The Ten Commandments to be posted in Louisiana schools, lefties go bananas

[Rebound]

23 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Not complicated. If you believe in that god, then you're not allowed to worship other gods ahead of him.  A more modern interpretation would likely be that while all religions are to be considered valid you can't place one ahead of Christianity in importance. And fair enough. 

The second is a lot harder to say because it really depends on your interpretation but basically it seems to be admonishing idolatry. Nothing wrong with that, idolatry is not a great practice and it's one we do all the time. 

Anything else?

You’re ****-footing around the fact that these are COMMANDMENTS. The Christian teacher will say it applies to the Christian god. 
 

personally I think it’s amazing that G-d made a commandment 2,000 years before Christ was born, and you say it applies to Christ.  BUT, that is why this does not belong in school.  

[Rebound]

20 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Helpful hint... the poster that you are directing this request/question will never answer it directly. 

We know why that is: Men who feel uncomfortable or threatened by homosexuality are closeted gays. 

[impartialobserver]

Just now, Rebound said:

We know why that is: Men who feel uncomfortable or threatened by homosexuality are closeted gays. 

It is the nature of internet forum posters (with very few exceptions).. if they answer you directly then they have no wiggle room in the future. If they keep skirting the question.. then they stay alive proverbially speaking. They can countering you and when pressed.. they can state (and rightfully so) that they never explicitly stated whatever. 

[User]

13 minutes ago, Rebound said:

We know why that is: Men who feel uncomfortable or threatened by homosexuality are closeted gays. 

LOL, is that why you feel the need to have to keep asserting how comfortable you are?

[CdnFox]

11 hours ago, Hodad said:

 

Those Christian religious messages (KJV) are explicitly exclusive and hostile to other religions and non-religions. They are unwelcome.

Thou shalt not kill is exclusive?

The only explicitly exclusive stuff I see around here is your constant attacks on Christianity. And there are few things currently in this world that are more exclusive than the LGBT community who demand anybody that doesn't conform to their vision of the world be canceled.

How far up your nose do you have to shove the crayon before it makes sense to you that a list of rules to live by that pretty much everyone can agree to is excluding others while a flag that puts one group above all others based on sexuality is somehow inclusive?

[Rebound]

7 minutes ago, User said:

LOL, is that why you feel the need to have to keep asserting how comfortable you are?

Why does that make you feel uncomfortable? 
 

I think that if you get the urge to give other men blowjobs, you should go right ahead and do it, as long as he’s a consenting adult. And, if you don’t feel that way, there’s no reason for you to feel threatened or offended by those who do.  You should feel comfortable around gay people.  They don’t bite. 

Edited June 25, 2024 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

32 minutes ago, Rebound said:

You’re ****-footing around the fact that these are COMMANDMENTS.

LOL - no **** footing required   That is the legend, that these were the commandments that god gave to moses because they didn't have text messaging yet.     

That's beyond weak, and i think we both know  if you're down to that kind of argument you've exhausted all your genuine complaints. 

34 minutes ago, Rebound said:

personally I think it’s amazing that G-d made a commandment 2,000 years before Christ was born, and you say it applies to Christ.

I don't recall saying it applies to christ, but seeing as god is supposed to be christ's dad then at the very least it's imporant backstory. 

Quote

 BUT, that is why this does not belong in school.  

I find it amazing that some men want to put their penis into other men's butts - but that's why that doesn't belong in school  

Look this is remarkably simple. And there's really no arguing against it. Either we include belief and symbology and ideology into schools or we don't, and if we do then it's just as fair to have the 10 commandments as it is to have the gay flag and if we don't both should be gone.  

I can see arguments for allowing it or not, but you can't make a rational argument for 'yes to one and no to the other'. 

[User]

17 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Why does that make you feel uncomfortable? 
 

I think that if you get the urge to give other men blowjobs, you should go right ahead and do it, as long as he’s a consenting adult. And, if you don’t feel that way, there’s no reason for you to feel threatened or offended by those who do.  You should feel comfortable around gay people.  They don’t bite. 

Why do you think it makes me feel uncomfortable? I said no such thing. 

Is this what you say to yourself in the mirror each morning or something?

[Hodad]

On 6/25/2024 at 12:40 AM, User said:

The LGBTQ Flag is explicitly exclusive and hostile to non LGBTQ people. As you have repeatedly demonstrated, they are not welcome if they don't behave and accept the LGBTQ flag. 

The LGBTQ Flag was specifically created for LGBTQ people and its further iterations to include very specific sub groups to the exclusion of all others. It was created with an explicit message, you literally just tried to define one. There is most definitely an effort to convert others to LGBTQ ideology, as you have demonstrated repeatedly here, that we must all accept and behave the way you demand we do. It certainly is not safe for those who accept basic biological truth. 

