Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Do The Ten Commandments violate freedom of speech?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Do The Ten Commandments violate freedom of speech?

    Originally posted by reality View Post
    Not a deity but an angel with freewill (a demon)
    >Initially yes.
    -In the early lore, Jahve commanded Lucifer. When bad/evil deeds needed to be done, Jahve ordered Lucifer to destroy.

    Later on, when the issues of Monotheistic faith became clear to the clergy, Lucifer became separated from the initial role of being the destroyer, maul of god.. into Nemesis.
    -Even now, it seems that many christian sects view Satan/Luficer a very powerful entity, with the powers of a deity.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #47
      Re: Do The Ten Commandments violate freedom of speech?

      Originally posted by reality View Post
      1) no they are not. they are two entirely separate groups. the atheists are attacking it on basis of establishment of ANY religion with public mandates and funds. The Satanists WERE GOING TO petition simply for similar treatment but there is a moratorium on any further monuments thanks to the atheists.
      As it should be.. This way the Christian based statute stays / no nonsense about Satanic stuff is given footing in the square. The only reason they came in, was the commandments couldn't be removed btw. Not one and the same, just one subservient of another. Cute sort of attention seeking.

      2)We have never been founded on "judeo Christian principles" the nation was merely founded by people professing their religion as "judeo Christian" while most were deists. And it doesn't change the law. AND we never followed the 10 commandments at all. Not even a little bit. What with the killing and the swearing by gods name. etc.
      Doesn't matter. The first part is like saying Christ didn't reform Judaism ; only a man preaching Christian doctrine and professing. It hasn't flown with the courts thus far.

      3)So you're saying the jews DO participate in human sacrifice and I'd know that if I was a jew? You know about it HOW miss catholic USA? *prepares to quote godwin's law*
      No i was just saying your not being a Jew should not be a hurdle to your being sacrificed. (I mean that line in jest of course)

      4) indeed nothing the lower court says will be binding as it will get challenged either way.
      Yup, and what the high court says, or refuses to head when the lower courts bitch slap the atheists, will be.

      What analogy?
      Exactly! (Let's excuse your confusion above, asking for clarification etc).

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #48
        Re: Do The Ten Commandments violate freedom of speech?

        Originally posted by Fennica View Post
        -But I do see that ye are utterly hateful person, and that I should not engage ye again.
        Thank you.

        I could dispute just about everything i wanted to in that post...but you can have it all, leave the entirety of it unchallenged, and that way you get the last word. See how that works? (I knew it'd come full circle of Christians being the hateful ones, lol).

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #49
          Re: Do The Ten Commandments violate freedom of speech?

          Btw as for who you report posts to, anyone who is a staff member:

          Show Groups - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

          Chose whom you want. Or just hit the report button.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #50
            Re: Do The Ten Commandments violate freedom of speech?

            Originally posted by Fennica View Post
            >Translator gives... 11 different yet synonymic examples.
            (I am not sure how thick must a person be to assume that I would have english as a first language.
            -My kin speaks ancient language, far older and vastly different than yer Germanic language.)

            REALLY? I question your command of English and you have to lead off with an insult? Are you serious?

            BTW, English is not germanic. It is pan-linguistic, but mostly rooted in Latin. As to your "ancient language," (and to quote Steve Martin), "...well EXCUUUUUUUSSSSE ME!" I thought you were just being pretentious with those "thees" and "ye's" ... but apparently you're just being, well, pretentious.


            >This is the reason why Flying Spaghetti Monster was invented.
            -Are ye really claiming that there cannot be "the nones", and/or atheists in the U.S. at all?
            Ahm ... squeeze me?

            What on earth are you talking about (and what is that little crust forming at the corners of your mouth)? Dude, get a grip: SHOW ME where I said anything at all relating to "cannot be ... atheists in the U.S. at all!" Please show me (although I already see you cannot). In fact, I relish atheists coming in here (and in the U.S.) showing us their faith. Seriously, holmes, you're quite entertaining when you just make stuff up.


            >Lets see how open that would be, then.
            -Sharia Laws standing next to biblical Ten Commandments. Under the shade of a Pylon where laws of Isis stand. Would make court-houses look amusing.
            We actually said in the "Public square" and no one mentioned the "court house" until you dredged it up. BUT whatever: IT's your fantasy, dream it as big as you want.

            But, yes, that is what I'm saying.

            But that is indeed the other possibility, to have all faiths equal footing and equal rights to public property.
            -I think many would like that.
            SO you agree with me? What was all that crap in the previous paragraph (or attempt thereat)??? You just type because you like the sound of your keyboard?

