• 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.

Why are those on the left tolerant of everything, save for christians and Jews?

Aaron said:
Are you sure about that Nature's god quote. And I am positive that being tolerant of other religions is in no way breaking the first comandment and neither is freedom of religon. The first comandment says "I am the lord your god thou shalt have no other gods befor me." Which means if you are a believer of the christian god and you put the reading of a book befor going to church. It means that if you are a believer of the christian god you can not make a golden calf and worship it like the israelits did while Moses was on the mountain for 40 days and 40 nights I believe. So the creation of the freedom of religion in no way breaks the first comandment.

I am in agreement with Jallman that erecting a statue of satan in a united states court room would mean that we are lawless and our country is I forget what the name of what the type of government is but basically the word would mean a government that has no law and has no government(I think the word is Anarchy but I may be wrong). A country that basically roams free and without justice for crimes committed.

I don't know why you're having trouble with this. The freedom of religion doesn't just give religious tolerance; it gives people the right to choose whichever religion they please to follow. That means that they could follow any god(s)/goddess(es) or they could believe that there is no higher power. That goes against the first commandment, which says you must worship God. See how they don't work together yet? One commands you to worship a specific god, the other says you may worship whichever god(s)/goddess(es) you want.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
 
what I can't figure out is why you keep this question going because the true answer is it doesn't in any way break the first commandment. The reason why is because this commandment is a law to the believers of Judaism and Christianity
 
There are zero atheists in a foxhole, there must be a reason for this, and the reason is clear........don't burn your bridges, or count your chickens before they are hatched.;)
 
Deegan said:
There are zero atheists in a foxhole, there must be a reason for this, and the reason is clear........don't burn your bridges, or count your chickens before they are hatched.;)

And people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at birds of a feather who are opposites attracted.
 
Kelzie said:
And people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at birds of a feather who are opposites attracted.


Usually the "glass house" analogy is saved for the hypocrites, I am not sure how my reply fits that description?
 
Aaron said:
what I can't figure out is why you keep this question going because the true answer is it doesn't in any way break the first commandment. The reason why is because this commandment is a law to the believers of Judaism and Christianity

Wow. Let me see if I can convey the meaning of the 1st commandment to you in a way that you may understand? God is COMMANDING that you should have no other Gods before him! Period. He doesn't say, "with the exception of non-believers." That goes for EVERYONE. Personally, I'm glad that God was totally left out of the Constitution and everyone else should be too.
 
How can you say that God was left out?
 
Were not the founders of this great nation God centered people?
 
It seems that all things holy are under attack by the leftest ACLU, marraige, birth, prayer,the ten comandments witch by the way are the law of God.How would we know right from wrong without a standard? The ten comandments are the standard that we all should aspire to. Just my opinion.
 
robert mccoin said:
It seems that all things holy are under attack by the leftest ACLU, marraige, birth, prayer,the ten comandments witch by the way are the law of God.How would we know right from wrong without a standard? The ten comandments are the standard that we all should aspire to. Just my opinion.

Some of us take pride in the fact that we can live by our own moral code that isn't forced upon us by a deity.

I have no problem living in a society primarily christian, with christian ethics, but I do have one that is governed in such a way that those ethics are forced upon the people. Government is about maintaining a smooth, peaceful civilization that can perpetuate itself and grow with its people.
 
Columbusite said:
Wow. Let me see if I can convey the meaning of the 1st commandment to you in a way that you may understand? God is COMMANDING that you should have no other Gods before him! Period. He doesn't say, "with the exception of non-believers." That goes for EVERYONE. Personally, I'm glad that God was totally left out of the Constitution and everyone else should be too.



You really don't get it do you. This comandment is in the christian and Jewish bible. Which means it is a law for jews and christians the believers of the holy bible. So it in no way breaks the comandment to have freedom of religion.
 
robert mccoin said:
How can you say that God was left out?

Well, because God wasn't in the Constitution.

Were not the founders of this great nation God centered people?
I believe that most of them believed in a god, but many of them were deist. In any case, regardless of the religion of the founders the nation was not founded in any way on God or a belief in him.
 
Aaron said:
You really don't get it do you. This comandment is in the christian and Jewish bible. Which means it is a law for jews and christians the believers of the holy bible. So it in no way breaks the comandment to have freedom of religion.

Ummm... I think you're the one that doesn't quite get it.

"THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME"

Now, this was allgedly said to Moses by God (Christian, Jewish, and Islamic).

What about practicing Hindus or Buddhists. They do not worship that god. So, it leaves the distinct impression that by worshiping another god and not yours (Christian, Jewish, Islamic) then you're breaking a rule.

