• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Supreme Court Decision on Ten Commandments

MikeyC said:
Thomas Jefferson accepted Christ's teachings of morals. However, he didn't believe in all the mysticism associated with Jesus Christ (IE. Walking on water).

Ah then he wouldn't be a Christian since it is all or nothing. . . he chose nothing. Since He loved his lie then he is out of the kingdom of heaven.

prov 30: 5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield to them that put their trust in him. {pure: Heb. purified} 6 Add thou not to his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Rev 22: 15 For outside are dogs, and sorcerers, and immoral persons, and murderers, and idolaters, and whoever loveth and maketh a lie.

He is going to suffer the same fate as the dogs . . . .

 
Shamgar said:
He is going to suffer the same fate as the dogs . . . .
I give up:
ALLDOGS2-00AA1-poster_hires.jpg
 
New York and Virginia originally refused to ratify the Constitution for fear of their rights being trampled by the new federal government. The Bill of Rights was added to reassure them. That line about "making any law respecting the establishment of religion" was a protection for the STATE, against intrusions by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Seen in it's proper context, the myth about a constitutional separation of church and state is glaringly obvious. Today's ruling was exactly opposite of what was intended. The federal government was NEVER supposed to be able to tell any state how to interact with religion.
 
Last edited:
God's word is too pure and powerful for inferior human beings. The scriptures must be a lie because language cannot possibly comprehend the words of God. Prove me wrong there.
 
Shamgar said:
Oh if you were a real Christian then you would be as Daniel and refuse to boey laws that violated God's laws. This makes sense why you don't since Daneil was righteous and he obeyed God rather than men. snip...

What laws of the United States force you to “violate God’s laws”? Moreover, you never answered my question. If you honestly believe that the government should be an instrument to compel us to live according to God’s laws and instructions, then why don’t you advocate the redistribution of wealth? There are countless verses in the Gospels compelling us to help the poor, avoid materialism and live simply. So why are you not advocating the government to compel us to adhere to those wishes?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
What laws of the United States force you to “violate God’s laws”? Moreover, you never answered my question.

The laws that force you to fund evil . . .





Oh I did answer your question . . . . anyone that gives rights to or absolves these people of crimes listed here.

1 Cor 6:9-10 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

SouthernDemocrat said:
If you honestly believe that the government should be an instrument to compel us to live according to God’s laws and instructions, then why don’t you advocate the redistribution of wealth? There are countless verses in the Gospels compelling us to help the poor, avoid materialism and live simply. So why are you not advocating the government to compel us to adhere to those wishes?

Well only a fascist or a communist forces redistribution of wealth, comrade.
 
Shamgar said:
The laws that force you to fund evil . . .





Oh I did answer your question . . . . anyone that gives rights to or absolves these people of crimes listed here.

1 Cor 6:9-10 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.



Well only a fascist or a communist forces redistribution of wealth, comrade.

Hypocrite!

You say that we should be compelled by law to adhere to God’s laws:

The good Lord said:

"He who has two coats, let him give to him who has none. He who has food, let him do likewise." Luke 3:11

Is that not redistribution of wealth? By anyone’s definition, I think it is.

How about this verse:

"If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." Matthew 19:21

Or this one:

"When you refuse to help the least of these (the poor), you refuse to help me." Matthew 25:45

So why once again, if you believe that the government should legislate laws that compel us to adhere to God’s laws, then why other than being a hypocrite, do you not advocate legally compelled redistribution of wealth. The good Lord told us to do it, so by your reasoning, it ought to be the law of the land.

I await your response.
 
aquapub said:
New York and Virginia originally refused to ratify the Constitution for fear of their rights being trampled by the new federal government. The Bill of Rights was added to reassure them. That line about "making any law respecting the establishment of religion" was a protection for the STATE, against intrusions by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Seen in it's proper context, the myth about a constitutional separation of church and state is glaringly obvious. Today's ruling was exactly opposite of what was intended. The federal government was NEVER supposed to be able to tell any state how to interact with religion.

Article VI of our Constitution is a Supremacy Clause. It allows our Constitutional laws to trump any state laws.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Hypocrite!

You say that we should be compelled by law to adhere to God’s laws:

The good Lord said:

"He who has two coats, let him give to him who has none. He who has food, let him do likewise." Luke 3:11

Is that not redistribution of wealth? By anyone’s definition, I think it is.

Your "good lord" must be Lenin since you are spewing the religion of communism not Christianity, comrade.


2 thess 3: 7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; 8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nothing; but wrought with labour and toil night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: 9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an example to you to follow us. 10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Try using something called "context" next time.
 
Shamgar said:
2 thess 3: 7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; 8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nothing; but wrought with labour and toil night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: 9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an example to you to follow us. 10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

And what of those that cannot work? What of those that have no work?

Try using something called "context" next time.

Coming from the cartoon guy, that's the funniest thing I've ever read.
 
Liberal hypocracy.....

Burning the flag is a freedom of speech......displaying the Ten Commandments is an offense to non-believers.