            DO get over yourself once.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #51
              Re: Do The Ten Commandments violate freedom of speech?

              Originally posted by Chloe View Post
              No it doesn't...it just shows you are grasping at straws as per usual. We don't recognize every little thing on the planet / country, otherwise we would have time / space for anything.

              You may however see worshiping Tom Cruise as significant, or whatever it is they do ; the rest of us don't. Suck it up.



              I don't care what you want. Hasn't that dawned on you every time i have said liberals will keep winning elections until you recognize social values in GOP candidates. I could care less however much you want a woman to have the right an abortion, it is what matters and is important to me that i care about.

              And you are not giving me consequences of having Christ in the public square. You are saying "look, i can play the inferiority card by showing that other religions can also be used in the square, made up or otherwise"...if i could find an irreligious analogy for your perversions i would ; but for now we'll have to just agree that you're getting up on the cross, for a while.
              1) if you put one in the public square with the public funds and the public mandate (as opposed to private) you must allow all. otherwise you violate establishment. You're the one causing the problem maam.
              2) As I have stated I am not a scientologist nor do I think that is anything but a con game cult. The government however disagrees and it is a fully protected "religion" just like Catholicism which is LIKEWISE a con game cult (albeit of a slightly more legitimate nature since it worships an actual deity.. well what I believe to be an actual deity. You know what I mean. the wrong way but hey you can't win them all.)
              3)The italicized: its a damn good thing I don't depend on what "the rest of us" think for my rights then eh?
              4) The bolded: I absolutely do not have to. You are endorsing a violation of the constitution. YOU suck it up.

              Its quite clear that you have no regard for anyone but yourself. I'm not disputing that. (sidebar: quite the opposite of what Christ exhorts from you by the way) I was merely mentioning that it is not I that is calling for religion in the public square with the public funds and the public mandate but you, and more specifically that I am not a scientologist as you proclaimed me to be. If you're going to be insulting you could at least bother to use something factual. I know you're capable of being much more cutting and witty than that.
              Yes I am giving you consequences of religion with the public funds on the public square with the public mandate. The consequences are ALL or NOTHING. Personally I prefer nothing, IE funds and mandate. The square is fine so long as it is allowed to be shared by those that wish to use it and they use private funds and it isn't ordered by the government.
              Odd that everytime one of them touches the abortion rail they lose eh? Also we weren't talking about abortion and it is not germane to the topic. I really should not have to remind YOU of that. Though if you'd like to open that up for discussion we certainly can. You're the mod aint ya?

              OOOO my perversions eh? See NOW you're being your usual charming and witty self. You scared me for a moment there I thought we'd lost you

              Up on the cross: You mean I'm saving you from your own mistakes even though you don't deserve it? Well that's mighty white of you to say Chloe. You're making me blush! Though I wouldn't compare myself to the literal messiah, nor would I compare others, as that milady is blasphemous heresy. WHOOPS! Off to confession you go I guess.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #52
                Re: Do The Ten Commandments violate freedom of speech?

                Originally posted by Chloe View Post
                Originally posted by Fennica View Post
                -But I do see that ye are utterly hateful person, and that I should not engage ye again.

                Thank you.

                I could dispute just about everything i wanted to in that post...but you can have it all, leave the entirety of it unchallenged, and that way you get the last word. See how that works? (I knew it'd come full circle of Christians being the hateful ones, lol).
                Dang... how did you pull that off?

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #53
                  Re: Do The Ten Commandments violate freedom of speech?

                  Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                  Snarling? Is English really your primary language? I see no snarling: What I see is an exasperated reaction to more of the same nonsense we see every day. Our Constitution guarantees a freedom of religion, not a freedom from religion as some atheists seem to believe.

                  Further, I would advocate we kick NONE of the religions from teh public square: Let 'em ALL have a booth and hand out freebies. The public can decide and make their own decisions. Proscribing any religion, like Chloe said, should be booted out of ... no LAUGHED out of ... the courts.
                  Sure that's an option so long as they a) use private funds b) are not mandated to be there by the government (as in required to set up a booth cake or death style) c) share the public square with others who wish to use it and don't harass folks or otherwise break the law (IE would you like to hear about tom cruise? No thank you. Ok have a nice day.)

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #54
                    Re: Do The Ten Commandments violate freedom of speech?

                    Originally posted by Chloe View Post
                    Yes, it is upheld, given that the religious freedoms of expressing Judea-Christian faith is still upheld in the public square. Irregardless of what the inferior may or do say.

