Teacher punishes student for saying "bless you"

[Tawnos]

You posted the law yourself. The law says NOTHING about what a judge may display in his courthouse. The removal of this judge was obviously unfounded and strictly political. This is just another way the federal government uses nosey people to control the masses.

You're applying your ideology to this issue of law. You're simply wrong. Spend less time in the urban dictionary and more time in law books.

Argue all you want, you're wrong. Until you understand why you are wrong, you will be unable to effectively address this issue with any legal authority.

 

[georg jetson]

Argue all you want, you're wrong. Until you understand why you are wrong, you will be unable to effectively address this issue with any legal authority.

Well... gee... The law YOU posted says I'm right... but YOU say I'm wrong. What conclusion can we draw from this(tic)??

 

[Tawnos]

We can draw the conclusion that you have not sufficiently read or studied law to have enough of an idea of what's going on here to make a coherent statement regarding the law or its applicability.

 

[slowfiveoh]

In addition, the ten commandments are NOT a religion. Do you know what the word "religion" means?

Uh.....

:uhoh:

 

[since9]

Frankly, I'll stick with my Southern upbringing where my mom use to say, "Treat everyone with respect and dignity, until they give you reason not to. Then just avoid them".

Good advice. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, though, until I'm certain the reason they appear to have given me is their true intention, and not merely a misunderstanding on my part.

dbag?? Seems like a man of principle to me. Besides the first amendment reads...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, <SNIP

Let's finish this: "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof." Whether a judge puts up a plaque containing the Ten Commandments or I have a Bible on my desk at work, it's legal. At least according to the Constitution.

Seriously, folks - to float the idea that the Founders and framers of the Bill of Rights thought otherwise is complete foolishness in light of the fact that from the start they were erecting such religious plaques themselves. This idea that such as prohibited fails completely in light of this fact.

The language is clear... CONGRESS shall make no law. Putting up the Ten Commandments in a state or local court house does not = congress making a law. This is an abuse of the application of the 14th amendment as well as a total disregard for the 9th and 10th amendments.

9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Thus, those who created the Bill of Rights were saying that many other rights exist, and that all should be respected. By inference, they felt the most important rights needed to be set in stone.

10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This refers to powers, not rights. It was intended to prevent the feds from stealing powers from the states and the people that weren't specifically conferred to them by the Constitution. Obamacare was challenged and found un-Constitutional by a very competant Federal Judge. It has been accepted by less competent judges since then.

14th: Which part? 1 or 5? If 1: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This restricts the states from making laws which are more restrictive than the level to which the Constitution forbids the feds from going below. If anything, the 14th Amendment alone could be the crux upon which to base challenges against any state restrictions infringing the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Tawnos]

Good advice. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, though, until I'm certain the reason they appear to have given me is their true intention, and not merely a misunderstanding on my part.




Let's finish this: "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof." Whether a judge puts up a plaque containing the Ten Commandments or I have a Bible on my desk at work, it's legal. At least according to the Constitution.

I think it's ludicrous to claim that a person of a different religious system would have equal protection of the law in a court room that displays a religious tenant of a particular religion and supports leaving them there despite rulings to the contrary. Claim otherwise all you would like, but fortunately for me, the courts are on my side on this one.

The US is not and has never been a "Christian" nation. Trying to pound that square peg into the round hole of our country is just insulting to the intelligence of Constitution abiding people.

 

[since9]

I think it's ludicrous to claim that a person of a different religious system would have equal protection of the law in a court room that displays a religious tenant of a particular religion and supports leaving them there despite rulings to the contrary.

As a person of one faith who has been in authority over others of another faith or no faith, I find your assertion to be quite ludicrous.

The US is not and has never been a "Christian" nation.

Your Class: American History
Your Grade: F

Good luck convincing our Founding Fathers of that. You can view many of their original writings in the Library of Congress. Go through the front door, through the main area, into the central rear hall, and take the first door on your left. Bring your white gloves as the documents are quite fragile.

