• 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? (1 Viewer)

Columbusite said:
Jesus Christ! You practice no religion (Atheist?) yet see no problem with the ten commandments? I'll tell you why you should be offended.

There is your first problem, that is her opinion and mind. She decides whether she is offended or not.

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?

"Congress shall make no establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof"

How does placing the ten commandments in a court room establish a religion? It is not a law, just a monument, it means only what you take it as. If you aren't a Christian, it is just a rock. It is not forcing, or even advocating, that you become a Christian, it is simply a monument.

A religious monument in the courtroom vs. ruling the country with the Bible. I don't think you can compare the two.
 
debate_junkie said:
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?

That's a simple way of looking at it. But as with most simple "solutions" to complex problems, it's wrong.

"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."

Sweet, you don't think so, but that doesn't stop it from being true.

Ten Commandments (rules/laws to live by) are located at a government run building that judges according to the law. Hmm... I see absolutely no conflict there... :\ That in no way leads people to think that those laws should be followed huh?

Justice is blind, but it supports Christianity. Hmm... seems pretty fair to other religions to me :\

"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?"

If ABC was a government agent, then yes. But since it's a private corp., they're entitled the same rights the rest of us are. They're allowed to promote whatever religious views they see fit. They can have a 24/7 Christian/Jewish/Islamic God channel and virtually everyone who is against the Ten Commandments in a courthouse would not protest it. Private parties are allowed to have views that U.S. government isn't.

"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?"

I'm confused, are you now for taking them out? If so, you're right. So what if the founding fathers couldn't imagine a world that wasn't Christian based? This way their vision is being met that they themselves could not fully see. So what with the precedence of something that is unjust. So what? If it's unjust we should fix it. That's what we're trying to do. As America improves, so what to past snapshots of how we got here. Let's keep moving in a positive and fair direction, one in which a greater equality is acheivable instead of staying stuck because of some past misconceptions. Let's say "so what?" to our great nation's past wrongdoings and make this country greater for our children.
 
galenrox said:
Hahaha, as they say about assumptions, they make an ass of you and me, I apologize for jumping to conclusions.



To be brief, yes, yes I would. As much as many seem to forget, we are not a christian nation. Although people argue that the ten commandments is the basis for our legal system, and thus justify the hanging of them in places of law, they are very clearly full of ****. The parts of the ten commandments we took are just the most basic moral principles that one would not have to be of any religion to accept as reasonable.
Although I do see merit in the supreme court's ruling on the issue, allowing it in certain contexts, like in showing part of the history of law would make sense, but showing it as a religious document is 100% unacceptable. And I can't imagine how they could possibly be justifiable in parks!!!

Although I view the ten commandments in a different manner, as I am Christian, I think they are put up in some public places more as art or a "piece of work/history". Much like some English classes in colleges use the Bible as a work of literature for its symbols, metaphors, etc. I don't think it is meant to be shown as guiding your way of life.

Haha, crafty way of shaping my words, but that was not in fact what I intended. What I meant was I don't understand why if someone doesn't think favorably of a particular way of things in whatever country, why don't they go to a more fitting country, i.e. if you don't like our constitutional rights, fine, whatever's your opinion, but I don't see why in that case they wouldn't go somewhere with more fitting principles then trying to change ours here.
And as far to this actually effecting me, you're right, in this particular act itself I am uneffected. The problems arise from what these sorts of thing imply, such as sending the message that this is a religious courthouse, and that we as a nation would under any circumstances tolerate such a thing as a federal christian courthouse.
And I think you knew that, and I think you should ask fewer petty questions to which you already know the answers.

Ah, but that is the beauty of our nation. We can change it, through debates such as these, we are suppose to reach a negotiation. We don't need to move to a "more fitting" country, because we are allowed to speak out in this country for a reason. Come on g-rox, you know this.
 
Just because people don't want other religions shoved down their throat doesn't make them untolerant of certain religous groups. I am a catholic so my parents-who wanted me to have a catholic education- sent me to a catholic school! They would not have sent me to a public school then demand every student in that school follow my religion because that would be just plain stupid! If you want your kids to have prayer in school for a certain religion then send them to the proper school where they can learn it! If you want your kids to have an open minded/diverse education then send them to public school. I guess it's the Christians in this case who aren't tolerant of other religions.
 
americanwoman said:
Just because people don't want other religions shoved down their throat doesn't make them untolerant of certain religous groups. I am a catholic so my parents-who wanted me to have a catholic education- sent me to a catholic school! They would not have sent me to a public school then demand every student in that school follow my religion because that would be just plain stupid! If you want your kids to have prayer in school for a certain religion then send them to the proper school where they can learn it! If you want your kids to have an open minded/diverse education then send them to public school. I guess it's the Christians in this case who aren't tolerant of other religions.
My neighbors kids graduated school in the seventies and he told me they would still do the prayer in schools and opening invocations at that time(public), he told me they would invite different religions and different religious sects to do these services and everyone prayed out of respect for each others beliefs, I think that's a reasonable compromise and even a moment of silence for the atheists every once in a while should be acceptable IMHO, I think the big problem is religious intolerance, I am also a Catholic(although no saint by any means, more of a sinner actually) but don't like the idea of people's faiths being attacked like the left has been doing, they treat those of faith like second class citizens and it is sickening.
 
