Secession talk from Arizona

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.
 
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:
Peter Hormel said:
Pima County is bigger than most of the New England states and has more people than Alaska, Montana or the Dakotas.
It's also (slightly) bigger than Puerto Rico, but yeah...
 
@Form- Answering the points I missed yesterday and the new ones.

Based on these responses it appears that you are in favor of a theocracy, at least to some extent. You just apparently don't think it should be enforced on the national level, instead of at the state one. This may come as a surprise to you, but many fundamentalists completely reject the notion of separation of church and state. They even claim it doesn't even exist since it isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

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.

And you apparently differ quite a bit in regards to authoritarian tendencies from the typical person who shares the same ultraconservative views.

So I would claim that you don't really represent the typical fundie authoritarian reactionary. That many of them would not be opposed to continuing to bring "Christian law" to much of the US while making the country far more authoritarian than it now is.

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.


No, the Ten Commandments should be displayed on any public property unless it is part of a historical secular display because it is illegal to do so, not because there are 3 people in the general vicinity who might be offended by it.

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.:p

I probably posted there, but I don't remember what the case was. Link?

It seems to be quite prevalent in Arizona and elsewhere.

Not as much as you'd like to think:p

I certainly don't think a less authoritative government is one of them unless you are referring to those who think they can equate Obama's presidency with fascism. Then, I think they are just being hypocritical given their own desires in that direction.

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.
 
But MobBoss, you do agree with me that it should be the Protestant version and not the Catholic version that the government supports, right?

Not sure I get the reference?

You mean support as a state religion?

you could try [polite][/polite] sometime.

I see you have pointed out the splinter in my eye.....now how are you going to deal with the plank in yours?
 
That also said, its not just Christians who accept them.
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.

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.
Indeed.

Not as much as you'd like to think:p
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.

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.
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.
 
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Huh?
 
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.
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.
 
Remove the first 4 then.

Again, I see no problem with this idea in itself.

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.

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.
 
you could try [polite][/polite] sometime.

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:
But MobBoss, you do agree with me that it should be the Protestant version and not the Catholic version that the government supports, right?

Not sure I get the reference?

You mean support as a state religion?

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

.
 
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.

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?

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

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.
 

I generally use the New King James Version:

The Ten Commandments
1 And God spoke all these words, saying:
2 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 “You shall have no other gods before Me.
4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
7 “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
8 “ Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
12 “ Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you.
13 “You shall not murder.
14 “You shall not commit adultery.
15 “You shall not steal.
16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

Doing an online search for a Catholic Bible, I got this one from www.catholic.org and it states Exodus 20 as:

1 Then God spoke all these words. He said,

2 'I am Yahweh your God who brought you out of Egypt, where you lived as slaves.

3 'You shall have no other gods to rival me.

4 'You shall not make yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything in heaven above or on earth beneath or in the waters under the earth.

5 'You shall not bow down to them or serve them. For I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God and I punish a parent's fault in the children, the grandchildren, and the great-grandchildren among those who hate me;

6 but I act with faithful love towards thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7 'You shall not misuse the name of Yahweh your God, for Yahweh will not leave unpunished anyone who misuses his name.

8 'Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.

9 For six days you shall labour and do all your work,

10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath for Yahweh your God. You shall do no work that day, neither you nor your son nor your daughter nor your servants, men or women, nor your animals nor the alien living with you.

11 For in six days Yahweh made the heavens, earth and sea and all that these contain, but on the seventh day he rested; that is why Yahweh has blessed the Sabbath day and made it sacred.

12 'Honour your father and your mother so that you may live long in the land that Yahweh your God is giving you.

13 'You shall not kill.

14 'You shall not commit adultery.

15 'You shall not steal.

16 'You shall not give false evidence against your neighbour.

17 'You shall not set your heart on your neighbour's house. You shall not set your heart on your neighbour's spouse, or servant, man or woman, or ox, or donkey, or any of your neighbour's possessions.'

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.
 
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.
 
I see you have pointed out the splinter in my eye.....now how are you going to deal with the plank in yours?

I was hoping you could toss a stone here to knock it out.
 
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.

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.
 
Why not just frame an extra-sized copy of the Constitution in Courtrooms?


@Owen, your post makes it seem like you are saying that atheism is a religion, which is an oxymoron.
 
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.

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.
 
I see you have pointed out the splinter in my eye.....now how are you going to deal with the plank in yours?
But splinters are smaller than planks. :confused:
 
Top Bottom