On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Not a liberal loonie wrote:
"Michael Lockhart" <mdlockhart@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
Based on your logic, there is no reason then to force it out of a public
building.
Your familiarity with logic in general (let alone mine) is obviously
fleeting. That said, please refrain from attempting to malign my logic by
misapplying it in your name. My position (perfectly consistent) was that,
despite the fact that few people were subjected to that infringement, it
was
an infringement nonetheless. You are, apparently, not understanding that
"despite". Try again.
Sure since you cannot grasp such a basic concept. If the monument was being
"forced" on you (arguable at best) and an infringement on your 'right' to
not being offended or your 'right' to freedom from religion (which by the
way does not exist), then "forcing" the monument from the building was also
an infringement on those who do have the guaranteed right in freedom of
religion. And therein lies your problem, there truly was no infringement.
How is the monument truly harmful? Did you stub your toe on it? What
"right" were you not able to exercise? You do not have a guaranteed right
to be not be offended.
Read them or don't. The choice is yours.
That's awfully generous of you to decide which choice is mine.
I simply stated the obvious.
Under our present government, the choice is, indeed, mine.
Is that not what I said? SHEESH!
Under that moron's
theocracy, all entering that building would be faced with that monument,
whether they wanted to see it or not.
So? It's not like you could read it from the entry door. Placed in a
rotunda, it was not "in your face," or being forced upon you. Your argument
is disengenous [sic].
Try, "It's just kiddie porn. Look at it or not. The choice is yours."
No, not even close. That's even more invalid than your "It was forced on
me" claim.
Try again.
If it isn't even close, then you would have absolutely no objection to
kiddie porn (or Zeus, Zarathustra and Attis) statues in court houses,
right?
Why be afraid of it?
Who's afraid of it? If someone were to come up to me and ask me to
put up a
sign in my math classroom saying, "2 + 2 = 5", I wouldn't do it.
Would I
be "afraid" of the sign for doing so? Of course not. Just because
people don't want it there doesn't mean they're afraid of it.
Invalid comparison.
No, it's not, and even if it were, the point stands. Just because people
don't want it there doesn't mean they're afraid of it. I don't want a
statue devoted to Kali, the Hindu Goddess of Death, in my local
courthouse, but that's not because I'm afraid of it.
I'm not arguing that all people who object to the monument's presence are
afraid of it, I simply posed the question of why. That and 'being offended'
seem to be the only true motives for its removal.
In a previous post you claimed familiarity with the court documents. If
that were true, you wouldn't be making that claim.
Why are you afraid of some very common sense rules?
Why are you stupidly repeating a question built on a false premise?
Other than, "I don't want to be offended," what possible characterization ca
n be placed on the objection to the monument? The true premise of the
objection is based in either fear or ignorance. Don't like a reminder that
you're not living life on the up and up? That's a base premise of fear.
Don't like Commandment number one, therefore the whole list should be
dismissed? That's a premise based in ignorance.
Go to church
Don't swear
Don't kill
Don't lie
Don't be jealous
Don't commit adultery
Don't steal
Basic stuff folks.......
Your erudition is overwhelming.
Your fear of something so innocent is amazing.
Your continued lack of comprehension is, sadly, predictable.
On the contrary I've got you pegged. You're presumptive and arrogant. Your
objection - based in ignorance.
All excellent rules to live life by, and nobody is forcing you to
look at a stone tablet or forcing you to go to church.
No, they're just trying to force us to look at it whenever we go to
that courthouse. As we have a country which abhors governmental
establishment of religion, that must not happen.
Read them or don't, your choice.
Now that they aren't being forced on us, that's true. Look at the kiddie
porn sculpture they erected in the courthouse if you want--or don't. Your
choice.
That it was being forced on you is debatable at best, and your kiddie porn
comparison is invalid. If you're going to attempt comparison, try to stay
away from day and night examples ok?
Is that the absolute best you can do? I think his is a great example to
get folks thinking about just what they might find objectionable for the
government to be endorsing.
Think about it.
It is after all your choice, of which hasn't been infringed upon.
What? Reread your sentence. My choice is not to have to look at it
at all
in that courthouse. Fortunately, that choice is constitutional.
How exactly have you been infringed upon? You haven't.
Indeed, now that the law is being enforced, my rights are no longer being
infringed.
So answer the question, exactly what "right" was infringed upon? Your
"right to not be offended?" Your "right in freedom from religion?" Such
"rights" do not exist.
Again, you show your ignorance about how the court made its decision.
Read it.
Your continual dodge and refusal to address is noted.
And your persistent ignorance of the decision is noted.
Guess you lied when you claimed familiarity with the case.
The ACLU is counter-productive to the freedoms given us.
Yeah, not forcing people to look a religious monument on the way into
court sure puts us all in chains.
*****.
It certainly is. I must admit you would react thusly to an almost perfect
restatement of your comment. :-)
Get over it. Go to church and look at that stuff there.
In addition, I'll open up a bible in the courthouse. Would that be
offensive to you? After all, it's only a book to you right?
You are free to look at whatever legal material you please.
Yes I am, as you are and without harm even with an innocent monument nearby.
Unlike you, I am not interested in foisting my beliefs on you.
And yet here you are attempting to do exactly that.
No he isn't. Having a public sphere which is neutral with regard to
religion is not foising beliefs on anyone.
IN contrast, I'm only interested in pointing out the truth, that no rights
were truly infringed upon. A question you have yet to answer.
Read the decision.
.