LaMidRighter said:
My neighbors kids graduated school in the seventies and he told me they would still do the prayer in schools and opening invocations at that time(public), he told me they would invite different religions and different religious sects to do these services and everyone prayed out of respect for each others beliefs, I think that's a reasonable compromise and even a moment of silence for the atheists every once in a while should be acceptable IMHO, I think the big problem is religious intolerance, I am also a Catholic(although no saint by any means, more of a sinner actually) but don't like the idea of people's faiths being attacked like the left has been doing, they treat those of faith like second class citizens and it is sickening.

I think thats great about respecting other's religion in schools. That's what its got to be about! I also agree that just because you are christian/jew/muslim and you are proud of your religion you should show it and not be treated any lower. If only both sides( left and right) would be tolerant of each other it'd be great but that ain't likely. We all live together in this great country and it's time both sides let the other live in peace. If you want to put up the ten commandements I say go for it. It's not only about God it's about a moral way of living. Preach to me and I'll listen but just don't force me to believe it!
 
americanwoman said:
I think thats great about respecting other's religion in schools. That's what its got to be about! I also agree that just because you are christian/jew/muslim and you are proud of your religion you should show it and not be treated any lower. If only both sides( left and right) would be tolerant of each other it'd be great but that ain't likely. We all live together in this great country and it's time both sides let the other live in peace. If you want to put up the ten commandements I say go for it. It's not only about God it's about a moral way of living. Preach to me and I'll listen but just don't force me to believe it!

I agree, posting the 10 commandments is not "establishing religion" as I said earlier. I wouldn't freak out if a statue of buddha was put in a public park or something. No big deal, it doesn't mean anything to me.
 
I know you only establish a religion if you force everyone to convert or else. When that happens then people can complain but other than that just myob and get on with your life. I would actually like it if they put a buddha statue downtown or somewhere where everyone could see it and appreciate the beauty of diversity. There is this small town about 15 miles to the south of me where this guy and the aclu sued the city for a ten commandments they had at the courthouse. It's an ongoing battle right now. It's like just give it up dude. We ain't forcin you to follow it!
 
I think a Buddha statue would be pretty relaxing actually, a big man who's always smiling, that could dissolve a whole days worth of problems. And to take it a step further we could have park entrances with Japanese Zen garden's, those are freakin' beautiful.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I think a Buddha statue would be pretty relaxing actually, a big man who's always smiling, that could dissolve a whole days worth of problems. And to take it a step further we could have park entrances with Japanese Zen garden's, those are freakin' beautiful.

yes, and they only represent religious doctrine if you believe in the religious doctrines. They don't "establish religion"...this isn't much of a debate, everyone is agreeing. What happened to the other people?
 
HTColeman said:
There is your first problem, that is her opinion and mind. She decides whether she is offended or not.

OK for her, if she as a nonreligious person doesn't find the government favoring a religious document in which that God says you must only worship him and no one else offensive then she won't care until that wall of separation is torn down, but by then it will have been too late.

"Congress shall make no establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof"

How does placing the ten commandments in a court room establish a religion? It is not a law, just a monument, it means only what you take it as. If you aren't a Christian, it is just a rock. It is not forcing, or even advocating, that you become a Christian, it is simply a monument.

A religious monument in the courtroom vs. ruling the country with the Bible. I don't think you can compare the two.

You MISQUOTED the 1st amendment and left out the most important part. It's actually "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Our government is not to have anything to with respect to religion. If it were "just a rock" then why are so many Christians demanding that it be posted all over our governement buildings? You know what? Words have meaning. If I am going to a trial in a court where there are the 10 commandments/5 pillars of Islam/etc and the judge is Christian/Muslim/etc I know that there are some judges who are religious and willing to judge in accordance to their religious beliefs instead of the Constitution on an issue and that is just wrong. They don't need the encouragement. It's already happening as in the case of a divorced Wiccan couple in Indiana where the judge wouldn't give custody if they were going to raise the child as a Wiccan. He said mainstream religion only. http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481 What's funny is that Christianity was not a mainstream religion when it came about. So, can everyone here now see how this is a problem?
 
