10 Commandments are SO offensive!

[xandy123]

You all do realize that the punishment in the bible for breaking any of the ten commandments is death by stoning(Leviticus24:16),(Exodus 31:15),(Exodus,21:17),(Leviticus 20:10)

And arnt you forgetting about Charitable Choice which gives money to churches and religous groups all over the country, I hardly think pictures of men having sex, an exhibit at the smithsonian and teaching a kid how you use something he probably wont use anyway (condom) is equal to the millions given out under faith based initiatives, dont pee on my shoe and tell me it's raining

 

[-Cp]

here's the link to the original article posted by ScreamingEagle:

http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=63

 

[-Cp]

You all do realize that the punishment in the bible for breaking any of the ten commandments is death by stoning(Leviticus24:16),(Exodus 31:15),(Exodus,21:17),(Leviticus 20:10)

Fake Bible readers really need to step off of it when it comes to citing Biblical teachings...

You may want to read past the Old Testament and check into something called GRACE...

 

[xandy123]

Everyone is probably getting sick of seeing this by now, but just this one more time.

"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."

In my life time I have never heard of Congress trying to make any kind of law respecting an establishment of a religion. Nor have I ever read anywhere that they ever have. The way this amendment reads, we, as a society, have the Constitutional right to have "ANY" religious symbols we so desire anywhere we want on public property. It also gives me the right to pray in school or anywhere else I so desire without having some A**hole like the ACLU telling me it offends them. Well, they have the right to tell me, but they don't have a leg to stand on to have it removed. I challenge anyone to show me in the Constitution where there is a separation of church and state. There is none!!!!!!!!! Just because some liberal judge said it is in 1947 doesn't make is so.

You are crazy and very angry but you are right the supreme court has too much power.A strict constitutional judg

Besides the separation of church and state is an erroneous concept because it has varied implications. We cant tell people they cannot run for office simply because they are religious. The fundamental premise behind the first part of the first ammendment is that religion of any kind could not be outlawed however and so that a state religion could not be established, Judicial activism now practiced by both conservative and liberal judges is the practice of finding implied ideas in the constitution such as a right to privacy things that are no explictly stated in the constitution are now suddenly there. This involves a great deal of nuance and subtly that essentially sets the future of legal precedent. As for prayer in schools, theoretically since the seperation of chruch and state does not explicitly exist in the constitution it is only fair game for the Judicial activists, dont blame the ACLU blame Judicial activism. Sandra Dad O'Connor was the only judge on the court who did not belive in Judicial Activism.

 

[Bonnie]

xandy123

Sandra Dad O'Connor was the only judge on the court who did not belive in Judicial Activism

Considering she was the tie breaker in Roe V Wade based on the activist principal of implied right of privacy, i'd say that's pretty activist judging!!!!!!!!!

 

[Eightball]

Fake Bible readers really need to step off of it when it comes to citing Biblical teachings...

You may want to read past the Old Testament and check into something called GRACE...

Right on! CP. Grace trumped the Law.........

 

[xandy123]

xandy123


Considering she was the tie breaker in Roe V Wade based on the activist principal of implied right of privacy, i'd say that's pretty activist judging!!!!!!!!!

You do know that Sandra Day O'Connor wasnt on the Supreme court when Roe VS wade was decided, she was appointed under Reagan who was elected in 1980

 

[xandy123]

Fake Bible readers really need to step off of it when it comes to citing Biblical teachings...

You may want to read past the Old Testament and check into something called GRACE...

YOu do realize that their is no such thing as "fake bible reading" reading is reading and unless you want to ignore the truth the words are what they are. More to the point Christians and Jews belive in the validity of the Old testament and as for Grace it doesnt mean anything in politics. And besides Im sure that calling me a fake bible reader is such a gracious move on your part. Like all personal attacks are of course

 

[-Cp]

YOu do realize that their is no such thing as "fake bible reading" reading is reading and unless you want to ignore the truth the words are what they are. More to the point Christians and Jews belive in the validity of the Old testament and as for Grace it doesnt mean anything in politics. And besides Im sure that calling me a fake bible reader is such a gracious move on your part. Like all personal attacks are of course

Calling you a fake Bible reader is not a "personal attack" in this case - it's an observation based on your obvious lack of knowledge of what is really taught in the Bible.