 

In no way, shape or form is the pride flag exclusive of non-lgbtq people. That's absurd.

I guess if you're primarily animated by bitterness and hate you might find messages of inclusion and tolerance offensive. But that nobody is fussed with that.

Edited June 26, 2024 by Hodad

[Hodad]

14 hours ago, Rebound said:

You’re ****-footing around the fact that these are COMMANDMENTS. The Christian teacher will say it applies to the Christian god. 
 

personally I think it’s amazing that G-d made a commandment 2,000 years before Christ was born, and you say it applies to Christ.  BUT, that is why this does not belong in school.  

Or the simple fact that it's coming from Christian scripture (KJV) rather than Jewish Scripture. Nobody is actually confused about what this message is.

Edited June 26, 2024 by Hodad

[User]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

In no way, shape or form is the pride flag exclusive of non-lgbtq people. That's absurd.

I am glad we agree then. In no way, shape, or form are the 10 Commandments exclusive of non-religious people. That is absurd!

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

I guess if you're primarily animated by bitterness and hate you might find messages of inclusion and tolerance offensive. But that nobody is fussed with that.

We agree again. If you are primarily animated by bigotry and hate, you might find messages about faith and not killing people offensive. 

 

[Hodad]

2 minutes ago, User said:

I am glad we agree then. In no way, shape, or form are the 10 Commandments exclusive of non-religious people. That is absurd!

We agree again. If you are primarily animated by bigotry and hate, you might find messages about faith and not killing people offensive. 

 

Lame. Do better.

[User]

Just now, Hodad said:

Lame. Do better.

This was a reflection of your own post. So, if you find it lame and want better... look at yourself. 

[Hodad]

13 minutes ago, User said:

This was a reflection of your own post. So, if you find it lame and want better... look at yourself. 

The "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument was probably very comforting in the 4th grade, but you're supposed to be an adult. 

As usual, you made a claim you can't support, and can't manage to when it together a coherent argument. 

A poster that says only the God of the Christian Bible is the true god is, by definition, exclusive. 

A symbol that represents pride in in one's own sexuality is inherently inclusive. It's a reminder that only oppressed peoples actually need, but that's a message that applies to everyone. And hat people being proud doesn't make anyone else "less than."

Edited June 26, 2024 by Hodad

[User]

5 hours ago, Hodad said:

The "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument was probably very comforting in the 4th grade, but you're supposed to be an adult. 

Adults do more than say lame when responding to someone as well... yet again, you want to elevate the discussion, look within. 

A flag that represents telling people things that are not true and singles out select groups for "pride" is by definition exclusive. 

That symbol does not represent pride for straight people, which is inherently exclusive. Even now, you exclude people saying only oppressed people need a message of pride. 

Do you support having a straight pride flag in the classroom?
 

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, Hodad said:

In no way, shape or form is the pride flag exclusive of non-lgbtq people. That's absurd.

I guess if you're primarily animated by bitterness and hate you might find messages of inclusion and tolerance offensive. But that nobody is fussed with that.

Of course it is.  It's exclusive to a lot of religions, and it sends the strong message that if you're not gay you are of less importance. Nobody's flying a hetero flag, so it puts gays on a pedestal and all others are beneath. 

Meanwhile the bible is pretty clear that king or hooker it makes no difference to jesus, they're all the same and all loved by god. 

So there you go

[impartialobserver]

I view the pride flag as being inclusive. It is not a zero sum game where if you say that you accept x group then you automatically exclude the y group. Heterosexuals do not need any overt sign of acceptance.. the evidence is everywhere. So we accept heteros and the pride flag says that we accept gays as well.. repeat as well. It is like an excel spreadsheet.. we are simply adding rows of acceptance to the bottom of the list. By saying that I accept gays... does not mean that I do not accept heteros.

 

The ten commandments.. is not necessary inclusive in and of itself. Different meaning and purpose behind it. However, the kids are not forced to read it nor be religious so pretty benign in all reality. I made up my mind that I was atheist at age 5 and even if there had been stuff like this at my school.. nothing would have changed. 

Edited June 26, 2024 by impartialobserver

[Yakuda]

On 6/24/2024 at 10:49 AM, Rebound said:

Can you please explain the meaning of the first two of the Ten Commandments?

What dont you grasp? Have no other gods before me and don't make graven images. It's straight forward. 

On 6/24/2024 at 2:57 PM, Hodad said:

Yes, it does intend to further the establishment of a religion. Period.   (See how useful those hand-waving proclamations are?)