If liberals weren't so damn hypocritical and inconsistant about what they believed in from event to event, the moral fabric of America wouldn't be unraveling.
 
There is a difference between a citizen expressing himself and the Government putting out religious laws & symbols in front of places where people are supposed to be judged on our laws. Personally, I don't have a problem with the 10 commandments because most of them aren't laws anyway, but I understand the complaint.
 
I understand the complaint too, but I believe it to be stupid. If the flag is just a "symbol", the bible is just a "symbol", then why aren't the Ten Commandments just a "symbol"?
 
GySgt said:
I understand the complaint too, but I believe it to be stupid. If the flag is just a "symbol", the bible is just a "symbol", then why aren't the Ten Commandments just a "symbol"?

For one, I don't think the Bible is just a symbol. It's the key literature for Christianity. And again when someone burns a flag it is a citizen and it is a right, whereas in the case of the ten commandments, it is the government with a set of religious laws outside of a courthouse.
 
I didn't acccuse you of thinking either way. It was merely an observation that is very general among liberals. There is a lot of hypocracy over what should be protected and what should be shunned and why. It's all in the terminology. If freedom of speech is going to be used for one thing, then it should be used for all.
 
GySgt said:
I didn't acccuse you of thinking either way. It was merely an observation that is very general among liberals. There is a lot of hypocracy over what should be protected and what should be shunned and why. It's all in the terminology. If freedom of speech is going to be used for one thing, then it should be used for all.
I wouldn't call it hypocrisy, it's more complexity.

The main lines are drawn along the people and the government. Liberals don't go after people practicing their religion in the privacy of their homes. Liberals don't go after people burning the US flags. Liberals do go after government practicing religion. Liberals would go after the government burning the US flag (like that would happen, but still for the sake of completeness, I added it).

Should people be allowed to practice and promote whatever religion tickles their fancy and fantasy? Sure! Should the government join in? Hell no.
 
GySgt said:
Liberal hypocracy.....

Burning the flag is a freedom of speech......displaying the Ten Commandments is an offense to non-believers.

If liberals weren't so damn hypocritical and inconsistant about what they believed in from event to event, the moral fabric of America wouldn't be unraveling.
While it is offensive to some people to see the Ten Commandments, I don't see this as the reason they must be removed-that is because of the seperation of church and state. To display the ten commandments alone violates that principle, but when displayed along with other sources of law, from hamurabi to the magna carta. Then it is ok, but if its purpose is soley religious-hell no.

It is not always the liberals fault. What about the morality of helping your fellow man-conservatives don't seem to believe in that, even though it is in the top three of Jesus's teachings of helping others before you help yourself. Please, talk to me about hypocrisy. Conservatives hurt others through needless wars, please talk to me about hypocrisy. Conservatives believe in the sanctity of life, but oh, no, wait the death penalty...and not giving to the poor, and not helping those who need it most. Yeah, talk to me about hypocrisy when you proclaim yourself to be conservative.


GySgt said:
I understand the complaint too, but I believe it to be stupid. If the flag is just a "symbol", the bible is just a "symbol", then why aren't the Ten Commandments just a "symbol"?
The difference is that it is a religious symbol. Now you may see this as hypocrisy, but I do not. I see this as a respect to the principles of the founding fathers in establishing the freedom of religion in conjunction with the seperation of church and state. If you want to look at it this way, both are symbols, except when they are displayed, they are done so for different purposes. Now, when they are displayed, and a government official says that the main frickin reason is religious, then it is unconstitutional. Moral fabric is going to unravel cause you can't look at a piece of paper-BS.
 
GySgt said:
I didn't acccuse you of thinking either way. It was merely an observation that is very general among liberals. There is a lot of hypocracy over what should be protected and what should be shunned and why. It's all in the terminology. If freedom of speech is going to be used for one thing, then it should be used for all.
As Shaumort said, it isn't hypocrisy, it is the complexity of the laws that govern this nation.

In Lemon v. Kurtzan, the Supreme court set up a test to determine whether use of religion was excessively entangled within the scope of government. Now, in these two cases, they determined two different results, both of which were correct. In one, the purely historical one for purposes of showing where the foundation of our society came from (about 16 different things)-it was alright because that was a purely secular purpose. In the second case however, a government official said its reason was religious and then tried to cover it up by putting documents that were secular around it. The justices saw through that and determined that it was crossing the line between church and state.
 
I have never proclaimed to be a Conservative. I am merely me. I am just an observer of history and I've learned that human nature is pretty predictable. The same can be said for members of political parties. I do not confine myself to the restrictions of what a political party would have me support.

In my observations of one soap box to the next, Liberals have perfected the art of hypocracy.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
I have never proclaimed to be a Conservative. I am merely me. I am just an observer of history and I've learned that human nature is pretty predictable. The same can be said for members of political parties. I do not confine myself to the restrictions of what a political party would have me support.