Columbusite said:
You MISQUOTED the 1st amendment and left out the most important part. It's actually "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Our government is not to have anything to with respect to religion. If it were "just a rock" then why are so many Christians demanding that it be posted all over our governement buildings? You know what? Words have meaning. If I am going to a trial in a court where there are the 10 commandments/5 pillars of Islam/etc and the judge is Christian/Muslim/etc I know that there are some judges who are religious and willing to judge in accordance to their religious beliefs instead of the Constitution on an issue and that is just wrong. They don't need the encouragement. It's already happening as in the case of a divorced Wiccan couple in Indiana where the judge wouldn't give custody if they were going to raise the child as a Wiccan. He said mainstream religion only. http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481 What's funny is that Christianity was not a mainstream religion when it came about. So, can everyone here now see how this is a problem?

I did misquote, sorry it was from memory. But you serve to further my purpose. Posting the ten commandments is not making a law is it? You however misinterpreted. Basically Congress can't make any LAWS concering an institution of religion. Who is demanding? Many are offended that you take it down, because it is seen as if people are trying to get rid of Christianity, which is a part of the nation's history. BTW, an Indiana judge making a bad decision does not constitute that the judicial system is becoming "religious". It does not mean that they are not judging by the ten commandments rather than the Constitution, that is overexaggerating. It is simply something placed on a wall, a monument. Unless some legislative action is taken, it does not violate the Constitution.
 
LaMidRighter said:
My neighbors kids graduated school in the seventies and he told me they would still do the prayer in schools and opening invocations at that time(public), he told me they would invite different religions and different religious sects to do these services and everyone prayed out of respect for each others beliefs, I think that's a reasonable compromise and even a moment of silence for the atheists every once in a while should be acceptable IMHO, I think the big problem is religious intolerance, I am also a Catholic(although no saint by any means, more of a sinner actually) but don't like the idea of people's faiths being attacked like the left has been doing, they treat those of faith like second class citizens and it is sickening.

Oh I see, accomodate all religious people but the Atheists? Eh, once in a while. How about Protestant prayers only and every now and then let the Catholics do theirs. Praying in school is no problem as long as the school isn't leading it. Yeah, you poor, poor Christians are always being attacked. I mean, you guys aren't even considered to be a humnan being under our laws...oh wait, allowed to vote...err, marry each other....no, you can do all that. Just how is it you're all 2nd class citizens again? Jon Stewart sums up this Christian persecution nonsense perfectly, "Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely, in broad daylight, openly wearing symbols of their religion, perhaps around their necks. And maybe — dare I dream it — maybe one day there could even be an openly Christian president, or perhaps 43 of them consecutively."
 
Columbusite said:
Oh I see, accomodate all religious people but the Atheists? Eh, once in a while. How about Protestant prayers only and every now and then let the Catholics do theirs. Praying in school is no problem as long as the school isn't leading it. Yeah, you poor, poor Christians are always being attacked. I mean, you guys aren't even considered to be a humnan being under our laws...oh wait, allowed to vote...err, marry each other....no, you can do all that. Just how is it you're all 2nd class citizens again? Jon Stewart sums up this Christian persecution nonsense perfectly, "Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely, in broad daylight, openly wearing symbols of their religion, perhaps around their necks. And maybe — dare I dream it — maybe one day there could even be an openly Christian president, or perhaps 43 of them consecutively."

As far as persecution, I LaMidRighter was referring to legal persecution, but from persecution by people like you. In the 1970s blacks had all of the afore mentioned rights, but were still treated as second class citizens.
 
HTColeman said:
I did misquote, sorry it was from memory. But you serve to further my purpose. Posting the ten commandments is not making a law is it? You however misinterpreted. Basically Congress can't make any LAWS concering an institution of religion. Who is demanding? Many are offended that you take it down, because it is seen as if people are trying to get rid of Christianity, which is a part of the nation's history. BTW, an Indiana judge making a bad decision does not constitute that the judicial system is becoming "religious". It does not mean that they are not judging by the ten commandments rather than the Constitution, that is overexaggerating. It is simply something placed on a wall, a monument. Unless some legislative action is taken, it does not violate the Constitution.

