Roy's Rock

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Ferret, Aug 23, 2003.

  1. DÛke Memento Mori

    ...
    Oh, so now you're speaking by my logic! How very divine of you! You want to say I am being a little hypocritical, but you don't know how...so you want to speak with "my" logic. When really, it is your logic all over again!

    Let me make it clear: where is the injustice?

    Ok. It's breaking the mighty American law.

    Who is being harmed? Whose faith is suddenly shaken by this awe-inspiring icon of madness that they can't begin to worship or believe as they see fit unto themselves? whose beliefs are suddenly at stake or in question?

    Let me quote something Eric said earlier:
    Indeed, is there anyone being forced in any way imaginable to pay reverence or duty to this rock? is anyone being forced to kneel before it as they enter the building?

    No. No. No.

    You can walk right past it, not giving it the slightest attention, and thus, not "putting your principles at stake"!

    But all this is already too old. What bothers me most are people who want this thing gone, for the reason that it "infringes" their rights. All the while, they have every right to do whatever it is they wish to do. They can steer away and stare away from this unspeakable symbol. They can still worship as they choose, without the slightest relevance paid towards the existence or nonexistence of such an object.

    As for the issue that it "violates" the law. Well, my friend, the law is violated every day. Like I mentioned, Bush himself was ready to violate the most universal law our humanity has ever conceived! I didn't see you speaking about it. In fact, I didn't see you at all! What I did see is Ferret riding the wagon of Bush-love and constant bottom-licking, which, as I see it now, is Ferret's only talent...

    At the end, what is hypocritical, or who is hypocritical, you or I?

    I say that if their faith is strong, to the point that it feels unrest towards this object, is...to have no strong faith. To have strong faith, on the other hand, which they all claim to have, is to be superior to such an artificial subject. Anyone with any principles wouldn't care, because his principles are not being violated at all. It's just the "law" being violated. But what matters the law? The United States became a state of anarchy the moment Bush declared his willingness to go over, above, and beyond all laws, no matter who opposed, no matter what the law was. And today as we stand, the United States is an anarchist state, an outlaw, and outsider – it revealed its anarchist instincts quite clearly. Americans, especially someone as naïve, as inferior, as American as Ferret, have lost your rights to speak about the “respect to law” a long time ago.

    What is hypocritical, at the end, are these multiple standards in which you all play your games and puke out your vile principles in the from of "I'm a free thinker," or "I'm an individual." There should be a respect for the law! No…no…who cares about the law! let’s rather do what is right! – does any of this sound familiar, Ferret? Sure it does. It’s your folly ringing billions of jollies…

    ...

    So, ok. Let the icon be removed. It "violated" the law. It doesn't rest the case, however, that you and a couple of others wanna-bes and counterfeit "free thinkers" feel violated and offended by such superficiality. And here I tell you: you are super-superficial.
  2. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    He did install it himself in the middle of the night two years ago... :)
  3. EricBess Active Member

    Again, I'll preface this with the fact that I think he should remove it. As an officer of the court, for purposes of his job and how he enforces his job, he answers to the laws of the land. He has been asked to move it because it is felt to be in an inappropriate forum and I agree with that (though it doesn't bother me per se), but I stand firm in saying that NO laws have been broken here.

    In fact, I would strongly argue that forcing him to remove it through the courts would be illegal and a travisty of justice. After all, what about his rights to free speach. I could argue that forcing it removed would be akin to censorship (I probably wouldn't, but I could). Doesn't he have his freedom of religion. As long as he isn't forcing anyone to do anything, he's not in violation of the constitution at all.

    And again, to say that the separation of church and state means that nothing religious should in any way influence government is a misinterpretation, and in my oppinion, a dangerous one. The point of separation of church and state is that the clergy should not control the governement and that the government should not impose religious preference. Neither of those is happening here.

    Again, if there is more going on, than that's another issue. For example, if an embezzlement prosecutor were allowed to introduce otherwise irrelevant testimony that the accuses were an adulterer as a point of character, than that would be incorrect. But if stuff like that isn't happening, then there is no imposition here.