This is fine for private beliefs, even for judges to believe. But a governmental institution needs to be nuetral when it comes to religion. This is not being nuetral.
 
And yeah, I know how to spell neutral. Typos, what are you going to do??

Moving on...




galenrox said:
Please, tell me how the **** the ACLU is attacking ANY of those things?

Umm... maybe you're thinking of a different organization???

There are numerous ways in which the ACLU is confronting issues on each of those subjects. I'll just list one for each.

marraige, birth, prayer,the ten comandments

Marriage: Gay marriages
Prayer: No prayer in schools
Birth: Pro Choice
Ten Commandments: They're the ones who initiated this lawsuit that started this thread. ACLU lawyers fought and won this verdict.

Again, maybe you're thinking of another organization? This is the American Civil Liberties Union. This IS what they do.
 
Last edited:
IValueFreedom said:
Ummm... I think you're the one that doesn't quite get it.

"THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME"

Now, this was allgedly said to Moses by God (Christian, Jewish, and Islamic).

What about practicing Hindus or Buddhists. They do not worship that god. So, it leaves the distinct impression that by worshiping another god and not yours (Christian, Jewish, Islamic) then you're breaking a rule.

This is fine for private beliefs, even for judges to believe. But a governmental institution needs to be nuetral when it comes to religion. This is not being nuetral.

Thanks IValueFreedom, but even though we have both made it clear I believe he will still choose to believe that his version is somehow correct. What didn't he understand about that commandment? That means it's an imperative and did not specifiy ONLY Jews and Christians. Funny how many non Christians (not necessarily you, as I am not aware of your religious beliefs)) have a better understanding of their religion than they do.
 
YamiB. said:
Well, because God wasn't in the Constitution.

Exactly YamiB. Just shows the ignorance of those we are dealing with in the opposition.
 
robert mccoin said:
It seems that all things holy are under attack by the leftest ACLU, marraige, birth, prayer,the ten comandments witch by the way are the law of God.How would we know right from wrong without a standard? The ten comandments are the standard that we all should aspire to. Just my opinion.

Do you see this part, it's pretty important and may be the cause of a lot of confusion...
It seems that all things holy are under attack

"It seems that"... meaning that it is coming from an emotional, not literal, basis. He never said that they were actually attacking, just that he got the feeling that they were being attacked (not his words, my interpretation).

He followed it with Just my opinion. Another indication that his argument is based on emotions.

That's why when you said to tell how "the ACLU is attacking ANY of those things," I was still speaking on an emotional level, while I assume (now) you wanted tangible proof. Emotions aren't rational. You can never expect someone to reason out thier feelings with logic. It just doesn't happen that way. So yeah, as the ACLU has broken down/attempted to break down several of those social traditions with religious (Christian, Jewish, Islamic) themes, it is entirely likely to leave a bitter taste in the mouths of devote Christians/Jews/Muslims.

My interpretation, you tried to pick a fight with someone who was only griping, not trying to debate. Tisk tisk.

galenrox said:
In trying to:
a)politicize the concept of marriage
b)force religious practices into public schools
c)force unwanted children be born to parents who don't want them
d)change the legal base from constitutional to biblical

Umm... I'm only guessing, but with the language used, it seems that you're implying that the church is attempting to institute these things, when in reality, they've been socialized down thru traditions and are now only being confronted. The churches are definitely on the defensive in this fight.

On a side note, you brought up that there is so much time for kids to be praying outside of school, well, this is not true for some religions. Many have rigorous praying schedules where they have to do it multiple times and at certain times of the day, when it conlicts with school hours (That was never the real issue with prayer in school though, it was about school led prayers).
 
Last edited:
galenrox said:
For one, I find it ironic that someone who calls themself "I Value Freedom" hates the ACLU, a group around for the sole purpose of protecting your freedom.

What church is on the defensive? Certainly not MINE!
The ACLU case that I believe you're speaking of is one that was pertaining to when a school had a specific time for prayer. That's a lot different than allowing kids to pray. I went to school with many muslims, and they had no problems with the school's prayer policy.
I do agree that kids should be allowed to pray in school, but school led prayers crosses the line.

But please, I really am curious, why do you believe that:
a) gay marriage is an attack on the institution
b) banning school led prayers is an attack on prayer in general
c) the ten commandments are being attacked by not allowing them inside courthouses.
I am not being attacking, I really want to know. As far as gay marriage arguments, I've never gotten a real argument on why it should not be allowed. I've gotten people who think it's immoral, which I don't agree with, but if that's your opinion, then that's fine, but that doesn't explain why it shouldn't be allowed. I've also heard people talk about the dictionary definition of the word marriage, but seriously, who the **** honestly wants to legislate based on Funk and Wagner?
So why do you oppose gay marriage, legally speaking, along with the other issues too.
I'm honestly not being attacking.