When you announce that you want every child in every classroom, all day, every day to see a government-sponsored message about the one true god from a specific scripture and tradition (and how sculpture is evil, lol) the intention is to have children absorb that message. And you know it.

Same question to you. Would you support as constitutional state legislation that mandates that every classroom present a banner that reads "Muhammad is the one true prophet."  Or one that reads "There is no god."  Or, "Satan is king."  Would those mandates be legal or constitutional in your view?

Of course you wouldn't. Because you know that those are examples of government endorsement and indoctrination of those religions or of non-religion. You know that it's wrong for the government to tell children what religious beliefs to follow. 

But you will lie about knowing that when the endorsement is one of which you, personally, approve. Perhaps you should spend some time contemplating the ninth commandment?

No one is forced to believe in or follow the 10 commandments because they made on the wall. That's it. 

[CdnFox]

Just now, Yakuda said:

What dont you grasp? Have no other gods before me and don't make graven images. It's straight forward. 

And it was explained to him and even more detail already. He's just being petulant.

Even if you are not christian or taking it in a modern sense it still has relevance. Don't put one belief system ahead of another And don't worship fake idols or things like pop stars or the like. 

Neither precludes other religions or belief systems, and not worshiping things like money or over emotionally investing in a famous person of the day etc is always good advice

[Yakuda]

24 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And it was explained to him and even more detail already. He's just being petulant.

Even if you are not christian or taking it in a modern sense it still has relevance. Don't put one belief system ahead of another And don't worship fake idols or things like pop stars or the like. 

Neither precludes other religions or belief systems, and not worshiping things like money or over emotionally investing in a famous person of the day etc is always good advice

I know that's why I didn't spend a lot of time playing that game. They know listing the 10 commandments doesnt demand anything from anyone. 

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, Yakuda said:

What dont you grasp? Have no other gods before me and don't make graven images. It's straight forward. 

No one is forced to believe in or follow the 10 commandments because they made on the wall. That's it. 

The establishment clause doesn't include the word "force." That's not the standard. We have over two centuries of writing and jurisprudence on the establishment clause, from the authors of the constitution to contemporary SCOTUS. Government funding--and beyond that, mandatory consumption--of religious proselytizing is miles outside of what is permissible. There is simply no room and no excuse for the state to be telling children which god to believe in. Right out.

I noticed that you dodged all questions and substantive argument in favor of hand waving. You don't have a leg to stand on, and you know it. You just want what you want.

[Rebound]

12 hours ago, Hodad said:

Or the simple fact that it's coming from Christian scripture (KJV) rather than Jewish Scripture. Nobody is actually confused about what this message is.

The Christian Bibles (all flavors) acknowledge that the Ten Commandments were given by G-d to Moses, thousands of years before Christ was born, right? So it’s odd that they think G-d had Jesus i mind, 2,000 years ahead of time. 

[Hodad]

35 minutes ago, Rebound said:

The Christian Bibles (all flavors) acknowledge that the Ten Commandments were given by G-d to Moses, thousands of years before Christ was born, right? So it’s odd that they think G-d had Jesus i mind, 2,000 years ahead of time. 

Eh, in a being with dissociative personality disorder, it's hard to know what one personality knows about the others, and omnipotence complicates things. 

 

Edited June 26, 2024 by Hodad

[Yakuda]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

The establishment clause doesn't include the word "force." That's not the standard. We have over two centuries of writing and jurisprudence on the establishment clause, from the authors of the constitution to contemporary SCOTUS. Government funding--and beyond that, mandatory consumption--of religious proselytizing is miles outside of what is permissible. There is simply no room and no excuse for the state to be telling children which god to believe in. Right out.

I noticed that you dodged all questions and substantive argument in favor of hand waving. You don't have a leg to stand on, and you know it. You just want what you want.

No one is told what to believe in. You people rail against the commandments but putting a gay flag up doesn't constitute mandatory consumption. I mean I try to take people like you seriously, i really do, but talking to your ilk is like talking philosophy with my dog. 

Questions about bs are just questions about bs.  

[Hodad]

4 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

No one is told what to believe in.

That's a lie. 
"I AM the LORD thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Quote

You people rail against the commandments but putting a gay flag up doesn't constitute mandatory consumption. I mean I try to take people like you seriously, i really do, but talking to your ilk is like talking philosophy with my dog. 

Questions about bs are just questions about bs.  

That's a straw man. Never have I--nor anyone else to my knowledge--proposed that displayed flags aren't consumed. They are. But the fact is that they don't symbolize anything exclusive--and more importantly do not communicate anything prohibited by the Constitution.