Since: Jun 13

Jackson, TN

#23 Jul 2, 2013
I personally have no problem with the 10 commandments being on display, but only if it was on display as a historical cultural curiosity to remind us of our species' primitive attempts at establishing some sort of moral behavior guidelines.
We as a species are nowhere near that point in history when our intellectual evolution is freed from superstitious belief and fear.
anti atheist

Pearl, MS

#24 Jul 2, 2013
WhysGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not Auntie Theist's problem alone.
What part of "home and private property" includes a public courthouse, in your opinion?
The big theme which you're unaware of, is dominant group privilege. In this case, Christian privilege. Since there are so many of them, there are fewer people to stand up to them, and everything they do, they assume is just fine and dandy.
It's quite easy to reach a consensus if you all drink the same kool-aid, so to speak. The atheist foundations' biggest accomplishment is not putting up a structure, it is bringing to the attention of mass media the asymmetry and bias of Christian privilege having spilled over into government affairs.
my home is my home and it is private property.

aunties problem and maybe yours is that of the two dipslays the ten commandments will draw more attention while the atheists display will be frowned upon. and there is the rub with you guys.

you have the right to display it but it gathers no attention. seems like a hell of a waste of fine granite or marble to us.

there is is a name for that. it is called chip on my shoulder

Since: Jun 13

Jackson, TN

#25 Jul 2, 2013
You think a little bit of granite/marble is a waste?

Take a step back from your little nook and think about how atheists might feel about every single church.
loverboy 2

Oakland, TN

#26 Jul 2, 2013
WhysGuy wrote:
You think a little bit of granite/marble is a waste?
Take a step back from your little nook and think about how atheists might feel about every single church.
and now that you guys are building monuments, the waste will increase, and most churches in america are not built of granite and marble. that is reserved for our federal and state governments.

feel any better now?
Auntie Theist

United States

#27 Jul 2, 2013
loverboy 2 wrote:
<quoted text>
and now that you guys are building monuments, the waste will increase, and most churches in america are not built of granite and marble. that is reserved for our federal and state governments.
feel any better now?
I thought I'd pointed out that I disagree with the policy, but in this case they were left with no choice as the County agreed to remove the 10 commandments but could not afford to.
I do not feel better - I think there should be no symbols of any group outside (or inside) a courthouse.
Why do Christians insist on placing the ridiculous 10 commandments there? Is there a law against worshiping another god? Do you think it right that the first thing you see as you arrive at a courthouse is "thou shalt have no other god before me?" Forget the atheists, how does that make a Hindu feel who has just created a new software program for Apple? How does it make a Muslim feel who has just beaten the crap out of one of his wives?
loverboy 2

Oakland, TN

#28 Jul 2, 2013
Auntie Theist wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought I'd pointed out that I disagree with the policy, but in this case they were left with no choice as the County agreed to remove the 10 commandments but could not afford to.
I do not feel better - I think there should be no symbols of any group outside (or inside) a courthouse.
Why do Christians insist on placing the ridiculous 10 commandments there? Is there a law against worshiping another god? Do you think it right that the first thing you see as you arrive at a courthouse is "thou shalt have no other god before me?" Forget the atheists, how does that make a Hindu feel who has just created a new software program for Apple? How does it make a Muslim feel who has just beaten the crap out of one of his wives?
lets get back to anti atheist point about the wording in the treaty of tripoli. there is no conclusive evidence that the wording about the united states not being fouded a christian nation even appeared in the treaty as you guys argue so many times.

in fact the whole treaty was redone and signed by jefferson on july 4 1805 and it positively does not contain any such wording,

anti was right is the assesment of our leaders. you atheists are wrong to continue to use the treaty as a propoganda tool.
False Religion

Jackson, TN

#29 Jul 2, 2013
The Treaty of Tripoli was the first treaty concluded between the United States of America and Tripolitania, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and at Algiers on January 3, 1797.

http://rationalrevolution.net/images/treatytr...

Article 11

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen, and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This was part of the original treaty that was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.

The issue that anti is pointing out is that the Arabic version does not have that as part of their copy of the treaty.

Per Hunter Miller who reviewed and translated the Arabic version in 1931:

The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.

Then when the treaty was broken in 1801 by the Pasha of Tripoli, Tobias Lear negotiated a second "Treaty of Peace and Amity" with the Pasha Yusuf on June 4, 1805. To the dismay of many Americans, the new settlement included a ransom of $60,000 paid for the release of prisoners from the USS Philadelphia and several U.S. merchant ships. This was a new treaty to cover the new events happening in that part of the world.
Auntie Theist

United States

#30 Jul 3, 2013
False Religion wrote:
The Treaty of Tripoli was the first treaty concluded between the United States of America and Tripolitania, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and at Algiers on January 3, 1797.
http://rationalrevolution.net/images/treatytr...
Article 11
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen, and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
This was part of the original treaty that was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.
The issue that anti is pointing out is that the Arabic version does not have that as part of their copy of the treaty.
Per Hunter Miller who reviewed and translated the Arabic version in 1931:
The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.
Then when the treaty was broken in 1801 by the Pasha of Tripoli, Tobias Lear negotiated a second "Treaty of Peace and Amity" with the Pasha Yusuf on June 4, 1805. To the dismay of many Americans, the new settlement included a ransom of $60,000 paid for the release of prisoners from the USS Philadelphia and several U.S. merchant ships. This was a new treaty to cover the new events happening in that part of the world.
Thanks - I think he has his answer.
anti atheist

