I think Pol Pot is different...

indicates a difference.

BUT the difference is only degree. It's all intolerance, narrow mindedness and stupidity.

 

"You are right, SJ - both Pol Pot and your Bible thumping pals ignored the law for their own purposes, just like you continue to ignore this issue."

I'm dancing circles around you, and you don't even know it.   You do see how this all began, don't you?  Trying to lump religion and religious people all into one category... 'different not in kind but in degree...'

"but you lie your way around the issue in order to cast blame on those who wish to uphold the law, and then mutter nonsense about Pol Pot to avoid discussing your obscene positition."

You missed a very critical point in regards to that court case:  It was overturned.   You also ignore the type of defense that I am launching in regards to the LaCrosse court case.  I've said this to Copernicus, too.  You atheists just don't get it.  A great deal of people representing MY position care very little about 'furthering religion' by having religious decorations or whatever on public land.  That you would even think that the mere presence of such statutes constitutes some sort of religious activism is laughable.  I suppose you're down with Newdow trying to get "In God we Trust" off of the dollar?

You see, my position has been very plain:  If you don't like something in your local community, work within your local community to make the change.  DO NOT resort to a tactic that goes beyond your local community and effectively dictates to the WHOLE country.  16 whiners in LaCrosse shouldn't be able to remove the right of a municipality ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY to be able to sell property.  Find a solution that doesn't require tyrannical measures.  You cut off your nose to spite your face.  Some day it will come back to bite you in the a$$.

A good example of how this sort of thing is out of hand is in the Kilo case.  The SC ruled that a municipality could transfer property from one private entity to another private entity (doesn't THAT smack of communistic re-distribution?).   And all the city has to do is show that it will some how be for the common good.  The precedent set in the case is just mind-boggling.  I hope the folks trying to persuade the cities having the court justice's homes in them to transfer the judges property over to them 'for the common good' actually pan out.  Already, though, there are various cities going out and trying to make use of that SC precedent.

Now, people in my position will oppose both the Kilo case and this La Crosse case, because they both lay the foundation for tyranny.  Both deviate from the actual words of the Constitution.  Both rely on the subjective interpretation of the justices making the decision and other justices behaving similarly, earlier.

You don't need to be religious at all to be on my side of the fence.

"I am glad I am protected from you theocrats - you can bash your Bible all you want, just don't try to bash me over the head with it."

I have trouble seeing how the 10 Commandments statute in Lacrosse is in anyway bashing you over the head.

I suppose you're down with Newdow trying to get "In God we Trust" off of the dollar?

Actually, yes, but only when we get the Pledge restored to its pre-McCarthyism status   .

And of course, we should believe everything the higher courts tell us.

Point taken.

I'm dancing circles around you, and you don't even know it.

It's hard to tell what you are doing, SJ, since you don't seem to see that although there were ramifications from the LaCrosse case that were unwanted by either side, the case had to be fought to prevent circumvention of the constitution by the LaCrosse holy rollers - unfortunately, it looks like the appeal judge rolled with them   .

...Trying to lump religion and religious people all into one category

Sorry, SJ, I know you would NEVER lump Atheism and people who don't believe in God all into one category  

I have trouble seeing how the 10 Commandments statute in Lacrosse is in anyway bashing you over the head.

...and therein lies the problem, SJ. You just hit the nail squarely on the head.

I have trouble seeing how the 10 Commandments statute in Lacrosse is in anyway bashing you over the head.

I have been thinking more about this statement, and I really think this gets to the core of the issue we are discussing. Believers like you don't realize that the rest of us don't want to hear or know about your beliefs, and you don't consider for a second that your God doesn't interest us in the slightest.

We are offended by your signs, statues and proclaimations because they imply that we are not living our lives the right way, because the right way to live involves believing in your mythical Jesus. We certainly don't want to pay taxes to proclaim your ridiculous message, although you, SJ, seem to think that we should do so and shut up about it so we don't cause you any trouble. You are like the blind racist, sexist or homophobe - the blind type is the most dangerous because he always thinks that the problem is someone else and never with himself.

Your statement, SJ, shows that you are incapable of seeing that the problem, in fact, lies with you and others like you - or perhaps it's just a bunch of Atheists being "uppity", and we should get to the back of the bus.

"I have been thinking more about this statement, and I really think this gets to the core of the issue we are discussing."

Yes, I think it does.

"Believers like you don't realize that the rest of us don't want to hear or know about your beliefs, and you don't consider for a second that your God doesn't interest us in the slightest."

Actually, I'm well aware of that.  You show your complete lack of interest in my God every day you show up to debate on my forum.  

"We are offended by your signs, statues and proclaimations because they imply that we are not living our lives the right way, because the right way to live involves believing in your mythical Jesus."

So..... you would be in favor of churches not being allowed to put up their signs, their statues, their crosses, etc.  Furthermore, since many churches choose to build themselves in a way that reflects their religion- tall triangles representing the Trinity, for example, you think that believers ought to buy buildings, keep them completely non-descript on the outside, and make them only look like other buildings.  Is that right?

"We certainly don't want to pay taxes to proclaim your ridiculous message, although you, SJ, seem to think that we should do so and shut up about it so we don't cause you any trouble."