    Besides, if I'm not mistaken, this man is an elected official. If the voice of the people really want the rock gone, there is a very simple way to accomplish this: don't re-elect him! Let him be a political martyr to his cause if that's what he wants from this. That would be how the system is SUPPOSED to work.
  4. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I agree with you on everything except your second paragraph; he put it in a public governmental place as opposed to a property that he owns, like his yard. As such, I don't think freedom of speech applies here...
  5. Apollo Bird Boy

    A Klan rally doesn't affect me in any way, and doesn't take away any of my rights. I can just ignore it and no harm will come because of it.

    But that doesn't mean I wouldn't like them to stop...
  6. DÛke Memento Mori

    ...

    I think Eric of all people here holds to the most respectable position. I don't appreciate the fact that some of you are not even touched by this little incident, going around claiming how it doesn't matter to you because it doesn't exactly interfere with your present life and the place in which you thrive...

    ...on the other hand, those of you who have taken even the slightest hint of "offense," or have in anyway felt the striking urgency to obey "the law," or to do what is in "common sense" - you are so far beneath this entire issue, so inferior to this common sense of which you speak, that I'm afraid you have lost perspective on the issue itself.

    The issue is about an artifact. The artifact is said to offend someone's faith. But the artifact doesn't. Sure, the artifact might create some dissonance in some law - but...why is there a law on this subject which shouldn't be troubling in the first place?

    Perhaps the entire separation between Church and State is the vile origin behind it all. If people had any dignity, temperance, faith as they say, they could careless about such a material separation. This separation reveals one thing: how inferior and pathetic, how lacking in the will to control, you are.

    So speak all you want about your laws, you're only concealing what you lack behind every law. Hence you have a law at all, to keep you straight. And to the extent that you respect the law to that degree, which is a good quality I should say, it only means that you altogether belong to the sublimate species of man (which I have baptized by the term "subhuman."), whose existence rests at the palms of the law, since you lack all the laws in yourself…

    Perhaps the entire history of politics, political thought, philosophical bettering of the species, the strive for the "good" - perhaps all of this belongs to the sublimated species who originally are lacking, who need this supplement in the first place...
  7. EricBess Active Member

    But apparently, it stayed there for this long, which seems to indicate that he must in some degree be allowed to select decor for the building. Otherwise, I can't imagine that the people in charge of the building haven't already had it removed simply because it is a foreign object.

    And by the same token, if someone were to stand outside the doors of the courthouse (off to the side - not in the way) reading from the Koran or the Bible, or even from "Green Eggs and Ham", would it be allowed? I suspect that unless he was somehow disturbing people, the only possible way to use legal means to have him move would be to accuse him of loitering.
  8. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Eh, well, I think it is more the "political climate" than whether he's in charge of the decor of the building. 2 years ago would have been before 9/11, before the case of being exempt from saying the Pledge in schools, and probably others I'm not thinking of (like other religious objects being removed from government buildings.

    That I don't know. If the person is still on government land, I suspect they can still be forced to move via other means besides loitering, but I'm not an expert, so I'm not sure.
  9. Killer Joe Active Member

    Any card carrying ACLU member will tell you that no matter what, state and religion should be seperated.

    But,....I'm not a card carrying member. Let it stay.
  10. Svenmonkey Pants Chancellor

    I'm not a card carrying member, nor a member at all, but I probably will be someday. Take it away.
  11. Chaos Turtle Demiurgic CPA Member, Admin Assistant

    It doesn't matter if 99% of the American public thinks that Justice Moore is right and that the monument should stay. The very reason we have a Bill of Rights is protect the rights of the minority from the whims of the majority.

    If I were to walk into an American courthouse and see a two-ton stone monument with a list that began "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," I would take offense it. I see the Ten Commandments all the time: it's kind of a trendy thing around here to post them in restaurants, offices, and what-have-you. It does not offend me though, because those are posted on privately owned property. It is an entirely different matter to go into a government institution to have this monument staring me in the face from the middle of the rotunda, impossible to miss.