Pseudo Intellectuals always love spouting out-of-context Biblical references here and there - heck, the Pharasies were masters of it..

 

[xandy123]

Calling you a fake Bible reader is not a "personal attack" in this case - it's an observation based on your obvious lack of knowledge of what is really taught in the Bible.

Pseudo Intellectuals always love spouting out-of-context Biblical references here and there - heck, the Pharasies were masters of it..

Okay so what is actually taught in the bible...apparently even though I can read english and have read the bible and have listed actually passages in the bible...I dont undestand the bible because Im a pseudo intellectual who "doesent understand" and therefore whenever I quote the bible it is "out of context" even though the words are right there and they can mean only one thing. Perhaps I'm reading the wrong copy of the bible, the copy that you and everyone who agree's with you has. Because me and my "pseudo intellectual" (and by the way thanks for making another personal attack after you said you didn't irregardless of the fact that you dont even know who I am) friends rewrote the bible. So basically what youre saying is that the bible only matters when you quote from it and when someone who disagrees with you uses you own reference against you that there a "pseudo intellecutal" who is taking the bible out of context. Oh youre not saying that only what can be used for my argument is worthy of bieng cited. Essentially making you a giant hypocrite....then what are you saying?

Oh and p.s who are you to judge whether a person has biblical knowledge, I've read the bible new and old testament from front to cover and I doubt you could say the same.

 

[-Cp]

Okay so what is actually taught in the bible...apparently even though I can read english and have read the bible and have listed actually passages in the bible...I dont undestand the bible because Im a pseudo intellectual who "doesent understand" and therefore whenever I quote the bible it is "out of context" even though the words are right there and they can mean only one thing. Perhaps I'm reading the wrong copy of the bible, the copy that you and everyone who agree's with you has. Because me and my "pseudo intellectual" (and by the way thanks for making another personal attack after you said you didn't irregardless of the fact that you dont even know who I am) friends rewrote the bible.

You all do realize that the punishment in the bible for breaking any of the ten commandments is death by stoning(Leviticus24:16),(Exodus 31:15),(Exodus,21:17),(Leviticus 20:10)

It's quite obvious to anyone who actually studies the Bible and doesn't just arbitrarily read it "cover to cover" - that your quotes above are clearly taken out of context - as you're using them to allege that we're to stone someone in this day and age (the age of Grace - New Testament) for breaking one of the 10 commandments.

So basically what youre saying is that the bible only matters when you quote from it and when someone who disagrees with you uses you own reference against you that there a "pseudo intellecutal" who is taking the bible out of context. Oh youre not saying that only what can be used for my argument is worthy of bieng cited. Essentially making you a giant hypocrite....then what are you saying?

Oh and p.s who are you to judge whether a person has biblical knowledge, I've read the bible new and old testament from front to cover and I doubt you could say the same.

I never said "the Bible only matters when...." - I do, however, take issue with pseudo intellectuals like yourself who love taking it out of context in a way to make Christianity look bad..

Who am I to judge? Someone who's obviously STUDIED and not just "read" the Bible... So you bet I'm gonna say something when I see folks flippedly tossing scripture around.

 

[mattskramer]

That's the America you live in! A country founded on a compact with God, forged from the idea that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...

No. It was founded by men on several things including a belief in God. What does "manifest destiny" mean anyway - God has declared this to be our land, so move out of our way?

The USA was founded on good things and bad things. Don't forget that land was practically taken from the American Indians and made productive, in a large part, through the work of slaves - even with this belief in God.

through is now a country where taxpayers can be forced to subsidize "artistic" exhibits of aborted fetuses. But don't start thinking about putting up a Ten Commandments display. That's offensive!

Where was the outcry when taxpayer money went to support pro-christian art (propaganda) to the annoyance of non-Christians? Let us be fair about this, if government money is to be used to support "art" that you like, it should also be used to support "art" that I like - or the arts should not receive any government support.

