• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Since "you shall not murder" is in the 10 Commandments, does that make laws against murder unconstitutional?

Are laws against murder unconstitutional on the grounds of separation of church and state?


  • Total voters
    20
As of last week, women no longer have the “right” to abort a fetus. Any clear thinking person might review what it took to get to this point. Instead, progs conveniently blame it on partisan politics. (The 14th Amendment makes no mention of abortion)To people like you that’s the whole story. Its bigger than that. Science, and consciences will ultimately rule the day because abortion is clearly the taking of an innocent life. I predicted that Roe would go down, and predict that someday women will have to leave the US to get an abortion.
Ummm….abortions are going to continue. Many states have laws on the books to allow women to keep control of their bodies. The SC didn’t outlaw abortions. They simply ruled that the constitution didn’t provide a RIGHT for women to choose to abort their fetus. While I can see both sides of that ruling women will undoubtedly continue to get abortions. Some will travel to other states to get it done; some will obtain it illegally and possibly unsafely. Women will get hurt doing it; some will die. This point is lost to far right extremists and evangelicals.
Life goes on; so will abortions.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure that we have laws throughout the nation banning murder.

One of the 10 commandments from THE HOLY BIBLE is "you shall not murder."

So, does this mean laws banning murder are unconstitutional?
Yes.

Absolutely!

:rolleyes:
 
Murder is a legal term. It describes a crime. The Bible says, Thou shalt not kill. It describes a sin.
You're welcome.
The Hebrew does not read 'not kill'. It reads 'not murder.' Tirsah(masc)'s root is ratsah, which is very clearly the narrower term for "murder'.
 
The Hebrew does not read 'not kill'. It reads 'not murder.' Tirsah(masc)'s root is ratsah, which is very clearly the narrower term for "murder'.
Tell that Hebrew to stay out of this.
 
Ummm….abortions are going to continue. Many states have laws on the books to allow women to keep control of their bodies. The SC didn’t outlaw abortions. They simply ruled that the constitution didn’t provide a RIGHT for women to choose to abort their fetus. While I can see both sides of that ruling women will undoubtedly continue to get abortions. Some will travel to other states to get it done; some will obtain it illegally and possibly unsafely. Women will get hurt doing it; some will die. This point is lost to far right extremists and evangelicals.
Life goes on; so will abortions.
You continue to be disingenuous and pretend to know things that you have no of way knowing. The right is easily as well versed on abortion and all it’s ramifications as you are. Nothing is lost in perception just because we have the moral high ground. We see abortion as a national tragedy and shame. If someone dies from abortion is pro choice in action. They can choose to have their baby instead of killing it. That’s pro choice.
 
The bible doesn't say though shalt not murder; it says though shalt not kill.
Actually it does say 'thou shall not murder'. There are texts that say 'kill', but the correct interpretation is 'murder'. There are many circumstances where 'killing' is warranted (war, self defense and capital punishment are examples of 'righteous' killing) and not a sin.

That all said, I still can not figure out the point of the OP. Anyone?
 
Actually it does say 'thou shall not murder'. There are texts that say 'kill', but the correct intrepretation is murder. There are many circumstances where 'killing' is warranted and not a sin.

ACCEPTABLE COLLATERAL DAMAGE
 
I'm pretty sure that we have laws throughout the nation banning murder.

One of the 10 commandments from THE HOLY BIBLE is "you shall not murder."

So, does this mean laws banning murder are unconstitutional?
Funny seeing a libertarian argue for a scriptural interpretation of the Constitution, which is a secular document.
 
And nowhere in the Bible is abortion condoned or talked positively about. So what we have to do is use the rest of the Bible to find context. God flooded the earth to wipeout the wicked. Any young innocents that He also wiped out were going to follow the same paths as their wicked parents, anyways, so He took them early to save their souls in the afterlife.
 
Actually it does say 'thou shall not murder'. There are texts that say 'kill', but the correct interpretation is murder. There are many circumstances where 'killing' is warranted (war, self defense and capital punishment are examples of 'righteous' killing) and not a sin.