 

[Tawnos]

As a person of one faith who has been in authority over others of another faith or no faith, I find your assertion to be quite ludicrous.



Your Class: American History
Your Grade: F

Good luck convincing our Founding Fathers of that. You can view many of their original writings in the Library of Congress. Go through the front door, through the main area, into the central rear hall, and take the first door on your left. Bring your white gloves as the documents are quite fragile.

Try again, sparky.

...

But America's Constitution is more than just a secular document; it's literally godless. It doesn't claim that the ideas it contains were the product of divine revelation. It states that governing power comes from the will of the people, not the commands of a deity. It doesn't assert that God has specially blessed this nation or shown it special favor -- in fact, it never mentions God at all. And it mentions religion in only two places, both of them negative mentions: in Article VI, which forbids any religious test for public office, and in the First Amendment, which forbids Congress from passing any law respecting an establishment of religion.

If America's founders had meant to establish a Christian nation, this is where they would have said so. But they said no such thing. And this leads into a historical fact that the religious right would dearly love to forget: the godlessness of the Constitution was a point of major controversy in the debate over ratification. When it was drafted, the fact that it made no explicit mention of God or Christianity wasn't a minor oversight. It was a major, deliberate omission that was obvious to all. Religious language was omnipresent in other legal documents and charters of the day, including the ones that inspired the Constitution in the first place.

For example, the Constitution's precursor, the Articles of Confederation, explicitly gives God the credit for making the state legislatures agree to it: "...it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union."

...


The United States of America was the first modern republic that was created on the foundation of reason, without seeking blessings from a god, without imploring divine assistance or invoking divine favor. And, as I said, this fact was not overlooked when the Constitution was being debated. Very much to the contrary, the religious right of the founding generation angrily attacked it, warning that ratifying this godless document as-is would spell doom for the nation.

For instance, at the Constitutional Convention, the delegate William Williams proposed that the Constitution's preamble be modified to read: "We the people of the United States in a firm belief of the being and perfection of the one living and true God, the creator and supreme Governor of the World, in His universal providence and the authority of His laws... do ordain, etc". A failed Virginia initiative attempted to change the wording of Article VI to say that "no other religious test shall ever be required than a belief in the one only true God, who is the rewarder of the good, and the punisher of the evil". The Maryland delegate Luther Martin observed "there were some members so unfashionable as to think that... it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism."

However, the Constitution's defenders held firm, and all the attempts to Christianize it failed. And the religious right of the day bitterly lamented that failure. One anonymous anti-federalist wrote in a Boston newspaper that America was inviting the curse of 1 Samuel 15:23 - "Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee." In 1789, a group of Presbyterian elders wrote to George Washington to complain that the Constitution contained no reference to "the only true God and Jesus Christ, who he hath sent." In 1811, Rev. Samuel Austin claimed that the Constitution's "one capital defect" was that it was "entirely disconnected from Christianity." In 1812, Rev. Timothy Dwight, grandson of the infamous preacher Jonathan Edwards, lamented that America had "offended Providence" by forming a Constitution "without any acknowledgement of God; without any recognition of His mercies to us, as a people, of His government, or even of His existence."

What the religious right failed to achieve at the Constitutional Convention, they kept trying to do in the following decades. The National Reform Association, founded in 1863 by a group of clergy, proposed a constitutional amendment which would have changed the preamble to read, "We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s, they repeatedly brought this proposal before presidents and congresses, getting turned down each time. As recently as 1954, the National Association of Evangelicals was still trying to amend the Constitution with language such as, "This nation divinely recognizes the authority and law of Jesus Christ, Savior and Ruler of Nations, through whom are bestowed the blessings of Almighty God."