Those commandments are God's laws and as such have no place in a government building where the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Don't tell me you'd be OK with the 5 pillars being put up all over our courts and other government buildings. Who is demanding this? Watch 5 minutes of TBN. Seriously,there are a lot of Christians who want these put up, judge Roy Moore and all those Christians who traveled to Alabama to pray for him to win and keep the commandments up being but one example. What do you expect when a courthouse can have a Christian document tacked up on the wall (although that may not be the case in this particular Indiana courthouse, but he sure acted as though it was)? "It does not mean that they are not judging by the ten commandments rather than the Constitution". Huh? I'm guessing you meant to say "It does not mean that they are judging by the ten commandments rather than the Constitution" in which case I say, overexaggerating? Absolutely not. That judge simply made his decision based on the 1st commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" or the 2nd regarding idol worship. He didn't get this idea from nowhere you know. Like I said, words have meaning. Those commandments were never supposed to be there in the 1st place, so how can people be upset when they are taken down and rightfully so? Oh, and don't think they haven't tried to make it law. http://usgovinfo.about.com/bltenamend.htm . Hey, using your reasoning why don't I just stick the religious laws of Iran in a government building? It's just a piece of paper and Congress hasn't made it law, so why not? The Constitution along with Supreme Court decisions say to keep religion out of government to remain neutral on the matter as it should. Our government is to neither promote nor prohibit religion. What is so wrong with that? Let's use a little common sense here. What if there were to be a new government building in DC shaped as a gigantic cross (maybe even with a huge Jesus on it)? That is obviously the government promoting religion and the argument that just because it isn't being made a law means it's OK hasn't passed muster in our courts so I see no need to further entertain that notion. I'd like to know why do you feel that they should be there in the 1st place?
 
HTColeman said:
As far as persecution, I LaMidRighter was referring to legal persecution, but from persecution by people like you. In the 1970s blacks had all of the afore mentioned rights, but were still treated as second class citizens.

Now you have crossed a line. You are now comparing me to southern racists who beat up/sometimes killed people because of their hatred, their violent intimidation methods to keep blacks from voting, forbidding them from marrying whites, etc (which is all quite ironic theirs being a specifically Christian, religious hatred). Where have I displayed such a hatred of equal or greater value of Christians? Where is the equivalent happening to Christians here in this country? Umm, nowhere. If there were such people attacking Christians I would be totally opposed to them. If they existed, that is. Here's that Jon Stewart quote again (seems like you must have missed it the 1st time) "Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely, in broad daylight, openly wearing symbols of their religion, perhaps around their necks. And maybe — dare I dream it — maybe one day there could even be an openly Christian president, or perhaps 43 of them consecutively."
 
Columbusite said:
Those commandments are God's laws and as such have no place in a government building where the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Don't tell me you'd be OK with the 5 pillars being put up all over our courts and other government buildings. Who is demanding this? Watch 5 minutes of TBN. Seriously,there are a lot of Christians who want these put up, judge Roy Moore and all those Christians who traveled to Alabama to pray for him to win and keep the commandments up being but one example. What do you expect when a courthouse can have a Christian document tacked up on the wall (although that may not be the case in this particular Indiana courthouse, but he sure acted as though it was)? "It does not mean that they are not judging by the ten commandments rather than the Constitution". Huh? I'm guessing you meant to say "It does not mean that they are judging by the ten commandments rather than the Constitution" in which case I say, overexaggerating? Absolutely not. That judge simply made his decision based on the 1st commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" or the 2nd regarding idol worship. He didn't get this idea from nowhere you know. Like I said, words have meaning.

I would not have a problem with the pillars of Islam, because I do not believe in them. If they place them in the courthouse, I still am able to exercise my religion freely, am I not? Besides, the pillars of Islam don't have any foundation in U.S. History, but Christianity has a prominent foundation. As far as the judge, whether the 10 Commandments are in the courthouse or not, he was going to be that kind of judge. Once again, his court decision does not reflect a change in the judicial system.

Those commandments were never supposed to be there in the 1st place, so how can people be upset when they are taken down and rightfully so? Oh, and don't think they haven't tried to make it law. http://usgovinfo.about.com/bltenamend.htm . Hey, using your reasoning why don't I just stick the religious laws of Iran in a government building? It's just a piece of paper and Congress hasn't made it law, so why not? The Constitution along with Supreme Court decisions say to keep religion out of government to remain neutral on the matter as it should. Our government is to neither promote nor prohibit religion. What is so wrong with that? Let's use a little common sense here. What if there were to be a new government building in DC shaped as a gigantic cross (maybe even with a huge Jesus on it)? That is obviously the government promoting religion and the argument that just because it isn't being made a law means it's OK hasn't passed muster in our courts so I see no need to further entertain that notion. I'd like to know why do you feel that they should be there in the 1st place?

That link never said that the court houses should place the 10 C's in the courthouse, just that it was the states decision, they don't care. As far as the cross analogy, apples and oranges, the crucifixion has nothing to do with U.S. history, but the 10 commandments does. I never said they should be there, I think it is up to those in charge of the building, or take a vote. If it is voted to stay, then fine, if not, fine as well.
 