I have made my point explicitly clear.  Your failure to comprehend it shows your own intolerance and self-centeredness.  I don't particularly care what happens in any local community, provided that people follow agreed upon legislation.   I don't think it is right- ever- for a small group of people in one tiny enclave of the country- to be able to dictate their will on everyone else by only winning the agreement of 1, 2, or 5 justices.  I refuse to see America drift further into an oligarchy, and if I were an atheist still I'd feel the same way.  

Now in that paragraph I didn't say anything about religion or my religious views.  Can you see past your preconceptions to recognize that?

"Your statement, SJ, shows that you are incapable of seeing that the problem, in fact, lies with you and others like you - or perhaps it's just a bunch of Atheists being "uppity", and we should get to the back of the bus."

That is not at all close to being the truth.  Although you're right, I don't particularly care if the mere sight and presence of certain religious objects cause you an offense.  You don't have any constitutional protection against being offended.  No one is making you move to the back of any bus.  If something offends you in the public sphere, you've got 2 legitimate options.  1.  Change people's minds and get legislation to reflect your values.  2.  Grow a skin.  The third option is the oligarchy:  convince a handful of judges to see the law your way, the legislative will of the people be d--ned.

It isn't YOUR tax money funding the duly elected officials of LaCrosse.  What right do YOU have to be offended by anything going on in this local community.  Conversely, what right do a small handful of offended people have in LaCrosse to dictate to the entire country what they should or should not display.  Or, do you live in LaCrosse?

Does the mere presence of a symbol a thousand miles away from you give you offense?

Give me a break.

"You can make your Church building whatever way you want and put whatever signs, statues and crosses you like around it - just don't put it on land owned by the taxpayer."

Really?  That wasn't what you just said.  Look again:

We are offended by your signs, statues and proclaimations because they imply that we are not living our lives the right way, because the right way to live involves believing in your mythical Jesus. We certainly don't want to pay taxes to proclaim your ridiculous message, although you, SJ, seem to think that we should do so and shut up about it so we don't cause you any trouble.

There is no such distinction made in this paragraph.  You have two different ideas.  On the one hand you are offended, on the other hand besides your offense you don't want it on taxpayer owned land.  So, are you offended by the signs, statutes, and proclamations 'because they imply that you are not living your lives' the right way, or not?

In the LaCrosse case, the land was not owned by the taxpayer, was it?    Neither were some of the other examples given in the court decision as a precedent for a way to remove the 'constitutional violation.'

"You rant about oligarchy,"

Its not a rant.  Its my position.

"Legislation (at least in this case) already does reflect my values, SJ, but legislation must be enforced when someone attempts to circumvent it. It is those who circumvent it who are to blame for increasing oligarchy."

No, actually legislation does not.  Legislation is the laws that are passed by the people.  What you are talking about is the interpretation of various courts.  I know that court judgments are treated as law, but that doesn't mean that they are legislation.  The courts decided that the 14th amendment made the reference in the 1st Amendment of 'congress' to apply to ALL governmental entities.  The people were not consulted.  There is no legislation to ratify what is essentially a de facto insertion of a brand new amendment into the constitution.  If the people had been invited to decide that matter, that would be one thing- and I doubt that they would have agreed to it.  However, if the people were allowed to re-visit it now, having seen how it has been abused- I am pretty sure they would reject it.

""Does the mere presence of a symbol a thousand miles away from you give you offense?""

"Are you saying you only care about something if it directly affects you in your own back yard? I have a rather more broad view of the world that that, SJ."

You can care about things elsewhere, but that doesn't mean you have a right to get involved in those affairs or the right to be offended by them.   I wonder how difficult life must be for you:  you are completely surrounded by all sorts of "signs, statues and proclaimations" that you know of, plus there are hundreds of thousands of others that you don't know about, but you know they are there.  And in Europe, too!  What are you going to do about the crosses condemning you in Europe?  How do you sleep at night?

Or, is there some strange mystical switch that you throw so that a 10 Commandments statue on private land does not unnerve you one bit but the very same statue on 'public' land suddenly causes you mental anguish?

You need to understand further that you may agree with the way the SC has interpreted the constitution in your favor, deriving de facto 'legislation' that you approve, but if that's the way we are going to do things in our society you'll eventually come to regret it big time.  Some day, the SC will do something you won't like, and you'll just be stuck, won't you?  

You think I'm not thinking broad enough?  I'm concerned about the ultimate direction of our country:  it currently only has a semblance of a democracy- will we lose even that?  That's pretty broad- all you can think about it is a stupid measly religious statue here and there that you don't even know about until someone tells you.

I submit to you again the Kilo case, in which the SC has managed to allow one city on the eastern seaboard to take the property from one private entity and giving it to another.  Its the same thing and the same sort of problem.  Now, because the SC has declared it, no private property is safe at all from the government, ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY.  Because in one case it concerns displays of religion, you approve of doing business that way.  I would be willing to bet that you don't approve of the SC's interpretation ('legislation') that a city can take any property it wants and give it to another private entity if it can invent a plausible public use justification.  But its the same thing.

That is what I mean about cutting off your nose in order to spite your face.  That is why I object to the strategies employed by various organizations:  they are so eager to get their way now they're willing to set the stage for tyranny later.  While its tyranny that they approve of, its ok.  There can be no assurance it will remain that way.