Only within the last 50 or 60 years, now that they've finally accepted they have no realistic hope of changing it, has the religious right flip-flopped and started claiming that the Constitution meant to establish a Christian nation all along. This staggeringly dishonest, wholesale rewriting of history has become their stock in trade, to the point of having full-time propagandists who obscure historical fact and promote the Christian-nation myth. These falsehoods filter into the political mainstream, until we have absurdities like Rick Perry claiming that the United States, a secular and democratic republic, was based on the legal code of an ancient theocratic monarchy.

...

Try to keep that lie perpetuated, but it's you who have failed at history.

 

[Grapeshot]

Originally Posted by Haz.

.

Innocent children are all common sense. I read somewhere, where a teacher turns on a particular piece of music, and asks all the little children in the class to clap to the music. The children and the teacher begin to clap, when the teacher add's, "Every time each one of us claps a little child dies somewhere in Africa of starvation and sickness." After a minute of music and clapping the teacher asks the children, "What can we do to save the liile children in Africa?"

A tiny voice from down the back of the class calls; "Lets stop clapping right away!"
Cheers, Haz.

http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/bono.asp

Have seen this story attributed to many sources - it's really just an urban myth that fits the agenda.

IMO, we are no better than the antis if we design or use such "fairy tales" to support our cause unless we desrcibe the story as pure, fictional allegory.

 

[georg jetson]

I think it's ludicrous to claim that a person of a different religious system would have equal protection of the law in a court room that displays a religious tenant of a particular religion and supports leaving them there despite rulings to the contrary. Claim otherwise all you would like, but fortunately for me, the courts are on my side on this one.

The US is not and has never been a "Christian" nation. Trying to pound that square peg into the round hole of our country is just insulting to the intelligence of Constitution abiding people.

Who should care what you THINK is ludicrous?? From what I've seen, your opinion is NEVER supported by FACT.

Religion is defined pretty well here - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

Religion is a set of BELIEFS. EVERYONE has a set of beliefs. In order to keep people's BELIEFS out of "anywhere" is IMPOSSIBLE and the founders knew this.

 

[georg jetson]

Try again, sparky.



Try to keep that lie perpetuated, but it's you who have failed at history.

Look at all the great intellectual benefits contained in this post.
You said he's failed so... he must have failed...

 

[Tawnos]

Look at all the great intellectual benefits contained in this post.
You said he's failed so... he must have failed...

--Considered to be personal insult/attack and has been deleted by Moderator--

 

[frommycolddeadhands]

Argue all you want, you're wrong. Until you understand why you are wrong, you will be unable to effectively address this issue with any legal authority.

We can draw the conclusion that you have not sufficiently read or studied law to have enough of an idea of what's going on here to make a coherent statement regarding the law or its applicability.

--Considered to be personal insult/attack and has been deleted by Moderator--

Tawnos, I can't help but get the feeling that you laud the Constitution only when it suits your needs and supports your world view. Your posts read like a page out of the liberal playbook. You pay lipservice to the idea of equality, free speech, and the swapping of ideas, but the second someone disagrees with you you automatically stick your nose in the air and declare that they are not smart enough to understand what you are saying, or understand the basic concepts that are being discussed.

Newsflash: Not everyone agrees with your point of view. That doesn't mean that they are "blinded by ideology" or somehow too stupid to comprehend your ridiculous blather. Your posts here remind me of the days when Obama was going around holding Town Hall meetings trying to get support for his Obamacare bill. He kept going on the news saying "They don't like it because they don't understand it." When the truth was that most of the regular folks in the meeting knew more about what was being put in the bill than the elected officials. They understood everything fine, they just didn't support it.

I don't know how someone can pretend to support freedom and democracy while maintaining the sort of elitist "I'm right, and anyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong, stupid, and not worth talking to" attitude. You've got your beliefs and a certain way you want to view our Constitution, history, and laws-- thats fine. Labeling everyone who opposes your views as an idiot is hypocritical.

 

[slowfiveoh]

How many of you would think it ok to display Qu'ran passages outside of any federal or other government asset alongside or in place of Christian doctrine?