HTColeman said:
I would not have a problem with the pillars of Islam, because I do not believe in them. If they place them in the courthouse, I still am able to exercise my religion freely, am I not? Besides, the pillars of Islam don't have any foundation in U.S. History, but Christianity has a prominent foundation. As far as the judge, whether the 10 Commandments are in the courthouse or not, he was going to be that kind of judge. Once again, his court decision does not reflect a change in the judicial system.

The problem is that your being offended or not is of no matter where our Constitution is concerned. As an American I realize the Constitution trumps my vote on some issues. I cannot, will not choose which parts I like or don't like for my convinience. I do agree that he was going to be that kind of judge, but where do you think he and other judges get the idea that they can do this? Maybe that "Christian Nation" BS has something to do with it. Unfortunately, judges have already been doing such things for a long time, this is not new. Just what do you mean by Christianity having a "prominent foundation"? What has that got to do with anything with in a government that is irreligious?



That link never said that the court houses should place the 10 C's in the courthouse, just that it was the states decision, they don't care. As far as the cross analogy, apples and oranges, the crucifixion has nothing to do with U.S. history, but the 10 commandments does. I never said they should be there, I think it is up to those in charge of the building, or take a vote. If it is voted to stay, then fine, if not, fine as well.

The fact that they would allow it alone is not in line with the 1st amendment. They should not be allowing promotion of religion, which makes that new amendment unconsitutional. Apples and oranges? More like apples and apples. If the cross is irrelevent to our history then so are the 10 commandments. Now, you do realize they shouldn't be able to vote on something that is against our Constitution (unless they put it up with other religious/nonreligious documents)?
 
Columbusite said:
Now you have crossed a line. You are now comparing me to southern racists who beat up/sometimes killed people because of their hatred, their violent intimidation methods to keep blacks from voting, forbidding them from marrying whites, etc (which is all quite ironic theirs being a specifically Christian, religious hatred). Where have I displayed such a hatred of equal or greater value of Christians? Where is the equivalent happening to Christians here in this country? Umm, nowhere. If there were such people attacking Christians I would be totally opposed to them. If they existed, that is. Here's that Jon Stewart quote again (seems like you must have missed it the 1st time) "Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely, in broad daylight, openly wearing symbols of their religion, perhaps around their necks. And maybe — dare I dream it — maybe one day there could even be an openly Christian president, or perhaps 43 of them consecutively."

Racist? It wasn't a comparison, just an example. Just because you have legal rights, doesn't mean you have respect. I am tired of being compared to the ancient Greeks, following a religious doctrine out ignorance. So calm down, no one is comparing you to a white racist.
 
Columbusite said:
The fact that they would allow it alone is not in line with the 1st amendment. They should not be allowing promotion of religion, which makes that new amendment unconsitutional. Apples and oranges? More like apples and apples. If the cross is irrelevent to our history then so are the 10 commandments. Now, you do realize they shouldn't be able to vote on something that is against our Constitution (unless they put it up with other religious/nonreligious documents)?

That is what this entire debate is about, you assume it is unconstitutional, but I am saying that it is not. The Constitution says nothing about promoting religion or not, it says no law establishing, btw

promote-
To contribute to the progress or growth of; further. See Synonyms at advance.
To urge the adoption of; advocate: promote a constitutional amendment.

placing the ten commandments is not evangelism, it is simply there. And it does play a role in U.S. History, treat every man as your neighbor is the basis of "all men created equal under God". No where in the DOI is anything based off of the forgiveness of all sins (crucifiction). therefore, apples and oranges.
There is no establishment, so it is constitutional to vote.
 
HTColeman said:
That is what this entire debate is about, you assume it is unconstitutional, but I am saying that it is not. The Constitution says nothing about promoting religion or not, it says no law establishing, btw

promote-
To contribute to the progress or growth of; further. See Synonyms at advance.
To urge the adoption of; advocate: promote a constitutional amendment.

placing the ten commandments is not evangelism, it is simply there. And it does play a role in U.S. History, treat every man as your neighbor is the basis of "all men created equal under God". No where in the DOI is anything based off of the forgiveness of all sins (crucifiction). therefore, apples and oranges.
There is no establishment, so it is constitutional to vote.