Why do you like to kill kittens? I'm not attacking... I just want to know.
 
galenrox said:
For one, I find it ironic that someone who calls themself "I Value Freedom" hates the ACLU, a group around for the sole purpose of protecting your freedom.

What church is on the defensive? Certainly not MINE!
The ACLU case that I believe you're speaking of is one that was pertaining to when a school had a specific time for prayer. That's a lot different than allowing kids to pray. I went to school with many muslims, and they had no problems with the school's prayer policy.
I do agree that kids should be allowed to pray in school, but school led prayers crosses the line.

But please, I really am curious, why do you believe that:
a) gay marriage is an attack on the institution
b) banning school led prayers is an attack on prayer in general
c) the ten commandments are being attacked by not allowing them inside courthouses.
I am not being attacking, I really want to know. As far as gay marriage arguments, I've never gotten a real argument on why it should not be allowed. I've gotten people who think it's immoral, which I don't agree with, but if that's your opinion, then that's fine, but that doesn't explain why it shouldn't be allowed. I've also heard people talk about the dictionary definition of the word marriage, but seriously, who the **** honestly wants to legislate based on Funk and Wagner?
So why do you oppose gay marriage, legally speaking, along with the other issues too.
I'm honestly not being attacking.

See? It's not so nice to pigeonhole someone as to a belief system without ANY PROOF!

You're silly. And a master of psychology!

Please elaborate on my views so that everyone can read how stupid you are.

On EVERY SINGLE ISSUE that you've told me my opinion on, I'M ACTUALLY THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

Listen to what people are saying and not what you want to hear.

I only expressed my personal views on one issue, commandments. And if you had actually taken the time to read back a whole 8 posts or so, you'd have saved yourself from looking like a GIANT MORON.
 
robert mccoin said:
Were not the founders of this great nation God centered people?

A good deal were Christians, yes. There were also a number of Deists and Unitarians. Those Christians who took part in the founding document of our laws, the Constitution, apparantly weren't very conservative ones. Thankfully, they left out any mention of God, Christianity, the Bible, Jesus, etc. You have to remember that before this the US colonies WERE ruled by the Bible and had laws that ordered the death of those who denied Christ, blasphemed, etc. The Bible had well over a 1000 years to show itself worthy of being a good book to found a country on. It would seem that according to the Constitution our founders came up with that they didn't think it was such a great idea. If you've read about the history of Christian Europe, you too would agree. Unless you'd rather live in the Dark Ages.


robert mccoin said:
It seems that all things holy are under attack by the leftest ACLU, marraige, birth, prayer,the ten comandments witch by the way are the law of God.How would we know right from wrong without a standard? The ten comandments are the standard that we all should aspire to. Just my opinion.

1st of all, the ACLU simply does their best to uphold our Constitution, not the Bible. Considering that, I'd say they've done an overall good job. Let's take a look at all of these things which you claim are "under attack".

Marriage? Umm, just because the government recognizes same-sex marriage (this is what you were referring to, correct?) doesn't mean your church has to. In fact, Atheists are allowed to marry each other, AND with Christians no less! So I guess that means that your church has had to marry Atheists against it's will, right? Not to mention the fact that the 14th amendment says that all American citizens are to be treated equally under the law. This shouldn't even be subject to debate, gay people should have had marriage rights by default. Oh, and if you're one of those people who says, "Let the people vote on it!" I'll let you know that if that had been the case with interracial marriage we would still have official segregation in the South. If you don't believe me just have a look at these http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/11/03/election/ballots/interracial.marriage/
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/07/alabama.interracial/
and take into account that this happened with desegregation being imposed, and rightly so. Note that neither was a landslide victory to end interracial marriage bans with Alabama in 2000 having "59 percent to 41 percent, with 58 percent of the voted counted." and "In South Carolina, about 62 percent of voters favored lifting the ban." in 1998. We still have a long way to go.

As far as birth, I just don't like abortion and I don't most pro choice people do either. This is a complicated situation and I'll just sum it up by saying we need to lower the number of abortions as much as possible with good education and without it being prevented by law. If their were a law that banned abortion that would just make matters worse. For example, teen pregnancy is a big problem in the inner cities among black girls and if abortion were outlawed I can tell you right now, not enough white people are willing to adopt those babies because they are black. It is sad, but true.