                    Throwing a fit, lol...you gotta love the hysterics who cry foul when their paddy / tantrum comes to an end.



                    You didn't bold anything...maybe i was wrong, maybe you are illiterate rather than just not very bi-lingual. Spill the question out.

                    As for high-pedestal as you worded it, i don't need to claim superiority over anything or anyone like you, in fact, if you feel i am inferior to you, go ahead and preach it for all i care.





                    It is me doing the pleading, is it? I could have sworn you were the one whining.

                    Religious symbols have no place in the square but conveniently my religion continues to have a historical relevance in the founding of the nation. So it stays. End of.
                    The two bolded statements seem to be completely inconsistent. First you call non-Christians inferior then you say you don't have a superiority complex about your religion. Cmon chole. Shit's weak

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #55
                      Re: Do The Ten Commandments violate freedom of speech?

                      Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                      There are 2 ways to go on that one.

                      One is to ban ANY religious displays. That'd be a real shame, as many are beautiful things to behold.

                      The other is to allow equal access to ANY religious displays. Which means we can see the beautiful things, but have to put up with atheist displays as well as Satanist displays, and provide them all equal access.

                      Don't think that there's a reasonable position that would allow for anything in between.

                      Given how challenging and time consuming option #2 is, I can see where many municipalities go with option #1, and leave it at that.

                      Really too bad.
                      just move them to private lands. FIFY

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #56
                        Re: Do The Ten Commandments violate freedom of speech?

                        Originally posted by reality View Post
                        1) if you put one in the public square with the public funds and the public mandate (as opposed to private) you must allow all. otherwise you violate establishment. You're the one causing the problem maam.
                        Nope...you may say it as often as you like, it just simply is not true. And not the case in this instance anyway.

                        2) As I have stated I am not a scientologist nor do I think that is anything but a con game cult. The government however disagrees and it is a fully protected "religion" just like Catholicism which is LIKEWISE a con game cult (albeit of a slightly more legitimate nature since it worships an actual deity.. well what I believe to be an actual deity. You know what I mean. the wrong way but hey you can't win them all.)
                        I know you are not a Scientologist and i was saying in the sense of "whomever Scientologists worship", not you as one.

                        3)The italicized: its a damn good thing I don't depend on what "the rest of us" think for my rights then eh?
                        Everything is italicized when you quote it unfortunately but yes, good job indeed...same way the courts don't care whether you recognize what they think / interpret of your rights, either. They just are the authority and if you refuse to comply, you end up paying the cost / burden of it.

                        4) The bolded: I absolutely do not have to. You are endorsing a violation of the constitution. YOU suck it up.
                        You are the one whining it needs to go from the public square, not me, i am perfectly content and fine with it where it is.

                        Its quite clear that you have no regard for anyone but yourself.
                        I never said that...i said i don't care what you want. I can understand some who don't understand English but you should be able to. Or are you just insinuating i am selfish? Not to hurt your feelings even more but there are those i care about. (Just not you...but i'll say you too, if it hurts?)

                        I'm not disputing that. (sidebar: quite the opposite of what Christ exhorts from you by the way) I was merely mentioning that it is not I that is calling for religion in the public square with the public funds and the public mandate but you, and more specifically that I am not a scientologist as you proclaimed me to be. If you're going to be insulting you could at least bother to use something factual. I know you're capable of being much more cutting and witty than that.
                        Sorry, i had to dumb it down some for this thread given...well, you can read the rest. I didn't mean to make you feel butt sore about it!

                        Yes I am giving you consequences of religion with the public funds on the public square with the public mandate. The consequences are ALL or NOTHING. Personally I prefer nothing, IE funds and mandate. The square is fine so long as it is allowed to be shared by those that wish to use it and they use private funds and it isn't ordered by the government.
                        Odd that everytime one of them touches the abortion rail they lose eh? Also we weren't talking about abortion and it is not germane to the topic. I really should not have to remind YOU of that. Though if you'd like to open that up for discussion we certainly can. You're the mod aint ya?
                        Ahh...there's the self-righteous Reality i was waiting for to lecture me on the topic...and yes, some may lose, most who win are pro life (want religion in the public square for your thread topic purposes :p) and if they lose because people like you refuse to get in line i had the added joy of coming on here to revel in your whining about "DA GUBBEMINT" and various liberal big government / liberal politicians getting in power. Kind of win-win for me.

