Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
Why that was precisely what I was saying.
Wow. I wonder if I need to add the [sarcasm][/sarcasm] on that as well?
you could try [polite][/polite] sometime.
Secession talk from Arizona
- Thread starter JollyRoger
- Start date
you could try [polite][/polite] sometime.
Fetus4188
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 3,629
This is by far the least reputable of several new-state secession movements.
What's the economic viability of the region? The University of Arizona is the only thing that comes to mind. A place, I would assume, that receives the majority of its funding from the rest of the state's population. We're basically talking about Tucson wanting to be a state. It would sooner make sense to get a refund on the Gadsden Purchase.
What's the economic viability of the region? The University of Arizona is the only thing that comes to mind. A place, I would assume, that receives the majority of its funding from the rest of the state's population. We're basically talking about Tucson wanting to be a state. It would sooner make sense to get a refund on the Gadsden Purchase.
Cashie
King
Wow. This thread turned into a peeing contest between Domination3000 and Formaldehyde; anyone else not see this coming?
It's not going to happen. It's just Pima County: Tucson plus some extra land. It has population density of 91 people per square mile (35/km²). Puerto Rico will become a US state before Li'lzona will.
Interestingly, according to this:
It's not going to happen. It's just Pima County: Tucson plus some extra land. It has population density of 91 people per square mile (35/km²). Puerto Rico will become a US state before Li'lzona will.
Interestingly, according to this:
It's also (slightly) bigger than Puerto Rico, but yeah...Peter Hormel said:
GhostWriter16
Deity
@Form- Answering the points I missed yesterday and the new ones.
Its not a surprise. As for it not being mentioned in the Constitution, no it isn't, Freedom of Religion and not favoring a religion is, not total uninvolvement.
Now, that doesn't mean I support involvement. I honestly will not lose any sleep with the 10 commandments not being displayed. That said, I see no reason that they should not be, since A: Other than maybe the 10th, its pretty darn tough to argue against the last 6 (Remember, adultery is after marriage, therefore cheating, and the rest are just common sense.)
That also said, its not just Christians who accept them. If pictures of Jesus as Judge were shown in the Courtroom, you would have more of a point since that is clearly religious, and clearly Christian. The 10 commandments are revered by Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike, and even those who DON'T specifically accept them would still mostly accept the latter six.
That said, I am not surprised a bit by certain people. There are a lot of people who don't give a crap about the Constitution.
Also, as I said before, not even state level. Not even necessarily local level.
If a strip club is throwing out ads on the street with women in racy clothing, and a conservative town wants to ban that, they should be able too since that is infringing on that town's right to have a moral community where kids are not seeing that sort of stuff. On the other hand, a big, liberal city in the same state should be able to allow that.
On the other hand, something like gay sex in the privacy of your home should not be banned anywhere since that literally affects nobody else.
I generally go by the principle that true "Governmental discipline", whether it be fining someone, imprisoning someone, exc. should not be taken lightly, nor should be getting involved in people's daily lives. It should be done only in cases where it would clearly take someone else's rights away. That said, I do respect the idea of people wanting a good moral community to raise their kids, and would like this as well. So, things that are in clear sight (The strip club ads) should be able to be banned in some places (Not entire states, locally), and allowed in appropriate places, while something in the privacy of ones own home that hurts nobody should never be banned.
I think most fundies who really want to bring "Christian" Law don't actually care about being consistent, so whatever. I'm not one of those.
And why is it illegal? States or People. Since displaying these things takes away nobody's rights, its state (Or more local if they make it so) jurisdiction
I probably posted there, but I don't remember what the case was. Link?
Not as much as you'd like to think
Most Republicans are as sick of Bush's Big Government Anti-Terror policies as everyone, and most people in general clearly are. With other issues, such as gay marriage, allowing marijuanna, exc. it is much more nuanced.
Its not a surprise. As for it not being mentioned in the Constitution, no it isn't, Freedom of Religion and not favoring a religion is, not total uninvolvement.
Now, that doesn't mean I support involvement. I honestly will not lose any sleep with the 10 commandments not being displayed. That said, I see no reason that they should not be, since A: Other than maybe the 10th, its pretty darn tough to argue against the last 6 (Remember, adultery is after marriage, therefore cheating, and the rest are just common sense.)
That also said, its not just Christians who accept them. If pictures of Jesus as Judge were shown in the Courtroom, you would have more of a point since that is clearly religious, and clearly Christian. The 10 commandments are revered by Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike, and even those who DON'T specifically accept them would still mostly accept the latter six.
That said, I am not surprised a bit by certain people. There are a lot of people who don't give a crap about the Constitution.
Also, as I said before, not even state level. Not even necessarily local level.
If a strip club is throwing out ads on the street with women in racy clothing, and a conservative town wants to ban that, they should be able too since that is infringing on that town's right to have a moral community where kids are not seeing that sort of stuff. On the other hand, a big, liberal city in the same state should be able to allow that.
On the other hand, something like gay sex in the privacy of your home should not be banned anywhere since that literally affects nobody else.
I generally go by the principle that true "Governmental discipline", whether it be fining someone, imprisoning someone, exc. should not be taken lightly, nor should be getting involved in people's daily lives. It should be done only in cases where it would clearly take someone else's rights away. That said, I do respect the idea of people wanting a good moral community to raise their kids, and would like this as well. So, things that are in clear sight (The strip club ads) should be able to be banned in some places (Not entire states, locally), and allowed in appropriate places, while something in the privacy of ones own home that hurts nobody should never be banned.
I think most fundies who really want to bring "Christian" Law don't actually care about being consistent, so whatever. I'm not one of those.
And why is it illegal? States or People. Since displaying these things takes away nobody's rights, its state (Or more local if they make it so) jurisdiction
There is a whole thread about it which is quite popular if it escaped your notice.