Better question: How many of you have the fortitude to admit your religious view of equality is limited to only that of your own religion?



Any religious items being shown outside of a federal building are in fact showing preference for a given religion and should be taken down. Furthermore, stating that the 10 Commandments are "not religion" is the most dismissive type of blind allegiance one could ever display.

The 10 Commandments are religious doctrine, and are displaying religious preference in violation of the 1st Amendment. Period.


Here's a challenge for some of you guys.

In interest of religious equality, why don't you place your equality where your mouth is and arrange for the same government buildings to have passages from any other religion than the one you follow displayed?

You won't. Your religion precludes it, and anybody who "stands against" your religion will burn in hell anyways amirite? Screw equality. Lets play the role of mesmerized neanderthal gazing on fire.

 

[frommycolddeadhands]

How many of you would think it ok to display Qu'ran passages outside of any federal or other government asset alongside or in place of Christian doctrine?.

The Ten Commandments are not a 'Christian' thing. They're actually a Jewish thing. Christians and Muslims just inherited 'em through their common belief in the Old Testement. As far as religious symbols outside of a gov't building I say this-- as long as it was put there by members of the community in good faith, and was not paid for by tax dollars, I really don't care. If a group of Muslims wants to post the three pillars of Islam in front of a court house, let 'em have at it, but the same rules are going to apply for Christians too.

Better question: How many of you have the fortitude to admit your religious view of equality is limited to only that of your own religion?

You're painting with a pretty wide brush, partner. I'm a Christian, and it is because I am a Christian that I believe in the concept of free will, the ability for all people to chose to do right or wrong, to worship what gods they may, and to leave it to a higher power to judge us all for our spiritual beliefs. The Bible clearly states that not everyone is going to accept Christ. (Mark Chapter 4) but it is not our job to condemn anyone for their beliefs, but rather to spread the Word so that men may chose to accept it or deny it at their own hearts desire.

This is still the United States of America, and I would gladly stand up to defend a Muslim's right to pray in public places as I would a fellow Christian. The founding documents were not written just for Christians, but for All men, endowed by their creator with certain inaliable rights.

Any religious items being shown outside of a federal building are in fact showing preference for a given religion and should be taken down. Furthermore, stating that the 10 Commandments are "not religion" is the most dismissive type of blind allegiance one could ever display.

The 10 Commandments are different things to different people. They are God's sacred laws to Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike. For many non-believers they are still a representative moral code of the ancient world. For others they are an oppressive group of archane beliefs that have no business being shown in public. For others they are a link in our ancestors history. Take your pick or invent your own. At the end of the day they are a symbol, and like all symbols can be interpreted however the beholder pleases. I wouldn't support taking them down from a courthouse, nor would I support taking down any other benign religious symbol (from whatever religion) or decoration simply because someone didn't like it.

The 10 Commandments are religious doctrine, and are displaying religious preference in violation of the 1st Amendment. Period..

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Hmmm...doesnt seem to say anything about local court houses being prohibited from displaying statues, quotations, or other devices of a spiritual nature...

Here's a challenge for some of you guys.

I

n interest of religious equality, why don't you place your equality where your mouth is and arrange for the same government buildings to have passages from any other religion than the one you follow displayed?

In the name of freedom I can certainly support other people of a different faith in their desire to worship freely, to practice their beliefs, and (should they desire) support them in publicly displaying their faith. Am I going to run out and start a petition to have Islamic, Athiestic, or Pagan passages put up on a building? No. Why would I? Doesn't make sense. That would be like an Athiest running around putting Christian doctorine up.

Y

ou won't. Your religion precludes it, and anybody who "stands against" your religion will burn in hell anyways amirite? Screw equality. Lets play the role of mesmerized neanderthal gazing on fire.

