Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Javaman
I think that's disingenuous, Angakuk. Those of us that don't belong to an Abrahamic faith don't want to promote our own beliefs, we just don't want others doing so with our tax money. Probably best suited for another thread (or none at all) but posting the 10 Commandments seems odd given the different ones available (which ones and whose denomination do you choose) and, more importantly, given that every branch of Christianity that I know of believes Jesus' sacrifice absolved them from following those same commandments.
Also, your #2 is actually true while #1 is demonstrably false.
|
There you go again. You are practically a walking advertisement for black & white thinking.
Point 1. Most, if not all, of the displays in question were donated, not provided for by public funds.
Point 2. Insisting on the removal of those displays which meet the Supreme Court's conditions is an act of advocacy on behalf of a particular belief. That belief being that any display of or reference to the 10 Commandments is
de facto an endorsement of a religious belief. Effectively, you are conceding that the display of the 10 Commandments necessarily means what those who advocate position #1 intend it to mean.
Point 3. I agree that there is a delicious irony in the preoccupation displayed, by a certain variety of Christian, for the public display of the 10 Commandments. But, as you say, that discussion probably belongs in another thread.
Point 4. While I agree that #1 is false, you are going to have to work harder to demonstrate to me that #2 is true. It's a classic example of a bifurcation fallacy. It is not necessarily the case that either position is true. Unless, of course, you are addicted to thinking exclusively in black & white terms. Then there are always
only two options and one must be true and the other false.