I don't want to hear any jabberwocky from the Court TV amateurs about "the establishment of religion." (1) A Ten Commandments monument does not establish a religion. (2) The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law "respecting" an establishment of religion — meaning Congress cannot make a law establishing a religion, nor can it make a law prohibiting the states from establishing a religion. We've been through this a million times.

If you don't want to hear stuff, then close your ears. Free speech applies to people who may say things that you don't like. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". It does not say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion". Though federally tax-supported display of the 10 Commandments is not the same as establishing religion it does show a government approved preference to Judeo/Christian monotheism - as opposed to other religious philosophies including Atheism and polytheism. Unless government allows for tax-supported displays of statements depicting other religions, it shows a preference against those whose religion does not coincide with the Commandments.

Now the Supreme Court is itching to ban the Pledge of Allegiance because of its offensive reference to one nation "under God." (Perhaps that "God" stuff could be replaced with a vulgar sexual reference.)

Uh. No. Simply remove the phrase "Under God". The "Pledge of Allegiance" did not originally include that phrase anyway.

But with the court looking like a geriatric ward these days...

I agree, especially with respect to the conservative judges. Those people do look old.

they don't want to alarm Americans right before a battle over the next Supreme Court nominee. Be alarmed. This is what it's about."

Oh, sound the alarm. I don't care.

 

[Gunny]

If you don't want to hear stuff, then close your ears. Free speech applies to people who may say things that you don't like. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". It does not say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion". Though federally tax-supported display of the 10 Commandments is not the same as establishing religion it does show a government approved preference to Judeo/Christian monotheism - as opposed to other religious philosophies including Atheism and polytheism. Unless government allows for tax-supported displays of statements depicting other religions, it shows a preference against those whose religion does not coincide with the Commandments.

Ridiculous. Your statement assumes all statues/monuments in public facilities are paid for by Federal tax dollars. Most statues/monuments I have seen in public facilities are private donations by various local groups.

What is it you dishonest leftists want? Well, besides to stamp out Christianity and deny that it IS part of the foundation this Nation was built on?

A stainless steel building with all employees dressed alike?

Sorry. I am every bit as offended by you ACLU types dishonest interpretations of the Constitution, and your religion that has you demanding the removal of all decorations ffrom public places if they have any reference to God.

Stop trying to revise this Nation and its history to suit your political fanaticism.

 

[mattskramer]

Ridiculous. Your statement assumes all statues/monuments in public facilities are paid for by Federal tax dollars. Most statues/monuments I have seen in public facilities are private donations by various local groups.

I never said that all statues/monuments in public facilities are paid for by Federal tax dollars. Nor does my comment assume that.

The facilities upon which the monuments rest are supported by Federal tax money. Therefore the display of such things is, in a sense, supported by taxes. I have no complaint with a "10 Commandments" statue being created by private donations & displayed on private property. If it allowed to be displayed on public land, displays depicting symbols of other religions should also be allowed on public land.

What is it you dishonest leftists want? Well, besides to stamp out Christianity and deny that it IS part of the foundation this Nation was built on?

I am not a "dishonest leftist". I do not want to stamp out Christianity. I readily admit that it, in part and to a degree, was part of what this Nation was built on. The founding fathers had their biases. Thankfully, they included the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. I doubt that Christianity is so fragile that followers will cease to believe in Christ, even if physical symbols are removed from public facilities. Christianity will continue to exist even if statues of the "10 Commandments" are removed from public land. Likewise, it will not suffocate if the "10 Commandments" is allowed to stand beside statues depicting other religions.

A stainless steel building with all employees dressed alike?

No. I prefer brick to steel. Also, I don't like uniforms or strict dress codes.

Sorry. I am every bit as offended by you ACLU types dishonest interpretations of the Constitution, and your religion that has you demanding the removal of all decorations from public places if they have any reference to God.

Wow! I think that you may have some erroneous assumptions about me. I am not an ACLU type. I do not have a dishonest interpretation of the Constitution. My religion does not demand the removal of all decorations from public places if they have any reference to God.

Stop trying to revise this Nation and its history to suit your political fanaticism.

I am not trying to revise this nation to suit my political "fanaticism" to any greater extent than is any devoutly opinionated and politically active "Religious Conservative" trying to revise this nation to suit his socio-political philosophy.