My religion precludes me from worshipping other gods, or idols. It doesn't preclude me from supporting my fellow man in asserting their right to live, and pray, in a manner that they see fit. As far as who is going to hell, who knows? God will judge us all, and we're all sinners.

Have a great day.

 

[georg jetson]

How many of you would think it ok to display Qu'ran passages outside of any federal or other government asset alongside or in place of Christian doctrine?

It is a local issue... I would be against it in my locale, but then again there is an insignificant portion of the population that would want such.

Better question: How many of you have the fortitude to admit your religious view of equality is limited to only that of your own religion?.

Speak for yourself...

Any religious items being shown outside of a federal building are in fact showing preference for a given religion and should be taken down. Furthermore, stating that the 10 Commandments are "not religion" is the most dismissive type of blind allegiance one could ever display.

ANYTHYING can be defined as a religious item, which is why the law is not written that way. The most important point here is this "religious item" thing is NOT in the law. The legislatures do NOT have the power to entertain your draconian rule.

The 10 Commandments are religious doctrine, and are displaying religious preference in violation of the 1st Amendment. Period.

That's your opinion... and a very narrow one at that.

Here's a challenge for some of you guys.

In interest of religious equality, why don't you place your equality where your mouth is and arrange for the same government buildings to have passages from any other religion than the one you follow displayed?

You won't. Your religion precludes it, and anybody who "stands against" your religion will burn in hell anyways amirite? Screw equality. Lets play the role of mesmerized neanderthal gazing on fire.

Again... speak for yourself AND this is besides the point. The point is the several constitutions do NOT give the power to their legislatures to regultate "religious items" or any other such nonsense.

For example, here's what the Louisana's constitution PROHIBITS its LEGISLATURE from doing...

Freedom of Religion

Section 8. No law shall be enacted respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It's amazing that some very bright forum members here can speak so intelligently about many issues. Yet, once the subject of belief systems comes up, their brains fall out.

 

[slowfiveoh]

The Ten Commandments are not a 'Christian' thing. They're actually a Jewish thing. Christians and Muslims just inherited 'em through their common belief in the Old Testement. As far as religious symbols outside of a gov't building I say this-- as long as it was put there by members of the community in good faith, and was not paid for by tax dollars, I really don't care. If a group of Muslims wants to post the three pillars of Islam in front of a court house, let 'em have at it, but the same rules are going to apply for Christians too.

The ten commandments, any way you try to slice it, are religious in nature, and derived from religion. The nature of which, when displayed, are well known to be religious. Period.

You word it any which way you like.
You attribute it to any specific religion you like.

The fact is, they are derived from religion. Thus, they are religious doctrine.

Before you go getting all high and mighty on me, and embarrass yourself, I was raised fundamental baptist, and 2 of my high school years were spent avoiding all other perspectives, and memorizing Psalms. Many years prior were spent bothering people every weekend to come to church. Also, I have been to more "youth movements and camps" than I have the digits to count with.

If you do not see the wanton hypocrisy in Christianity, and specifically, the church, that is fine, and it is your perspective. Not mine or that of others.

You're painting with a pretty wide brush, partner. I'm a Christian, and it is because I am a Christian that I believe in the concept of free will, the ability for all people to chose to do right or wrong, to worship what gods they may, and to leave it to a higher power to judge us all for our spiritual beliefs. The Bible clearly states that not everyone is going to accept Christ. (Mark Chapter 4) but it is not our job to condemn anyone for their beliefs, but rather to spread the Word so that men may chose to accept it or deny it at their own hearts desire.

Your religious dogma is to be blunt, of little concern to me.

Furthermore, it provides the basis for your inequality. You believe, when convenient, that the Ten Commandments must be derived from the Bible, and thus are Christian in nature. Attributing the Ten Commandments strictly to Judaism is disingenuous at best, slippery at worst. Yes the Ten Commandments are Hebrew in nature as Moses hypothetically went up Mt. Sinai, spoke with an inflamed shrub, and received the commandments from "God". Whether the event is recorded in Judaism and Christianity is unimportant in the scope of religious practice. Both would lay possessive claim, one claiming the event ot be "Christian", and thus derived from the bible. The other expressing that the Ten Commandments are Judaic in origin.