                        OOOO my perversions eh? See NOW you're being your usual charming and witty self. You scared me for a moment there I thought we'd lost you
                        You too for a bit...see how much fun this is and how much fun we have doing it? That reminds me, i still owe you some replies on the NHS / social services thread which went quiet for the Christmas break.

                        Up on the cross: You mean I'm saving you from your own mistakes even though you don't deserve it? Well that's mighty white of you to say Chloe. You're making me blush! Though I wouldn't compare myself to the literal messiah, nor would I compare others, as that milady is blasphemous heresy. WHOOPS! Off to confession you go I guess.
                        Both of us together? You sin on Saturday for what you go to church for on Sunday, right?

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #57
                          Re: Do The Ten Commandments violate freedom of speech?

                          Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                          [/I]REALLY? I question your command of English and you have to lead off with an insult? Are you serious?
                          >No.
                          The upper right states the place of origin. Ye have previous knowledge about my origins.

                          BTW, English is not germanic. It is pan-linguistic, but mostly rooted in Latin. As to your "ancient language," (and to quote Steve Martin), "...well EXCUUUUUUUSSSSE ME!" I thought you were just being pretentious with those "thees" and "ye's" ... but apparently you're just being, well, pretentious.
                          >Modern era english has indeed influence from Normanns who themselves spoke both Frankish dialects and Germanic Norse. Britain at the time of Norman invasion had numerous dialects, both Germanic Norse and older Gaelic.
                          -Closest which one can say; it's Germanic.
                          (while I fully admit that it's a broad brush, this thread is not about languages)

                          Ahm ... squeeze me?

                          What on earth are you talking about (and what is that little crust forming at the corners of your mouth)? Dude, get a grip: SHOW ME where I said anything at all relating to "cannot be ... atheists in the U.S. at all!" Please show me (although I already see you cannot). In fact, I relish atheists coming in here (and in the U.S.) showing us their faith. Seriously, holmes, you're quite entertaining when you just make stuff up.
                          >"Freedom of religion is not Freedom FROM religion."
                          -That assertion is repeated by opponents of atheists in the U.S.
                          I wanted to know weather ye agree with that, as yer post indicated it. I asked.
                          (There clearly was a `?´ mark.... ah, yes.. ye ignore that sign.)

                          Our Constitution guarantees a freedom of religion, not a freedom from religion as some atheists seem to believe.
                          >Yer words.
                          We actually said in the "Public square" and no one mentioned the "court house" until you dredged it up. BUT whatever: IT's your fantasy, dream it as big as you want.
                          >Indeed. I assumed that ye have followed these debates on the monuments in the U.S.
                          -One of the more famous was ten commandments in front of the Courthouse. It sparked a hot debate weather all manner of religious symbols would then be allowed.

                          But, yes, that is what I'm saying.
                          >Thank ye, a good response.
                          -I can relate to yer stance.

                          SO you agree with me? What was all that crap in the previous paragraph (or attempt thereat)??? You just type because you like the sound of your keyboard?

                          DO get over yourself once.
                          >I can agree with ye, it's really not that big of a deal.
                          -But I will confront yer loud-mouthing.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #58
                            Re: Do The Ten Commandments violate freedom of speech?

                            Originally posted by tsquare View Post
                            Why yes, you would.

                            4,000 years later, after amassing billions of believers.
                            actually under us law you don't need time or billions of believers. otherwise scientology and the church of the jedi, not to mention Mormonism etc would not be religions protected under the law and would instead be cults like the branch dravidians. You need a certain number of people to put on their Census form whatever you call yourselves amongst other things. I suggest you google it.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #59
                              Re: Do The Ten Commandments violate freedom of speech?

                              Originally posted by reality View Post
                              The two bolded statements seem to be completely inconsistent. First you call non-Christians inferior then you say you don't have a superiority complex about your religion. Cmon chole. Shit's weak
                              I'm glad you brought that post up as i had promised to ignore Fennica and give him the last word but this is another example of failure to understand English...i expected better from you (shit is weak as you would say).

                              I never said it in the plurality of all non Christians, i was talking about Fennica, and i was not saying i am superior to him. I was saying he is inferior [to everyone]..see the difference? And you'd have to be to intentionally misconstrue what someone tells you dozens of times, ignore it, and then claim no-one is answering your questions. I can understand if you don't agree with it but the constant "answer my questions" which everyone already has is more than tiresome.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #60
                                Re: Do The Ten Commandments violate freedom of speech?

                                Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                                Dang... how did you pull that off?
                                By all accounts, i think it boiled down to the fact i spoke in (wait for it)..English, that was the final nail in the coffin for him. (Yeah, i know...)

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X