That all said, I still can not figure out the point of the OP. Anyone?
A minor quibble, here. 'thou shall not...' is Elizabethan/Jacobite English. The Hebrew is far more parsimonious.
 
You continue to be disingenuous and pretend to know things that you have no of way knowing. The right is easily as well versed on abortion and all it’s ramifications as you are. Nothing is lost in perception just because we have the moral high ground. We see abortion as a national tragedy and shame. If someone dies from abortion is pro choice in action. They can choose to have their baby instead of killing it. That’s pro choice.
Only the delusional would think that abortions will end because of the ruling. You do realize that the vast majority of Americans support a woman’s right to choose, at least in some cases, right? I already proved that to you.
The same creeps who wouldn’t get vaccinated proclaiming “it’s my body” are the ones who think it’s ok to usurp the right of a woman to control HER body. This hypocrisy on the part of conservatives isn’t at all surprising.
Moral high ground?
LOLOLOLOLOL
 
Last edited:
Only the delusional would think that abortions will end because of the ruling.
The same creeps who wouldn’t get vaccinated proclaiming “it’s my body” are the ones who think it’s ok to usurp the right of a woman to control HER body. This hypocrisy on the part of conservatives isn’t at all surprising.
Moral high ground?
LOLOLOLOLOL
There you go again. I didn’t say that this recent ruling would end abortion. I said that I see the day when women will have go outside of the US to get an abortion.

Big difference between getting an experimental vaccine, and killing the unborn. There are fools of every stripe. That said, there’s no hypocrisy in trying to protect the unborn, and from trying to keep women from making the wrong choice. That’s what being pro life means.
 
And nowhere in the Bible is abortion condoned or talked positively about. So what we have to do is use the rest of the Bible to find context. God flooded the earth to wipeout the wicked. Any young innocents that He also wiped out were going to follow the same paths as their wicked parents, anyways, so He took them early to save their souls in the afterlife.
The Bible doesn't condone microwave ovens either.
 
Nowhere in the Bible is abortion banned or even talked negatively about. Hell, god killed millions of innocent men, women and children in a fit of rage. He's the least pro-life being imaginable.
Infanticide, genocide, mass extinction events...
 
The Bible doesn't condone microwave ovens either.
I'm not interested in their opinions on abortion, murder or marriage until they've stoned to death all the apothecaries, astrologers and eyeglass wearers.
 
There you go again. I didn’t say that this recent ruling would end abortion. I said that I see the day when women will have go outside of the US to get an abortion.

Big difference between getting an experimental vaccine, and killing the unborn. There are fools of every stripe. That said, there’s no hypocrisy in trying to protect the unborn, and from trying to keep women from making the wrong choice. That’s what being pro life means.
The hypocrisy is assigning "God's will" to the notion of abortion, since God makes no mention of it; while ignoring so many other things that God says he abhors, including, among many things, divorce.
 
There you go again. I didn’t say that this recent ruling would end abortion. I said that I see the day when women will have go outside of the US to get an abortion.

Big difference between getting an experimental vaccine, and killing the unborn. There are fools of every stripe. That said, there’s no hypocrisy in trying to protect the unborn, and from trying to keep women from making the wrong choice. That’s what being pro life means.
Women are going to make the choice that they see fit, not the choice that you think it is right or wrong for them.
The SC referred the legality of the issue back to the states where, as I proved to you, the vast majority of Americans support a woman’s right to choose. If a woman can’t get an abortion where they live they will either go elsewhere to get it done or get it done illegally, risking the harm that conservatives couldn’t care less about. Women will NEVER need to leave the country to make their choice a reality, not with good states like California and NY around.
My prediction is that state referendums will negate the anti-choice laws in some of the most backward states. I believe one is already in the works in Arizona,
Remember: until you are born you have no rights. You are a fetus until you are born and nowhere in the constitution are rights conferred upon anything besides a person.
You aren’t a person until you are born.
 