Also, the Bible says:

(KJV) 1st Corinthians 15:33 : Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.
(KJV) Psalm 14:1 : The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Christian doctrine is explicit in denigrating and subjugating those who are not Christian. The presence of the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse, or within it, are tantamount to supporting that specific religion. Period.

This is still the United States of America, and I would gladly stand up to defend a Muslim's right to pray in public places as I would a fellow Christian. The founding documents were not written just for Christians, but for All men, endowed by their creator with certain inaliable rights.

Whose creator?

Have you discussed this perspective with your pastor? It would be interesting to hear verbatim, his point of view. I know that even to this day my last pastor would certainly reinforce the presence of the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse as appropriate. Whereas any other religious display of any sort would be "unacceptable". I think saying otherwise is certainly disingenuous to Christianity.

I am happy that you claim to not use your religion as a filter for equality. I find that extremely hard to believe as those of any faith tend to run their assessment of "equality" through their "faith filter" first. However, I cannot judge nor assess you from here.

The 10 Commandments are different things to different people. They are God's sacred laws to Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike.

Ah and we can stop hard here.

They are religiously derived. There is no secondary sourcing that can be applied.

For many non-believers they are still a representative moral code of the ancient world.

A factually, religiously derived representation of "moral code", and certainly not the original.

The Code of Hammurabi was first. If we were to put that up in front of a courthouse, Christians would in fact take issue. As would many other faiths.

For others they are an oppressive group of archane beliefs that have no business being shown in public. For others they are a link in our ancestors history. Take your pick or invent your own. At the end of the day they are a symbol, and like all symbols can be interpreted however the beholder pleases. I wouldn't support taking them down from a courthouse, nor would I support taking down any other benign religious symbol (from whatever religion) or decoration simply because someone didn't like it.

None of what you have typed dismisses that they are religious in their sourcing, and therefore are on display in front of a courthouse as a specific religious icon.

Also, I would love to believe what you are saying, but too many church gatherings across multiple state lines lead me to know, that in general, Christians would not fight en masse to have the tenets of another religion kept on display were they to come under persecution. Much for the reason you state below towards the end of this response. You cannot claim for it to be both ways and be honest with me or anybody else. It is like you saying you would be for Gay equality and marriage when it is expressly against Biblical teachings. You are being disingenuous, or inconsistent with your faith here.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Hmmm...doesnt seem to say anything about local court houses being prohibited from displaying statues, quotations, or other devices of a spiritual nature...

When the state places religious icons on display that can be sourced to a specific religion, it is indeed showing specific support for the given religion.

If a private business owner wants to place the Ten Commandments and scripture all over his walls of his restaurant, fine.
If a private business owner wants to put a huge slab of the Ten Commandments on his establishments law, fine.

In both cases we would understand that the owner of the establishment, much like the little fish outline on the trunk of a car identifies its driver, that the establishment is Christian or Judaic.

When the government does it however, you wish to dismiss it as a "historical relic".

BS.

In the name of freedom I can certainly support other people of a different faith in their desire to worship freely, to practice their beliefs, and (should they desire) support them in publicly displaying their faith. Am I going to run out and start a petition to have Islamic, Athiestic, or Pagan passages put up on a building? No. Why would I? Doesn't make sense. That would be like an Athiest running around putting Christian doctorine up.

Ah so you certainly wouldn't support putting the items up yourself.

So where, within scripture, do you justify going down to town hall and fighting the revocation of religious icons displayed that are not Christian?

Wouldn't that be explicitly against this?:

Ex 20:3-4 (NIV) "You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below."

