No, it's not code for anything. It means that I am not going to spend hours trying to prove something easily verified for the sake of an internet discussion. Basically if your involved in an argument on things this basic then nothing I show you is going to matter anyway, you need to go out there, look at the facts with an open mind, and see the truth. I do not debate the absurd. When something is fairly obscure or needs reinforcement I'll usually oblige.Trilligan said:[
That's code for "I have no proof but I don't want to admit that I'm wrong." If you're gonna make a claim, you'd best present evidence for it. That's how making an argument works.
For example, I doubt you even bothered to look up Thomas Jefferson's connections to the freemasons (membership is questioned, but was a close associate, and is claimed by many chapters), which was the initial point. It's such a matter of public record that if you need someone like me to "prove" something that basic you don't even belong in a discussion about American history, the intent of the constitution, or how it was practiced by the founding fathers.
It's sort of like another argument I was in where I had someone who was a "constitutional scholar" on these very forums tried to argue that the original colonists started out as a commune without any defined leadership. I felt no real need to explain who John Carver or William Bradford were. This isn't exactly the same, but it's similar.
That said I'm not even sure what your trying to argue any more, except trying to argue for the sake of doing so. Your opinion is fairly reasonable overall, that there should be no religious iconography in state buildings. I mostly question it's practicality. What's more you seem to miss the entire point that this argument exists because it was legal for "The Ten Commandments" to be shown in Oklahoma state buildings, there is no doubt about this according to state law because it's right there. The entire debate here is about whether they can push an argument that freedom of religion allows them to demand a state of Baphomet. The whole "nothing religious should be depicted" side isn't even involved in this conflict right now because obviously Oklahoma has work arounds already that allowed The Ten Commandments. I told you why this likely was, and you can kick and scream about the likely standard, but it's right there. I've merely been saying that I don't think they can justify Baphomet using the usual loopholes a lot of states use, which are based on "depictions of order" or rules declaring something "historic", such as a case where a Cathedral might have also doubled as the Town Hall (sharing space in olden days due to only being able to support more than one building), or cases where say a church might have sold buildings to the government, or whatever else. In such cases it might actually be illegal to remove the religious iconography in order to preserve the historic sites as close to how they had been for centuries to begin with.
Primarily, I'm guessing you don't like the fact that I believe state rights trump federal guidelines... and no, you won't win that one with me. Indeed the whole state vs. federal argument, and how The Constitution is used is one of the most divisive things in the country and is actually the biggest line between Republicans and Democrats.