In my observations from one soap box to the next, Liberals have perfected the art of hypocracy.
Fine, but you are so quick to claim liberal hypocrisy, do you at least now see that conservatives, you know what, I'll post it again.

"It is not always the liberals fault. What about the morality of helping your fellow man-conservatives don't seem to believe in that, even though it is in the top three of Jesus's teachings of helping others before you help yourself. Please, talk to me about hypocrisy. Conservatives hurt others through needless wars, please talk to me about hypocrisy. Conservatives believe in the sanctity of life, but oh, no, wait the death penalty...and not giving to the poor, and not helping those who need it most. Yeah, talk to me about hypocrisy when you proclaim yourself to be conservative. "

I would also like to know what you thought of my...explanation about why it isn't hypocrisy.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
And what of those that cannot work? What of those that have no work?

Conmrade context is so important . . . I know it isn't to you. . . . since Paul who was capable of work was talking about the sluggards who were capable of work but didn't work by choice. Paul sought a job and found a job. Your fascist ideals put people out of work and make easy for them to be on welfare instead of working

Originally Posted by Shamgar
2 thess 3: 7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; 8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nothing; but wrought with labour and toil night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: 9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an example to you to follow us. 10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
 
Shamgar said:
Conmrade context is so important . . . I know it isn't to you. . . . since Paul who was capable of work was talking about the sluggards who were capable of work but didn't work by choice. Paul sought a job and found a job. Your fascist ideals put people out of work and make easy for them to be on welfare instead of working
Fascist ideals? Can you explain what these are cause I am really lost with this statement. But, by reading that passage, I would assume that you would support whole-heartedly programs that help people who cannot work for whatever reason.
 
Shamgar said:
Conmrade context is so important . . . I know it isn't to you. . . . since Paul who was capable of work was talking about the sluggards who were capable of work but didn't work by choice. Paul sought a job and found a job. Your fascist ideals put people out of work and make easy for them to be on welfare instead of working

Originally Posted by Shamgar
2 thess 3: 7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; 8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nothing; but wrought with labour and toil night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: 9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an example to you to follow us. 10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

I challenge you to find one homeless person today who is homeless and risks death by exposure simply because he chooses not to work.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
I challenge you to find one homeless person today who is homeless and risks death by exposure simply because he chooses not to work.
Actually, I will do this for him. I work with homeless people on a daily basis and I know that there are a few (not the vast majority, not even close) that are homeless because they don't want to work. They usually want to get their life back on track and try to through working. It is a small percent of a percent that are homeless because they just don't want to work, but these people exist.
 
Shamgar said:
Conmrade context is so important . . . I know it isn't to you. . . . since Paul who was capable of work was talking about the sluggards who were capable of work but didn't work by choice. Paul sought a job and found a job. Your fascist ideals put people out of work and make easy for them to be on welfare instead of working

Originally Posted by Shamgar
2 thess 3: 7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; 8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nothing; but wrought with labour and toil night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: 9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an example to you to follow us. 10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

You are not taking things in context Shamgar. Paul is saying that you should not be a freeloader. Jesus commanded us to help the less fortunate, and live simply.

The context of that first verse I quoted is the following:

“So he began saying to the crowds who were going out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8. "Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, `We have Abraham for our father,' for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. 9. "Indeed the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; so every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." 10. And the crowds were questioning him, saying, "Then what shall we do?" 11. And he would answer and say to them, "The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise." Luke 3:7 – 3:11

John is not telling the crowd to give lazy people their coats and food, but rather he is saying that if you have more than you need, you should give what you have that you don’t need to those who need it. When Jesus says to take all that you have and give it to the poor, he means the poor, not the lazy. When Jesus says that when you refuse to help the least of these, that you refuse him, by “least of these” he means the poor, not the lazy. When you try to equate his instructions to us with Lenin, you are being blasphemous.

I am not the one saying that our law should be wholly based in God’s law, you are. So you can’t just pick and choose which of God’s laws that you want the government to enforce. If you want homosexuality to be illegal because it’s against God’s law, then fine. If you want the Ten Commandments displayed in courthouses because you think that is God’s law, then fine. If you want creationism taught in schools because you think that is God’s law, then fine. However you cant just pick and choose which laws of God that you want enforced, if we are going to enforce God’s law, then we have to also abolish charging interest on loans to those who are in need, outlaw materialism, and force those who have more than they need to give what they don’t need to those who are less fortunate. Because that is the God’s law as well and God made many more references to those laws in scripture than he did to Homosexuality.

The Bible says:

Exodus 22:25 "If you lend money to one of my people among
you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no
interest.
Leviticus 25:35-37 "'If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to
support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary
resident, so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any
kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live
among you. You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a
profit.
Deut 23:19 Do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food or
anything else that may earn interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but
not a brother Israelite, so that the LORD your God may bless you in everything
you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess.

So, you going to enforce those laws as well, or are you going to be a blasphemous hypocrite and call God a Communist when he tells us to do that?
 
Back
Top Bottom