2 Ki 17:15 (NIV) They rejected his decrees and the covenant he had made with their fathers and the warnings he had given them. They followed worthless idols and themselves became worthless. They imitated the nations around them although the Lord had ordered them, "Do not do as they do," and they did the things the Lord had forbidden them to do.

Psalms 97:7 (NIV) All who worship images are put to shame, those who boast in idols...

My religion precludes me from worshipping other gods, or idols. It doesn't preclude me from supporting my fellow man in asserting their right to live, and pray, in a manner that they see fit. As far as who is going to hell, who knows? God will judge us all, and we're all sinners.

Ah but this is also disingenuous. "There is no God but the Lord our God." Supporting the placement or worshipping of idols is certainly in violation of Biblical teachings.

Have a great day.

You too!

It is a local issue... I would be against it in my locale, but then again there is an insignificant portion of the population that would want such.

Do not lie in front of your God. You know that you would be completely against it as the Qu'ran is per your own doctrine an idol of another religion. You say "in your locale", but what you really mean is "globally".

The purpose for missionaries is to spread the word of God as instructed in Matthew 28:19, a verse supposedly containing a quote of Jesus as witnessed by the Apostle Matthew. God in fact instructs you to go out into the world and spread the gospel. The Ten Commandments are in fact religiously derived, and there is no fantasy that can be created around this fact. Rabbis would want you to know the Ten Commandments are expressly Judaic, while Christians and Muslims would similarly cast forth the argument that they are explicitly a product of their own religion. In any case, none would claim they are not religiously derived but an individual tap-dancing on a slippery slope of disingenuous intent.

Speak for yourself...

Your religion commands it.

ANYTHYING can be defined as a religious item, which is why the law is not written that way. The most important point here is this "religious item" thing is NOT in the law. The legislatures do NOT have the power to entertain your draconian rule.

So you have no problem with the emplacement of religious tenets or idols outside of your own religion, being placed outside of or within federal buildings.

One of us is being honest. The other is not.

That's your opinion... and a very narrow one at that.

I am far more historically learned than you possibly want to get into.

We can discuss the Sumarians and Babylonian history if you would like?
We can discuss the missing books of Mary of Magdalene, Peter, and Judas Icariot?

Your dismissing my view as "limited" is childish, and will be treated as such.

Again... speak for yourself AND this is besides the point. The point is the several constitutions do NOT give the power to their legislatures to regultate "religious items" or any other such nonsense.

Nor do they empower federal and local entities to display preference of one religion over another. This is the point you and others would lvoe to dodge, because, in fact, the display of the 10 Commandments is "ok" by your religious position.

For example, here's what the Louisana's constitution PROHIBITS its LEGISLATURE from doing...

Freedom of Religion

Section 8. No law shall be enacted respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Yet nowhere is it implied that preferential treatment may be given to a specific religion either.

It's amazing that some very bright forum members here can speak so intelligently about many issues. Yet, once the subject of belief systems comes up, their brains fall out.

You can lie to me all you like, even in the face of your "God". You support the Ten Commandments being there, and would not support the placement of any other religious icon or idol being placed there. It is against your beliefs to do so.

Furthermore, you would not defend the presence of any such idols, nor attend en masse the defense against removing said items. This is also against your beliefs.

One of us is being genuine. The other is not.


It is interesting that you label "some very bright members" of being "bright" when it serves your purposes, but that their "brains fall out" when they are in conflict with your religious dogma. That's ok, I will clear this up for you.

We are bright all of the time, because our world view is not limited by Biblical instruction.


Now, that being said. I will fight and die to support the American way of life, which includes, your freedom of religion. However, to conveniently paint the placement of the Ten Commandments outside of a courthouse as a harmless non-religiously derived activity is an outright lie. Furthermore, to claim that you would take no issue with other religions placing their texts or idols there, is also a blatant lie.

Keep it up though because it shows one of us as being raw, and honest. The other, not so much.

Have a good day.