I probably posted there, but I don't remember what the case was. Link?
Not as much as you'd like to think
Most Republicans are as sick of Bush's Big Government Anti-Terror policies as everyone, and most people in general clearly are. With other issues, such as gay marriage, allowing marijuanna, exc. it is much more nuanced.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Not sure I get the reference?
You mean support as a state religion?
I see you have pointed out the splinter in my eye.....now how are you going to deal with the plank in yours?
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
That's not the point. It doesn't matter how widely accepted a given religion is. It is now unconstitutional to have a non-historical religious display on public property, and for good reason. This is supposed to be a secular country like any other modern civilized one.
Indeed.
This forum is chock full of threads which shows that is actually not the case. This is just yet another example of how prevalent authoritarianism really is tied to the reactionaries. You can't really think that many of them support your own views when almost all of them totally despise Ron Paul, or any other staunch conservative who isn't as authoritarian as them.Not as much as you'd like to think
Yeah, right. Bigotry, racism, xenophobia, nativism, and support of authoritarian regimes worldwide is definitely getting to be more PC by couching much of it in code words and phrases, but I would hardly call that "nuanced". It is just being driven underground by the new "moral majority" which is quite secular for a welcome change.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I think in this case this is total nonsense. As I said, the Ten Commandments aren't even just Christian, they are also supported by Jews and Muslims. And even other people can see the wisdom in the latter six commandments. We are allowing a nearly nonexistent minority to make the rules now.
It would be like in a 99% Muslim country Christians complaining about Qu'ranic verses being displayed on the walls of Government buildings. Oh wait, we have a lot worse stuff to complain about in those countries.
I don't think most of them despise Ron Paul, but the people that aren't voting for him... just don't get it I guess.
Of course, some DO fit the bill you described, but most don't.
Huh?
SG-17
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 2,631
Remove the first 4 then.
It doesn't matter if the religious are the majority. In a secular nation, the government is not to be influenced by religion. The 10 commandments and any other religious texts/paraphernalia have no place on government property. Get over it. If you don't like it you can move to the UK or Israel.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Again, I see no problem with this idea in itself.
I honestly couldn't care less. That said, if we are in fact putting them in our courthouses, it is you who is complaining, not I.
What board do you think you're speaking to? I think the polite mode posts only work if there's sarcasm behind it all.
Bucky said:
1. There's two different versions of the "Ten C"s. One of them is propounded by the Catholic Church and is to be found in the Bibles that the Catholic Church publishes. The other, which is found in the Protestant translations of the Bible, has a different list of commandments.
2. I only mean support in the sense that the government would be deciding which of the two versions of the Ten Commandments it displays in public. I don't advocate state religion. I just want to know which group you want to have the government telling them that they got God's commandments wrong. It's not a trick question
.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
When I have an issue like that, I generally grab a concordance, like Strong's and look it up the translation from the orignal hebrew/greek.
Without going to 'atheist.com' are the two versions really honestly that different?
In that case, I dont think there is argument to be made either way to be honest. To me that would be like dictating whether it need to be in English or Spanish. Both essentially say the same thing, give the same message, thus the real differences are minimal.
Japanrocks12
tired of being a man
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
I generally use the New King James Version:
Doing an online search for a Catholic Bible, I got this one from www.catholic.org and it states Exodus 20 as:
The first example is from the New King James version which is in wide use among Protestants all across the world. The 2nd example is the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) which is a Catholic translation of the Bible published in 1985. The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) has become the most widely used Roman Catholic Bible outside of the United States.
If you examine the two versions you will see they are almost identical with very little real differences. My point being, you cant just take a single internet reference from a possibly biased site trying to allude 'Catholic vs Protestant' variation. You need to dig deeper to get at the truth - and the truth here is there is really very little variation to be had on this particular issue between so-called versions of the bible. Further, if you are really worried about a certain translation of a bible possibly taking liberty in its translation, then go get a concordance and look up the verse in the original hebrew or greek and read it for yourself.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,209
Dommy, you are aware of Engle v. Vitale? It doesn't matter if the ten commandment are part of our religous heritage. If they are up there for a religous purpose, down they come. If they are for a secular purpose then they get some leway.
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
I was hoping you could toss a stone here to knock it out.
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
But they aren't supported by Hindus, or Buddhists, or Confucianists, or Shintos, or Satanists, or Wicca, or Pagans, or Atheists, or an hundred other religions that exist in this country.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
The issue is not at all about what scripture says, but where to divide the passage up into 10 distinct commandments. Neither Catholics nor protestants would have a problem with the biblical passage being quoted in full. The issue only arises when the commandments are not quoted from scripture verbatim but rather summarized in bulletpoints or a numbered list.
The only group that uses a version that varies significantly in content is the Samaritans, as they add the commandment to keep Mount Gerizim holy. (Their Exodus and Deuteronomy versions are also more consistent with each other.)
Apparently the Jewish term is better translated the Ten Statements, which may fit better with their notion that the declaration "I am the Lord your God who brought your out of Egypt" is the first of them even though it is not a commandment.
Jews consider the ten devarim to be the theological basis for the rest of the 613 mitzvah, but does not consider their observance to be any more important than any other commandments in the law. They are also quite clear that the 10 commandments (and 613 mitzvah) only ever apply to Jews, not everyone; gentiles have no business trying to follow all these commandments, or at the very least no business trying to get other gentiles to do so, as we are only bound by the 7 Noahide laws. Much of the text omitted in the bulletpoint listings of the 10 commandments seem to support this view, as they clearly address the Decalogue to those who were brought out of Egypt.
Perfection
The Great Head.
But splinters are smaller than planks.
Similar threads