Pearl, MS

#31 Jul 3, 2013
Auntie Theist wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks - I think he has his answer.
well do we agree the one ratified 7-4-1805 does not contain the same wording that the non believers always argue it does.
Auntie Theist

United States

#32 Jul 3, 2013
anti atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
well do we agree the one ratified 7-4-1805 does not contain the same wording that the non believers always argue it does.
Non believers do not use a different treaty (7-4-1805) to prove their point. Neither do they use the Treaty of Versailles.
ANTI ATHEIST

Oakland, TN

#33 Jul 3, 2013
Auntie Theist wrote:
<quoted text>
Non believers do not use a different treaty (7-4-1805) to prove their point. Neither do they use the Treaty of Versailles.
EVASIVE ANSWER BUT PROBALY ALL YOU CAN DO. IF YOU USE THE ONLY TREATY IN EFFECT THEN AND NOW THE ANSWER WOULD BE : NO IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE WORDING THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPY.
I WONDER WHY YOU GUYS CONTINUE TO TELL THAT LIE.

Since: Jun 13

Jackson, TN

#34 Jul 3, 2013
Remind me again which document said this was a Christian nation?
Remind me again how freedom of religion is a Christian philosophy?
Remind me again why you're typing in all caps?
anti atheist

Oakland, TN

#35 Jul 3, 2013
WhysGuy wrote:
Remind me again which document said this was a Christian nation?
Remind me again how freedom of religion is a Christian philosophy?
Remind me again why you're typing in all caps?
read the heading or wikepedia, the tray tripoli. i post in caps cause i forget to hit the shft key

remind me again why the atheists continue to lie
lawman

Oakland, TN

#36 Jul 4, 2013
anti atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
read the heading or wikepedia, the tray tripoli. i post in caps cause i forget to hit the shft key
remind me again why the atheists continue to lie
all of atheism is a lie,just like aunti theist keeps showing she is routing through owensboro kentucky when we all know exactly where he is
False Religion

Jackson, TN

#37 Jul 4, 2013
ANTI ATHEIST wrote:
<quoted text>
EVASIVE ANSWER BUT PROBALY ALL YOU CAN DO. IF YOU USE THE ONLY TREATY IN EFFECT THEN AND NOW THE ANSWER WOULD BE : NO IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE WORDING THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPY.
I WONDER WHY YOU GUYS CONTINUE TO TELL THAT LIE.
What lie? The original treaty does have the wording you so hate. The original treaty was read out loud, voted on and ratified. Therefore, the congress at that time knew that section was true and applied.

If that treaty so offends you, here, let's try some other quotes:

“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
~George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789

“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved … the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.”
~Thomas Jefferson: in a speech to the Virginia Baptists (1808)

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
~Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

“No religious doctrine shall be established by law.”
~Elbridge Gerry, Annals of Congress 1:729-731

“We have abundant reason to rejoice, that, in this land, the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened age & in this land of equal liberty, it is our boast, that a man's religious
tenets will not forfeit the protection of the laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining & holding the highest offices that are known in the United States. Your prayers for my present and future felicity are received with gratitude; and I sincerely wish, Gentlemen, that you may in your social and individual capacities taste those blessings, which a gracious God bestows upon the righteous.”
-George Washington, Letter to the the members of The New Church in Baltimore (22 January 1793)
False Religion

Jackson, TN

#38 Jul 4, 2013
lawman wrote:
<quoted text>
all of atheism is a lie,just like aunti theist keeps showing she is routing through owensboro kentucky when we all know exactly where he is
Proof? Do you have an all seeing all knowing IP tracer? You have intimate knowledge of how Topix determines the location of the ISP that people use to connect to the internet?
Speak For Yourself

Poland

#39 Jul 4, 2013
anti atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
well do we agree the one ratified 7-4-1805 does not contain the same wording that the non believers always argue it does.
You do not speak for all Christians, and you do not speak for any Atheists.
Non Christian Nation

France

#40 Jul 4, 2013
anti atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
read the heading or wikepedia, the tray tripoli. i post in caps cause i forget to hit the shft key
remind me again why the atheists continue to lie
lawman wrote:
<quoted text>
all of atheism is a lie,just like aunti theist keeps showing she is routing through owensboro kentucky when we all know exactly where he is
Bolivar must be a magnet attracting stupid idiots like these two.
loverboy 2

Oakland, TN

#41 Jul 4, 2013
Speak For Yourself wrote:
<quoted text>
You do not speak for all Christians, and you do not speak for any Atheists.
what an idiotic post to a truthful statement. do you have headaches with your bitterness?
loverboy 2

Oakland, TN

#42 Jul 4, 2013
Non Christian Nation wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Bolivar must be a magnet attracting stupid idiots like these two.
now your in france. must be a pilot

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jackson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Waste Management 19 min Mac Thomson 14
New Branch of Survivors 41 min Nelly Nell 3
tca coaches 50 min UFC 13
Northridge Apartments ? (Jun '13) 55 min Lovelife 5
Jackson Sun inspection of Madison County Schools 58 min Jennifer14 5
I40 TDOT painted sign on grass area (Jun '13) 1 hr Painter 26
Englewood Baptist Church 1 hr Barney 221
Sheriff's Wife Sun abe 114
More from around the web

Jackson People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]