    (By the way, the idea that the Ten Commandments forms the basis of our legal system is ludicrous. I don't recall there being any laws against having "other gods," and as I understand it, I'm perfecty free to ignore the sabbath and disrespect my parents. And don't even get me started on graven images!)

    It is simply not a matter of whether I am offended by a Ten Commandments monument. I am not. I would even be interested in examining it, admiring the workmanship and considering the statement it makes. But the fact is that it is simply wrong, according to our laws as written by Congress and interpreted by the Supreme Court, to place that monument on government property in public view, where it could conceiveably give the impression that one religion is favored over any other, or over non-religion.

    It's not that I want it gone. It's that is shouldn't be there in the first place.

    As for the free speech issue, who are you trying to kid? You think that you're free to express whatever sentiment you happen to believe in? Guess what? You're not. Particularly when you do it as a representative of the government. I wonder where everyone would stand on this issue if Alabama's Chief Justice was a Buddhist and thought it would be a nice symbol of his faith in the wisdom of the Buddha to erect a monument depicting Buddha in repose, with inscriptions of the eight-fold path and four noble truths. I'm willing to bet you that people would be pretty ticked off if they entered that same courtroom with "Life is suffering" staring them in the face.

    On a personal note, one wonders, DÛke, why you bother posting here at all, where your enlightened diatribes fall so squarely onto the deaf ears of such midless idiots as ourselves. Cast not your pearls before swine, my man, if that's what you really think.
  12. Thallid Ice Cream Man 21sT CeNTuRy sChIZoId MaN

    If I am offended (not very much) it's because this man, who is supposedly an impartial arbiter of the laws of this land, is complaining that they won't let him show off his bias in court.
    I wouldn't even care if they were posted in some other government building, but in the case of someone who could make decisions directly applying to your or my future, it should be taken down, or at least, a better judge should be chosen.
  13. DÛke Memento Mori

    ...

    Fine.

    I wrote you a song Chaos Turtle. It's in the Off Topic. Though I must say, it applies to every fool and lost soul that goes by the name of "freedom"...
  14. DÛke Memento Mori

    ...

    I love it when a masked truth beyond one's will becomes unmasked!

    And what ugliness we see under its aged layers...
    And in that statement we have the essence of all that is pathetic with being an American. So, it shouldn't be there in the first place? Where were you the day it was installed? the second day? the first month? the first 3 months? Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. You were living your nonsense, completely unaware and not attracted by such issues. In fact, you might have never heard of the case before this!

    But no. The second they become popularized by the media, your talent and training in riding wagons takes full effect: you come here speaking about rights, respect for the law, following the law, freedom, taking offense. Do you know how juvenile it all sounds? Perhaps I haven't made myself clear: you swing and sway as your media sings and say!

    You don't really care. What you care about, what you care for, is yourself above all. Which is natural! But I don't want to hear some fake-sentimentality like "I should care about any injustice done to anyone anywhere even when it does not affect me directly," because you know what is? it's a piece of involuntary naiveté that accompanies all your thinking.

    Admit at once that you've never heard of the case because you don't care about such matters. Admit at once that it has not bothered you, and would have not bothered you, if it was not an "issue," a one that is on the popular extreme of things. Please, for your sake, stop trying to be the good person that you are not. Stop trying at all!

    You're a "good" citizen. That's "good," with quotation marks around it for suspcision and doubt about truely what "good" means in prevailent cases: an untermenschen nature.
  15. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Well, I think you can care about an issue as to have an opinion when it comes up, but you don't have to care as much as to search out and be on top of the news for every little detail that comes out. That's what political message boards are for (I assume). And that's why people usually don't raise every issue that might appear in the news here - only stuff that grabs their attention and might want to know what other people here think.
  16. DÛke Memento Mori

    ...

    But that's not the case, Spiderman. The case is someone who is this offended or moved by such an issue should keep an eye open to the existence of such events. The fact remains that none of them who are complaining complained about it from the beginning. Again, let me bring forward what I said in the pervious post: they swing and sway as the media sings and say! Frankly, anyone who begins to listen to Chaos Turtle's "care," or Ferret's being "offended," and their admiration of “the law” - and somehow believe any of it! - must necessarily consider their absence from the issue whenever it had originated, and therefore, consider how superflous if not downright idiotic their entire case is.