I hope you know prayer was never taken out of school and this just shows how low some Christians think of God, that a piece of legislation banning schools from leading prayer has effectively kicked God out of all schools all over the country. Their God is powerful enough to create a universe in less than a week, but powerless to get back in schools. I'm surprised he hasn't come up with a skeleton key to get into every single school. But seriously, some Christians just love to lie to satisfy their persecution complex. Prayer is legal in school and reading the Bible is too given you do it on your own time while class is not in session. You wish you were under attack. Not to mention Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret....". Might want to crack open that book you claim has all the secrets to the universe and is considered by Christians inspired by God. Off topic, I don't understand how so many Christians don't even bother reading their Bible. I would think that being the word of God and all that they might want to know what it says as opposed to having a preacher read a few lines and say what he believes they mean.

Ah, the 10 Commandments. Now which version is it that we should have displayed? Protestant? Catholic? Jewish? Not to mention that NOT having the 10 Commandments in a governemnt building is not attacking you. That is simply doing what the government should be doing, remain neutral on the matter. I don't have the 10 Commandments posted anywhere in my home, so I guess I'm brazenly attacking the faith of every Christian in this country by not doing so. By the way, you say they are the "law of God". Well, if we are going to follow God's law, which one would that be? The Muslim one? Zoroastrian? Hindu God(s)? Am I supposed to just assume your God is the right one? Let's say I actually agreed that this is a Christian nation. I still must ask; Which one? Catholic? Presbyterian? Episcopal? Methodist? Amish? MCC? Baptist? Southern Baptist? Christian Reconstructionist? As you can see this just becomes more of a headache than you would have thought. Now the 10 Commandments as a moral standard are not much to aspire to. Laws are very complex and take into account so many variables. Good laws cannot be simple. "Thou shalt not kill", although it sounds nice, doesn't cut it. You can't kill what? Anything? Can't kill in self defense or step on an ant? Not only that, but long after the Bible was used as a book of law a lot of killing took place. Lot's of heretics, apostates, witches, fellow Christians, people of other religions etc. Apparantly there's a lot of wiggle room. The 10th is one that is a perfect example of the worthlessness of the 10 Commandments (except for 6-8, but as I pointed out sorely lacking in specifics), "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." So slavery isn't bad, it didn't even make the top ten, but don't you DARE go and steal someone else's slave. The 1st four are bad too, they are just how to worship God, and an egotistical, jealous one at that. Values like not killing, stealing, and committing adultery, which are all worthwhile do not need to have divine grounding to be put into effect and followed. Why is this? Reason, is the answer. We don't want to be killed, have something stolen from us, or have a significant other cheat on us. The ones that do need to be based on the divine are the absoluty useless ones. Are we to enforce worship of some version of the Christian God, throw people in jail for making idols, taking the Lord's name in vain, and punish those who don't "rest" on Sunday with a good stoning? We as a country tossed those religious laws out and in their place have appealed to reason to create the founding document for the 1st secular government in the world which was also the 1st in which "liberty" had any meaning, though we have had to work on living up to our Constitution's promises it is certainly a standard by which we should all live by.
 
I can't understand why this issue is even being debated? Is an inanimate object reaching out and grabbing you, saying... "I am here, at the courthouse. You MUST believe what I say, or suffer penalties?" I don't think so.

Is government, by displaying the 10 commandments, saying "You MUST believe in the Christian God, and do as he commands?" Again... absolutely not. If that were the case, then ABC would be accused of the same, every year when they run the Ten Commandments on television. Hell for that matter, Charleton Heston played Moses. Is he forcing you to believe?

It seems silly that in this day and age, adults cannot handle a phrase of words. They want it removed, instead of choosing not to say what's been said for decades. They don't want the 10 commandements at the courthouse. So let's remove an inanimate object from the lobby, steps, it's own private room, etc.. from a public building because someone's eyes would "burn" from having to view it.

I don't have all the answers. I believe it is very possible that when the Founding Fathers framed the laws here in America, they used a mixture of the laws they AGREED with from England, things that they wanted from England and couldn't get, and very well could have used the 10 commandments. My question.. So what?
 
galenrox said:
Fine, good, if that's what you believe, what if they hung the doctrines of the church of satan in a courthouse? Or Wiccan, or rhastafarian? I mean, if it really doesn't matter, than you'd obviously be fine with it if it weren't from christianity, I mean, you'd never imply that others shouldn't bitch about this common religious doctrine, which I assume is your's (just an assumption, correct me if I'm wrong), and then not be cool with the posting of a religious doctrine that you don't agree with.