1st of all, yes you did compare me to southern racists and 2ndly, like I said the Consitution and Supreme Court has ruled that your argument holds no water. You are free to interpret it that way, but that doesn't make it valid. You are very selective in your responses. I will ask you again; Where have I treated Christians here like 2nd class citizens? Where in this country are these Christian haters beating up Christians for their beliefs and other horrible things? What Christian foundation are you talking about? I see none as far as our government and law are concerned. "Treat every man as your neighbor" is nowhere in the 10 commandments. Good Lord, you're a Christian and you don't even know that. I am fed up to here with Christians who don't even have basic knowledge of their Bible. No wonder I'm not a Christian, I know what it says! It's "all men are created equal", not "under God" as your selective memory would like it to be. You need to stop reading things and making them say what you want them to. I wish that "all men are created equal" were in the Top Ten but apparantly it wasn't as good as not coveting your neighbor's man/womanservant(s). The Bible, NT and Old condone slavery. Equality is not the Bible's strong point and it is a stretch to say Christianity is behind that statement at the very least. Such a concept of God is Deist is nature and aside from that is the fact that the DOI is NOT what our country is founded on. That would be the Constitution and the Constitution alone. Oh, and you still havent's shown that it's apples and oranges, but if you still think so, go ahead. You can always become a Supreme Court Justice and change it. I don't think I could be any clearer without repeating what I've said.
 
Columbusite said:
1st of all, yes you did compare me to southern racists

I never even posted the words "southern racist", you did.

and 2ndly, like I said the Consitution and Supreme Court has ruled that your argument holds no water. You are free to interpret it that way, but that doesn't make it valid.

Except for the courts that ruled the Ten Commandments are not in violation of the Costitution. If my argument held no water, we wouldn't be having the national debate we are having, huh?


You are very selective in your responses. I will ask you again; Where have I treated Christians here like 2nd class citizens?

Yeah, you poor, poor Christians are always being attacked; demeaning; No wonder I'm not a Christian, I know what it says!; in your post where you said you don't persecute Christians

Where in this country are these Christian haters beating up Christians for their beliefs and other horrible things?

As I said...nevermind I am not retyping, I'll just repost

HTColeman said:
Racist? It wasn't a comparison, just an example. Just because you have legal rights, doesn't mean you have respect. I am tired of being compared to the ancient Greeks, following a religious doctrine out ignorance. So calm down, no one is comparing you to a white racist.

It was an example not a parallel comparison.

What Christian foundation are you talking about?

Our country started under the premises that "All men are created equal under God"

"Treat every man as your neighbor" is nowhere in the 10 commandments. Good Lord, you're a Christian and you don't even know that. I am fed up to here with Christians who don't even have basic knowledge of their Bible. No wonder I'm not a Christian, I know what it says!

I was referring to the basis behind the 10 commandments as stated by Jesus. That every commandment regarding other people are on the basis of treating all men as your neighbor. If you knew more about the Bible you would know that.


It's "all men are created equal", not "under God" as your selective memory would like it to be. You need to stop reading things and making them say what you want them to.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/bltenamend.htm
"The Declaration of Independence declares that governments are instituted to secure certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with which all human beings are endowed by their Creator and to which they are entitled by the laws of nature and of nature's God."

paraphrased, my friend, paraphrased.

I wish that "all men are created equal" were in the Top Ten but apparantly it wasn't as good as not coveting your neighbor's man/womanservant(s). The Bible, NT and Old condone slavery. Equality is not the Bible's strong point and it is a stretch to say Christianity is behind that statement at the very least.

Is that a bash on my views? Are you implying that Christians are a hypcrites in that we preach equality but do not back it?

Such a concept of God is Deist is nature and aside from that is the fact that the DOI is NOT what our country is founded on. That would be the Constitution and the Constitution alone.

That is how our country began, the principles by which we formed our laws that are in the Constitution. The Constitution is the literal law, while the DOI is the spirit behind the law and therefore plays an equal role in our country's foundation.

Oh, and you still havent's shown that it's apples and oranges, but if you still think so, go ahead. You can always become a Supreme Court Justice and change it. I don't think I could be any clearer without repeating what I've said

I did talk about the apples and oranges. Parts of the 10 Commandments have been used to shape this country, as I stated before. The Crucifiction has not shaped this country, as I stated before. Therefore posting a crucifix, or making a gov't building in the shape of a cross, has nothing to do with U.S. History. So comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. I will not repeat this, I will argue it, but I will not continue repeating.

BTW, you could make your argument clearer by losing the attitude and separating your arguments, instead of one long paragraph. Just some tips.
 
HTColeman said:
I never even posted the words "southern racist", you did.

Originally Posted by HTColeman
"As far as persecution, I LaMidRighter was referring to legal persecution, but from persecution by people like you. In the 1970s blacks had all of the afore mentioned rights, but were still treated as second class citizens."

"People like you" treating Christians like blacks that "had all of the afore mentioned rights, but were still treated as second class citizens." by who I ask? Oh yes, racists. In the south.

