• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Buying the 'big lie'

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Pfft. First off, it starts talking about whackjob Judge Moore and his "spectacular 5,300-pound monument of the 10 Commandments". The commentary then says:
You see, Judge Thompson had determined that the monument violated the First Amendment's "Establishment Clause," which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
"Congress shall make no law." Thompson never did explain how a granite display of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse constituted Congress "making a law."
The writer of the article is either ignorant (hopefully) or lying to give cause to his position (probably). Judge Moore's monument was moved because Judge Moore refused to allow any other religious iconography in the rotunda. He purposefully and vocally denounced allowance of other religions and would only allow the 10 Commandments there and that is promotion of the government of one religion over another. That, is illegal. That is also not mentioned in the article because it sure wouldn't make a good argument.

He goes on to ramble:
But that didn't matter. Somehow, though the vast majority of Americans are repulsed by it, a virulent and increasingly pervasive legal theory of the First Amendment holds that Christmas manger scenes must be eliminated from public places, Bibles thrown out of public school libraries, commencement exercises conducted without a prayer, and that kids must refrain from saying "Merry Christmas" at school.
Really? I call BS again. The decision by the US Supreme Court of Elewski vs. Syracuse stayed the allowance of a creche on public grounds.

The author can't deciminate his proselyzation from the government's role.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Oh, one more since this is amusing:
Say what? "… whether our Constitution"? "… how it fits"? What happened to the Constitution being the "supreme law of the land"?
I wonder if the author believes that the Constitution should apply to the prisoners at Gitmo then or not.

Oh, and then there's this gem:
Whoa, talk about a fiery faith! With shepherds like this, no wonder the 1960s flock was scattered and befuddled. No wonder Eastern and cultic religious movements, from Transcendental Meditation to Hare Krishna, flourished and proliferated. And no wonder government, especially the judiciary, became intoxicated with the idea that it could create a more perfect world by enlarging its scope and power.
So, the author's mythology is the only correct one. LOL

And then this one:
The Bible and the 10 Commandments haven't changed
Sure they have. Someone hasn't taken a biblical studies course ever apparently to justify that lie. The Bible has been translated, re-translated, had meanings change, inserted, and altered over its history.

Say it enough times, and people come to believe it.
Yeah, like mythology. Or "activist judge". :roll:

The "living" quality of any contract, including the Constitution, is its integrity – its unchanging nature.
He mentioned amendments, then promptly forgot about 'em.

And did you know presidents aren't compelled to obey unlawful Supreme Court decisions? Some presidents, including Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, have actually defied Supreme Court orders
Yeah, good old Andrew Jackson and all the deaths he caused to the Cherokees. That's a swell example.

Similarly, in making any reference to God or biblical principles off-limits for those we've entrusted with running this nation's government and charting its future course, do you realize what we're doing?
We're deluding ourselves into believing there is some neutral ground between good and evil, and that this is where the government is supposed to be. But such a "neutral ground," if such can even be said to exist, is in itself evil. In fact, it's only people who don't truly believe in God that can even believe it's possible to be neutral.
Assuming to believe that good and evil can only be defined in the realms of mythological text is amusing.
What we're witnessing before our very eyes, in our own lifetime, is the official, ever-so-gradual "squeezing out" of everything that's really precious to America.
Hyperbole much?
 
Top Bottom