    "If you care as much as you say you do, maybe you'd have argued against it a long, long time ago. Don't blame anyone for your foolishness - point that finger at yourself."
  17. Apollo Bird Boy

    Dude, I live in Ohio. This took place in Alabama. I have no way of knowing about it until the media "popularizes" it. If I had known about it two months ago, I would have wanted it down then too.

    I'm betting you didn't know about it until just now, either.
  18. EricBess Active Member

    But that's Duke's point. You weren't offended by it before you knew about it. Therefore, it's not so much that it offends you as that you choose to take offence.
  19. DÛke Memento Mori

    ...

    Take's off hat, and bows, to Eric. Thanks a million.

    As for Apollo - dude...yes, "dude," you're right - I didn't know about it, dude. But you know what, dude? I didn't know about it because the subject does not offend me, dude. Especially in my life, I have more important things to give a damn about then some stone. To be sure, if I was in anyway moved by its presence, I would be whining night and day - you getting this, dude? The things I care about are always in my mind, no matter where they are. I don't encounter them as a result of media or someone bringing it up - I encounter them because I look for them, alright dude? because I care for the things I claim to care about.

    And to be sure, even if the subject is of importance to me, I wouldn't make much of it: I am far to above the issue of a mere stone. I have too profound of principles to let me be offended or even remotely touched by such a meager subject.

    At the end of it all, whether you're Christian or non-Christian, a believer or a disbeliever - the stone cannot hurt you if you have any sovereignty. And if you're religious but non-Christian who is offended by this? I pity your worthless existence, I pity your weak faith which trembles before an object!
  20. Chaos Turtle Demiurgic CPA Member, Admin Assistant

    Seems like we have different meanings of what it means to be offended. I didn't gasp and go, "Oh, my!" when I heard about this monument -- two years ago, when it was installed, by the way, and I felt the same way about it then as I do now...I do pay attention to the news and this was on it, the only thing that's new about it is that the ruling has come down only recently -- but I knew then that it was wrong under the law. I wasn't rattled to my core. I didn't have my faith in humanity shaken. I even worked out in my mind the opinion I have on the subject, two years ago.

    Forgive me if I didn't rush to the CPA and make a post called "WTF is going on in Alabama!?" but just because I didn't (and generally don't) share all my socio-political opinions with the fine folks here doesn't mean I don't think about them.

    Also, it's rather narrow-minded and stupid to suggest that a person can't have legitmate opinions about a subject just because he hasn't heard anything about them until after the events in question. After all, I'm pretty sure that I would have been an abolistionist, had I been around in antebellum America, but I didn't have that experience, which does not preclude me from expressing the opinion that slavery is wrong and being offended if I were to discover that slavery is being practiced today (and it is...and I am).

    To correct another obvious misconception, I do not love the law. I love my country. I think that our Constitution is hands-down the best basis for a government, at least in recent civilization. It is a work of wisdom and beauty, with rules contained in it that allow it to be changed when the need arises, and even to have those changes repealed when neccessary. It's that Constitution, and the system of government it establishes, that prevents people who would force their own beliefs upon the masses from doing so unhindered.

    So you think I'm stupid for believing that the things that are wrong can be made right? Go right ahead. I'm not one of those people who derives my self-image from what other people think of me. My mom thinks I'm too liberal, my best friend thinks I'm too stodgy. Guess what? Don't care. You think I'm stupid? Don't care. I find you wearisome and closed-minded. You shouldn't care either.

    You see, there are some things which matter not at all, like people's opinions of my opinions, and some which matter quite a lot, like a judge openly and willfully flouting the Constitution. I'm sorry for you that you can't see that (and you shouldn't care that I feel that way).

    You claim your profound principles preclude your being offended by a "mere stone." I think your principles, far from being profound, preclude you from understanding that this is hardly about a "mere stone." If you'd actually bother to read and absorb what those who disagree with you are saying, you'd at least see that much.

    If it really makes so little difference to you, why are you so passionate about not giving a damn?

Share This Page