Except for the courts that ruled the Ten Commandments are not in violation of the Costitution. If my argument held no water, we wouldn't be having the national debate we are having, huh?

Umm, well we are also having a national argument over creationism vs evolution. So what? I already mentioned that they can be but only in specific circumstances.


Yeah, you poor, poor Christians are always being attacked; demeaning; No wonder I'm not a Christian, I know what it says!; in your post where you said you don't persecute Christians

Wow, that's some persecution. If that's your idea of being persecuted, you're going to be plenty "persecuted". Yes, in the 1st I was being sarcastic, but I guess sarcasm=persecution. Also, if anything turned me off from Christianity it was reading the Bible. That was simply a factual statement while poking fun at it at the same time. You'd think Christians would know a thing or two about persecution since they've been so good at it for over a 1000 years. Just look at the torture devices they came up with for nonbelievers and heretical "false" Christians. Now THAT'S persecution.

As I said...nevermind I am not retyping, I'll just repost



It was an example not a parallel comparison.

Well, then it was a terrible one at best.

Our country started under the premises that "All men are created equal under God"



I was referring to the basis behind the 10 commandments as stated by Jesus. That every commandment regarding other people are on the basis of treating all men as your neighbor. If you knew more about the Bible you would know that.

They are different. The commandments stated by Jesus are a good deal different and much more preferable. Did he then mean to treat your neighbor as yourself, except for the slaves? I hope not. Those commandments are from the jealous, angry Jehovah who said things slightly different from what Jesus espoused. Now, if they wanted the commandments as Jesus stated, why is there no one pushing for those to be put up instead? I'd at least agree with half of them as opposed to 3 out of 10 which would be OK in a government building. Thou shalt not kill, steal, or lie. I'd have no problem with hanging up the 3 commandments. See? I'm a reasonable person. Other (non)religous doctrines would still have to be allowed, though.


http://usgovinfo.about.com/bltenamend.htm
"The Declaration of Independence declares that governments are instituted to secure certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with which all human beings are endowed by their Creator and to which they are entitled by the laws of nature and of nature's God."

paraphrased, my friend, paraphrased.

Um, it's still not from the 10 commandments, paraphrased or not. I don't know what to tell you.

Is that a bash on my views? Are you implying that Christians are a hypcrites in that we preach equality but do not back it?

Hmm, that quote didn't come up...no, I'm not bashing Christians (except for those who want their views in government , but no one else's), but the Bible. Christians back in the day (around when the USA was born) wouldn't claim that the Bible supports equality and I'd have to agree with them. Actually, I'd much rather prefer that Christians don't follow the Bible word for word (like many today) and that when they do that they are very selective like only following what Jesus said.

That is how our country began, the principles by which we formed our laws that are in the Constitution. The Constitution is the literal law, while the DOI is the spirit behind the law and therefore plays an equal role in our country's foundation.

Spirit behind the law? Sorry there is no such thing, unless you can show me otherwise. Our laws are not based on the DoI. The DoI was just that, a DoI.

I did talk about the apples and oranges. Parts of the 10 Commandments have been used to shape this country, as I stated before. The Crucifiction has not shaped this country, as I stated before. Therefore posting a crucifix, or making a gov't building in the shape of a cross, has nothing to do with U.S. History. So comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. I will not repeat this, I will argue it, but I will not continue repeating.

What parts? You have not demonstrated that "all men are created equal" is derived from the 10 commandments, let alone Christianity. Hate to tell you this, but Nature's God is the God of Deism, of reason and not of Christianity. Hence the "Nature's" to differenciate it from the common Christian "God".

BTW, you could make your argument clearer by losing the attitude and separating your arguments, instead of one long paragraph. Just some tips.

Now when we look at the Constitution Christians don't have a prayer in attempting to argue it's "Christianess" because not even God is mentioned once. I already posted a long, lengthy post on this much earlier #49 where I talk about the founders, Constitution, and the 10 commandments. I must warn you even though they are formatted there are a couple of HUGE ass paragraphs. After you read that, I want to know if you understand where I'm coming from. I can say I'm glad that you don't want them put up by law, but I think if you read what the people in favor of having them put up are actually after that that might sway you. If I say "We need to return to our Biblical foundation as our Founding Fathers wanted" and that doesn't make you at the very least uneasy, then we probably aren't going to get anywhere continuing this discussion.
 
Oops, ignore the next to last post of mine.

HTColeman-
I never even posted the words "southern racist", you did.

Originally Posted by HTColeman
"As far as persecution, I LaMidRighter was referring to legal persecution, but from persecution by people like you. In the 1970s blacks had all of the afore mentioned rights, but were still treated as second class citizens."