Religious doctrine is religious doctrine. I could care less if they hung Marilyn Manson's lyrics from the bench of the Supreme Court. I practice no religion, therefore no religious doctrine is going to be "offensive" to me.

galenrox said:
The issue is the state showing that it favors a certain religion over others. If any religion gets acknowledgement in the state, all religions should, or else it would be a step towards establishment of a state religion, and thus in violation of the first ammendment.

Then do explain how these Ten Commandments have been in numerous parks, courts, etc for decades and only now is it being seen as " a step toward establishment of a state religion?" Is it your opinion that our fathers, and grandfathers were derelict in their duties by allowing the Ten Commandments to remain standing? Is it also of your opinion, that if a citizen within a county would find it necessary (for whatever reason) to place a parchment copy of the commandments, as is believed to be the case in the Barrow county courthouse case, upon the walls of the courthouse, that would be "in violation of the first amendment?"

In the Barrow County, Georgia case, the Ten Commandments that has been posted on a wall between the main courthouse and a new annex is made from parchment, and was posted by an anonymous citizen, supposedly not any courthouse or county employee.

http://atlanta.about.com/cs/spirituality/a/10command.htm

galenrox said:
Now here's what I don't understand:
Why are so many people so indifferent to breaches of our constitutional rights, and then can say that they are patriotic with a straight face, and possibly even believe it. The constitution is what this country is, and those who do not agree with it don't belong here, and support of the constitution is the definition of supporting the United States, I mean christ, that is the document that DEFINES WHO WE ARE, and what we are all about, so I really can't get all of these people's indifference to abuses of our rights.

Those who don't support it don't belong here? Hmmm so are you saying when Prohibition was added to the Constitution, those who protested, and subsequently put on enough heat to have it repealed, didn't belong here? Seems a very narrow view, in my opinion, considering you yourself, is opposed to any form of drug "prohibition".

I keep hearing abuses of our rights... how is a piece of stone, or a piece of paper abusing your rights? You say the constitution protects against state sanctioned religion... it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Again I ask.. how is a piece of paper or a piece of stone, in violation of the first amendment? Show me the law that Congress or ANY state legislature has passed REQUIRING the courthouses to have the Ten Commandments within the building. You want to use the Constitution, and yet now where within the First Amendment of that document do I see ANYTHING that would lead me to believe that having religious documents in a courthouse or a public park violates the amendment. I await your clarity.
 
Religious doctrine is religious doctrine. I could care less if they hung Marilyn Manson's lyrics from the bench of the Supreme Court. I practice no religion, therefore no religious doctrine is going to be "offensive" to me.

its good you wouldn't care, but most people protesting against this (mostly Christians) would.
 
robert mccoin said:
The attack on the ten comandments is just another example of how anything representative of God is under the blitz of the A C L U and many of those that support it.Don't get me wrong,I feel that the A C L U is an important orginization, and is a potential force of good, but I think it has gone astray with it's obvious attacks on the cross and the ten comandments


Ummm...I am liberal, and I am Christian. So I am pretty tolerant of Christianity.
 
debate_junkie said:
Religious doctrine is religious doctrine. I could care less if they hung Marilyn Manson's lyrics from the bench of the Supreme Court. I practice no religion, therefore no religious doctrine is going to be "offensive" to me.

Jesus Christ! You practice no religion (Atheist?) yet see no problem with the ten commandments? I'll tell you why you should be offended. The people who have put these up in courts over the course of this country's history take what that mere "piece of stone" says VERY seriously and as a nonreligious person you should be informed. If you were, you'd be concerned. I suggest a visit to au.org which is an excellent organization dedicated to keeping that wall of separation up. Yes, we have ignored our Constitution when it has been convenient. We still haven't lived up to our 14th amendment (that ALL citizens be treated equally under the law) and although there is no religious test required you better believe that you need to profess a belief in God (the Judeo-Christian one) if you want a shot at a political office. That whole prohibition argument was nonsense. Just because you tack something blatantly unconstitutional to the Constitution does not make it constitutional. I can tell you how that piece of paper/stone violates the 1st amendment. Our 1st amendment gurantees freedom of religion while the ten commandments demands that "thou shalt have no other gods before me". It is a violation because our government is to be neutral in religious matters. It should not be promoting religious views. Since our government has at it's core "freedom of religion" it has no business allowing any kind of religious doctrine to hang in it's buildings, especially one that is contradictory.That could be changed if they wanted to post the 3 commandments against killing, stealing, and lying since these are not solely religious and/or if all kinds of religious doctrines are allowed, but it would be easiest to keep them all out. If they are only words then why not just hand the country over to conservative Christians who want to rule the country with the Bible instead of the Constitution. I mean, they're only words. What harm could it do?
 
Back
Top Bottom