[Southack]

"Your argument must be pretty weak if you must make up straw men to argue against."

"You took my sentence about "no ten commandments displays in courthouses" completely out of that context and started posting pictures of SCOTUS, built in the 1930s, as if that somehow proved me wrong. But that is typical for your defective logic."

Incorrect. I simply posted a couple of examples that contradicted your wild-eyed claim that no court displayed the 10 commandments. I also didn't make up a straw man, and certainly didn't do so in regard to our Founders (whom I never even mentioned).

[lugsoul]

Let's be real clear, so your limited grey matter can grasp it. I don't care if you never mentioned them. What you call my "wild-eyed" claim that there were no Ten Commandments displays in courthouses was a reference to the time of the Founders. I don't care if you can't read, that's the context of the exchange which you purposefully took out of context to try to post the same crap you've posted about 40 times already. Your post proves NOTHING. It proves that in the 1930s, the US government put the ten commandments and a bunch of other religious and secular sources of law on a wall. That's all.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

The point of argument, believe it or not, is that the words aren't seen on the tablets in the Supreme Court. That makes it all okay, even though God's name is invoked in prayer before every session of congress. When will the ACLU sue congress?

[lugsoul]

"I simply posted a couple of examples that contradicted your wild-eyed claim that no court displayed the 10 commandments."

Your posts contradict nothing. My "wild-eyed claim" was talking about the time of the Founders. If you think you can contradict that, have at it.