Columbusite-"People like you" treating Christians like blacks that "had all of the afore mentioned rights, but were still treated as second class citizens." by who I ask? Oh yes, racists. In the south.

H-Except for the courts that ruled the Ten Commandments are not in violation of the Costitution. If my argument held no water, we wouldn't be having the national debate we are having, huh?

C-Umm, well we are also having a national argument over creationism vs evolution. So what? I already mentioned that they can be but only in specific circumstances.


H-"Yeah, you poor, poor Christians are always being attacked"; demeaning; "No wonder I'm not a Christian, I know what it says!"; in your post where you said you don't persecute Christians

C-Wow, that's some persecution. If that's your idea of being persecuted, you're going to be plenty "persecuted". Yes, in the 1st I was being sarcastic, but I guess sarcasm=persecution. Also, if anything turned me off from Christianity it was reading the Bible. That was simply a factual statement while poking fun at it at the same time. You'd think Christians would know a thing or two about persecution since they've been so good at it for over a 1000 years. Just look at the torture devices they came up with for nonbelievers and heretical "false" Christians. Now THAT'S persecution.

H-As I said...nevermind I am not retyping, I'll just repost
It was an example not a parallel comparison.

C-Well, then it was a terrible one at best.

H-Our country started under the premises that "All men are created equal under God"

I was referring to the basis behind the 10 commandments as stated by Jesus. That every commandment regarding other people are on the basis of treating all men as your neighbor. If you knew more about the Bible you would know that.

C-They are different. The commandments stated by Jesus are a good deal different and much more preferable. Did he then mean to treat your neighbor as yourself, except for the slaves? I hope not. Those commandments are from the jealous, angry Jehovah who said things slightly different from what Jesus espoused. Now, if they wanted the commandments as Jesus stated, why is there no one pushing for those to be put up instead? I'd at least agree with half of them as opposed to 3 out of 10 which would be OK in a government building. Thou shalt not kill, steal, or lie. I'd have no problem with hanging up the 3 commandments. See? I'm a reasonable person. Other (non)religous doctrines would still have to be allowed, though.

H-http://usgovinfo.about.com/bltenamend.htm
"The Declaration of Independence declares that governments are instituted to secure certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with which all human beings are endowed by their Creator and to which they are entitled by the laws of nature and of nature's God."

paraphrased, my friend, paraphrased.

C-Um, it's still not from the 10 commandents, paraphrased or not. I don't know what to tell you.

H-Is that a bash on my views? Are you implying that Christians are a hypcrites in that we preach equality but do not back it?

C-Hmm, that quote didn't come up...no, I'm not bashing Christians (except for those who want their views in government , but no one else's), but the Bible. Christians back in the day (around when the USA was born) wouldn't claim that the Bible supports equality and I'd have to agree with them. Actually, I'd much rather prefer that Christians don't follow the Bible word for word (like many today) and that when they do that they are very selective like only following what Jesus said.

H-That is how our country began, the principles by which we formed our laws that are in the Constitution. The Constitution is the literal law, while the DOI is the spirit behind the law and therefore plays an equal role in our country's foundation.

C-Spirit behind the law? Sorry there is no such thing, unless you can show me otherwise. Our laws are not based on the DoI. The DoI was just that, a DoI.

H-I did talk about the apples and oranges. Parts of the 10 Commandments have been used to shape this country, as I stated before. The Crucifiction has not shaped this country, as I stated before. Therefore posting a crucifix, or making a gov't building in the shape of a cross, has nothing to do with U.S. History. So comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. I will not repeat this, I will argue it, but I will not continue repeating.

C-What parts? You have not demonstrated that "all men are created equal" is derived from the 10 commandments, let alone Christianity. Hate to tell you this, but Nature's God is the God of Deism, of reason and not of Christianity. Hence the "Nature's" to differenciate it from the common Christian "God".

H-BTW, you could make your argument clearer by losing the attitude and separating your arguments, instead of one long paragraph. Just some tips.

C-Now when we look at the Constitution Christians don't have a prayer in attempting to argue it's "Christianess" because not even God is mentioned once. I already posted a long, lengthy post on this much earlier #49 where I talk about the founders, Constitution, and the 10 commandments. I must warn you even though they are formatted there are a couple of HUGE ass paragraphs. After you read that, I want to know if you understand where I'm coming from. I can say I'm glad that you don't want them put up by law, but I think if you read what the people in favor of having them put up are actually after that that might sway you. If I say "We need to return to our Biblical foundation as our Founding Fathers wanted" and that doesn't make you at the very least uneasy, then we probably aren't going to get anywhere continuing this discussion.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom