, does it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You do not know the meaning of "make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Do you think that maybe Thomas Jefferson understood the meaning of it? He used the metaphor of a “wall of separation” between church and state. Doesn't seem to leave a lot of wiggle-room, does it? Where in the law does that statement appear? What is establishment of religion? What does it mean to make no law respecting a subject? In his letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson referenced "that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." To what "act" did he refer? By its terms, to whom or to what does that act apply? To whom or to what was that act understood by Jefferson and every other Framer to apply? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