No, universal laws against murder are not unconstitutional. (And this is an oxymoron; the legal definition of "murder" is "homicide that's got a law against it".) Laws against specific forms of homicide can be unconstitutional if they violate natural rights understood in English common law or enumerated rights in the Constitution. The "separation of Church and State" or the First Amendment's establishment clause don't really enter into legal/political discussions of homicide law.

The only place it really comes up is the Federal and State government's prohibition against taxing churches or subsidizing religious activities-- the Religious Right is more keenly invested in maintaining that hard legal limit than secular groups, because with the "separation of church and state" the Religious Right is a coalition of fast allies. Without it...

 
And nowhere in the Bible is abortion condoned or talked positively about. So what we have to do is use the rest of the Bible to find context. God flooded the earth to wipeout the wicked. Any young innocents that He also wiped out were going to follow the same paths as their wicked parents, anyways, so He took them early to save their souls in the afterlife.
Which Bible verse states that "Any young innocents that He also wiped out were going to follow the same paths as their wicked parents, anyways........."?
 
I'm not interested in their opinions on abortion, murder or marriage until they've stoned to death all the apothecaries, astrologers and eyeglass wearers.

That seems a little harsh.

..
 
No, universal laws against murder are not unconstitutional. (And this is an oxymoron; the legal definition of "murder" is "homicide that's got a law against it".) Laws against specific forms of homicide can be unconstitutional if they violate natural rights understood in English common law or enumerated rights in the Constitution. The "separation of Church and State" or the First Amendment's establishment clause don't really enter into legal/political discussions of homicide law.

The only place it really comes up is the Federal and State government's prohibition against taxing churches or subsidizing religious activities-- the Religious Right is more keenly invested in maintaining that hard legal limit than secular groups, because with the "separation of church and state" the Religious Right is a coalition of fast allies. Without it...


Just a note: England is not part of the United States & the United States is not part of England, thus "English common law" is irrelevant & meaningless here in the US.
 
Just a note: England is not part of the United States & the United States is not part of England, thus "English common law" is irrelevant & meaningless here in the US.
No, it isn't. Our nation was founded by English men who governed English colonies seceding from the English government. The terms of our Federal government, and the Constitution that defines it, are based in English common law; our Federal government's entire court system, and the court systems of 49 out of our 50 States are based in and derived from English common law.

Don't let yourself walk into any legal proceedings (or negotiations) without hiring a lawyer to protect you from what you think you know.
 
No, it isn't. Our nation was founded by English men who governed English colonies seceding from the English government. The terms of our Federal government, and the Constitution that defines it, are based in English common law; our Federal government's entire court system, and the court systems of 49 out of our 50 States are based in and derived from English common law.
The United States of America declared its independence, is not part of England or the British Empire, and hasn't been for about 2 1/2 centuries. The United States of America has its own constitution, its own laws, its own legislative branch, its own executive branch, and its own judicial branch, at the state and federal levels.

Hypothetically speaking, if the former colonies were to rejoin with England or the British Empire, then that would probably only be 13 or 14 of the states; the other 36 or 37 states weren't British colonies.

Don't let yourself walk into any legal proceedings (or negotiations) without hiring a lawyer to protect you from what you think you know.
You mean the same profession responsible for Roe v. Wade? You mean the same profession that did nothing for half a century about the slaughter of over 60 million innocent defenseless unborn children?
 
The United States of America declared its independence, is not part of England or the British Empire, and hasn't been for about 2 1/2 centuries. The United States of America has its own constitution, its own laws, its own legislative branch, its own executive branch, and its own judicial branch, at the state and federal levels.
Listen, sweetie, all the time you spend trying to be wrong harder could have been spent looking it up on Wikipedia.

You mean the same profession responsible for Roe v. Wade? You mean the same profession that did nothing for half a century about the slaughter of over 60 million innocent defenseless unborn children?
So you're telling me that you don't believe that American lawyers-- in general-- know more about American law than you, because they didn't support your (hypocritical) political position for the past half a century?

You really are a (Right) Libertarian, aren't you? If I make fun of you some more, will you tell me what the gold fringe on the American flag means?
 
Back
Top Bottom