Good. There should be no place for publicly funded religious works. Ever.
4 Likes
Which “The Ten Commandments” did the monument have on it?
http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000824#3
I. Biblical Sources of the 10 Commandments
The 10 Commandments appear in three places in the Bible: in Exodus, chapter 20, in Exodus, chapter 34 and in Deuteronomy, chapter 5:
a. All three versions differ.
b. No version conveniently lists the commandments from one to ten.
c. Historically, the commandments have been abbreviated to aid memorization, which has led to even greater differences on what to put in and what to leave out.
d. Exodus 34 is the only place where the label “The Ten Commandments” is used in the Bible. The other two listings (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5) are normally referred to as the Ten Commandments, but the actual text doesn’t describe them as such.
9 Likes
Seriously
3 Likes
Then you will be delighted to hear that this one was privately funded.
1 Like
[quote=“Dragonfly, post:47, topic:103747, full:true”]
You’re gonna want at least 30 nazi punching observations in your sample according to the central limit theorem [/quote]
What if It’s 106 miles to Little Rock, you’ve got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it’s dark and you’re wearing sunglasses? I’ve heard most limits don’t apply then. Surely not speed limits.
8 Likes
Says right on it / 11th commandment.
The land it’s on is publicly owned.
4 Likes
If those views are the persecution and possible death of you, your family, and everyone like you? No.
1 Like
I had multiple replies, but I’m just gonna sum up everything here. (Your reply was the longest! 
)
I don’t have any sympathy for spencer and everyone is his group. I know that they are extremely dangerous and should not be taken lightly. However, I feel like using violence / destroying property just puts a negative light on your side, even though you are the one in the right.
In the case of the ten commandments being destroyed, this is going to cause people to see atheists in a negative light(regardless of the fact that the person who destroyed them seems to be a Christian, and that putting up a religious symbol on government property is not allowed).
If someone who does not have any stake in this event sees the ten commandment destruction on the news, they are going to believe it was done by atheists, and that they are unlawful people, the are a menace to society, etc. even though the party who put up the commandments is in the wrong.
When someone who is a racist and is an overall horrible person is doing and interview and is suddenly punched by someone off camera, do you know what many unassociated people will do? They will see that and say the left is unable to take down his taking points with words, so they result to violence. It makes the left look like they are insecure, angry, and incapable of proving the alt-right wrong through standards methods. This will put a negative light on the left.
Anytime you use violence against words, you lose. I understand that people are afraid of the current shifting to the right, but violence and destruction are the worst thing you could do if you want to beat the alt-right. The only way to beat them is to be better that them, and show the undecided portion of the populous why the left is right and the alt-right is ludicrous.
Punching someone or destroying property may not increase the other side’s supporters, but it’s only going to decrease yours.
2 Likes
Nobody has to respect their shit opinions and anyone still on the fence is a socially inept moron.All opinions are not equal. We are not discussing what is for lunch but the persecution of minorities. That mass media would give them a platform, normalizing it, this is how it is unnormalized, by complete interruption of every interview.
8 Likes
That would be nice if we could ignore everyone who isn’t in the know, but I feel like throwing them under the bus is a great way to lose.
This a battle of who can gain the most supporters.
Unfortunately, facts alone aren’t going to bring the left to victory. If they were all we needed we wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with. Interrupting someone’s platform just makes you look like you are immature and that you lack any legitimate way of proving why you are right.
Yes, but that’s not funding. And while I would like to see strict separation of church and state and clear laws that forbid endorsement of religion by the state and its subdivisions, I loathe using technicalities.
When you play the “this costs the public an imaginary amount of money”-card, then you better be prepared when this backfires.
If your monument can’t stand up to a Dodge Dart then it’s not a REAL monument.
They can at least go back and add the 11th commandment now: The age of specialization is over.
And correct the 8th: Thou shalt not be mean to a moose.
3 Likes
Arkansas’s plainly sectarian government plans to rebuilt [a monument that will be clearly and with precedence struck down as unconstitutional]
At a cost of how many taxpayer dollars?
3 Likes
The first set actually just said “Try to be kind to one another. And ignore that Moses, he’s a real jerk”. The rest is just the excuse invented by Moses after he got down from the mountain and actually read the tablets.
3 Likes
The 1930s called, they have some counter-examples for you.
13 Likes
So disrupting events, commiting acts of violence, And destroying property is going to convince people that the other side is a violent and hateful group? Okay.
“Welcome everybody, we’ll start the debate with the person who literally believes in genocide, then allow a rebuttal from the person who doesn’t.”
12 Likes
The side you are defending (hint: no one is fooled by nazi “devil’s advocate” forum trolls anymore) literally wants to eradicate swaths of the population because of racial purity.
9 Likes
Sigh…
Well, I hope for all our sakes your method works.