 

[frommycolddeadhands]

The ten commandments, any way you try to slice it, are religious in nature, and derived from religion. The nature of which, when displayed, are well known to be religious. Period.

Right, it was derived from the Hebrew stories of Moses, which later came into both Christianity and Islam.....like I already said.

You word it any which way you like. You attribute it to any specific religion you like. The fact is, they are derived from religion. Thus, they are religious doctrine.

My point was that the Ten Commandments are not simply a Chrisitan Doctrine, they are present in the faiths of Islam and Judaism as well, so trying to describe the Ten Commandments as being a violation because one religion (Chrisitanity) is being preferred over another (Islam, Judaism) is simply untrue. Now, it is true that Wiccans, Pagans, and Athiests would be left out of this fun little party, but as far as I'm concerned they're free to put up their own displays as well.

Before you go getting all high and mighty on me, and embarrass yourself, I was raised fundamental baptist, and 2 of my high school years were spent avoiding all other perspectives, and memorizing Psalms. Many years prior were spent bothering people every weekend to come to church. Also, I have been to more "youth movements and camps" than I have the digits to count with.

Never intended to get high, nor mighty, and I'm not particularly concerned with being 'embarrassed' via the internet in the course of a simple conversation. As far as your 'biblical expert' credentials go you can color me unimpressed, although spending all that time memorizing psalms and avoiding other perspectives certainly seems to have left a mark. I've never been to a youth movement or camp, so I have no idea how fun those are.

CUT to keep this post from getting too long. Continued below.

 

[frommycolddeadhands]

If you do not see the wanton hypocrisy in Christianity, and specifically, the church, that is fine, and it is your perspective. Not mine or that of others.

There are plenty of problems inside the faith. A lot of it has to do with folks listening to the preacher instead of actually reading the Bible and getting the message. Some of it has to do with dogma and tradition overtaking the original purpose of the Church and the faith. Some of it is just people being snotty and thinking that their poop don't stink. Not much can be done about that aside from educating people and having healthy discussions now and again. At the end of the day it is the individual who is a hypocrite or not.

Your religious dogma is to be blunt, of little concern to me.

You went out on a limb to paint a pretty biased picture of all Christians being a bunch of hypocritical cave men who don't believe in equality. I was simply explaining to you how a Christian can (and in my opinion SHOULD) support the liberty of other individuals.

CUT to keep the post short. Continued below.

 

[frommycolddeadhands]

Furthermore, it provides the basis for your inequality. You believe, when convenient, that the Ten Commandments must be derived from the Bible, and thus are Christian in nature. Attributing the Ten Commandments strictly to Judaism is disingenuous at best.

No, I believe ALWAYS (not when convenient, as you put it) that the Ten Commandments are a common link between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Attributing the ten commandments to only one or the other (ie saying they're Jewish and not Muslim, or Christian but not Jewish) is when it becomes disingenuous. Much like the Dome of the Rock, all three have claim to the sacred site, but who's claim is strongest? Answer, none.

And how exactly is that a 'basis for inequality'?

Also, the Bible says:
(KJV) 1st Corinthians 15:33 : Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.
(KJV) Psalm 14:1 : The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Christian doctrine is explicit in denigrating and subjugating those who are not Christian. The presence of the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse, or within it, are tantamount to supporting that specific religion. Period.

Those are great little one-liners you pulled from the Bible, but it doesn't have a thing to do with Christians 'denigrating and subjugating' anyone. Judaism and Christianity are basically being told not to fall into sinful practices simply because other people are doing them. ie Just because your next door neighbor is a homosexual doesn't mean that you should be one. Just because the Greeks worship strange gods doesn't mean you should, etc. What other people do is their business. It is the Christian who is responsible for his own soul.

And, as we've already discussed, the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse cannot be an indorsement of Christianity specifically because it is a common thread of all three Abrahamic religions.

CUT to keep thread short. Continued below.