There will still be history books. I want the history books to give a fair and balanced account of the religious beliefs and practices of our founding fathers. I want it understood that at the time of America's founding, most of its citizens were Christians. I also want people to understand the origin of the phrase "separation of church and state". It was from a letter by Thomas Jefferson which stated the following:

...their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

 

[Gunny]

The facilities upon which the monuments rest are supported by Federal tax money. Therefore the display of such things is, in a sense, supported by taxes. I have no complaint with a "10 Commandments" statue being created by private donations & displayed on private property. If it allowed to be displayed on public land, displays depicting symbols of other religions should also be allowed on public land.

Most state buildings are funded by the states, not the Fed gov't. City governmenet buildings are funded by cities. And if the people in that city want a statue of Homer Simpson in the rotunda, then that should be their right.

There will still be history books. I want the history books to give a fair and balanced account of the religious beliefs and practices of our founding fathers. I want it understood that at the time of America's founding, most of its citizens were Christians. I also want people to understand the origin of the phrase "separation of church and state". It was from a letter by Thomas Jefferson which stated the following:

...their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

Those history books already don't say what they did when I was in school, so you can forget that fair and balanced account wish.

As far as Jefferson goes ....one, his ramblings are NOT part of the Constitution, thankfully. Second, the statement you posted above only says that there will be no government religion/theocracy. It does NOT preclude religion in government.

 

[mattskramer]

City government buildings are funded by cities.

Thanks. I did not know that. I thought that Federal tax money occasionally went, to a small degree, to some city government buildings, even if only to public schools. Fair enough. I'm not going to spend my time looking through each state and city "Constitution". It is enough that I think that I made my point on the Federal level.

Those history books already don't say what they did when I was in school, so you can forget that fair and balanced account wish.

Knowing what I know now, those old history books seem to have been pro-USA propaganda pieces. They minimized, or neglected to mention, many negative events in America's past. I find today's books to be much more balanced. They supply students with multiple perspective on significant historic events. Just one minute - I found a contemporary high-school history book that states that our founding fathers had a belief in the existence of God.

As far as Jefferson goes ....one, his ramblings are NOT part of the Constitution, thankfully.

I mentioned Jefferson in the context of history books. Is it your position that students should not be exposed to the origin of the phrase "Separation of Church and State "? Some of the founding fathers were not Christians. Should students be made aware of that too? Let us inform students of the good, the bad, and the ugly events in American history.

Second, the statement you posted above only says that there will be no government religion/theocracy.

It mentions "respecting an establishment of religion". Monotheism is a religion. Though a display of the "10 Commandments" alone (with no accompanying examples from other religions) on Federal Property does not constitute "establishing a religion", it does go toward respecting monotheism above other religions. If symbols of Christianity are to exist on Federal property, it is only fair that symbols of other faiths be represented too - if only to distance ourselves from federally condoned religious bias.

 

[Gunny]

Thanks. I did not know that. I thought that Federal tax money occasionally went, to a small degree, to some city government buildings, even if only to public schools. Fair enough. I'm not going to spend my time looking through each state and city "Constitution". It is enough that I think that I made my point on the Federal level.

To simplify matters we'll just call it government money. However I do not see that you made your point in regards to the Federal level. The Feds should actually have NO say in what state buildings choose to display.

Knowing what I know now, those old history books seem to have been pro-USA propaganda pieces. They minimized, or neglected to mention, many negative events in America's past. I find today's books to be much more balanced. They supply students with multiple perspective on significant historic events. Just one minute - I found a contemporary high-school history book that states that our founding fathers had a belief in the existence of God.

For every myth that has been dispelled, there is a politically correct revision of actual events. Case in point: I find the ignorance level today on the US Civil War and it's causes nothing short of amazing due to PC revision.

I mentioned Jefferson in the context of history books. Is it your position that students should not be exposed to the origin of the phrase "Separation of Church and State "? Some of the founding fathers were not Christians. Should students be made aware of that too? Let us inform students of the good, the bad, and the ugly events in American history.

It is my position that students should taught the truth ... not some PC, secular version of the First Amendment and what it says.

It mentions "respecting an establishment of religion". Monotheism is a religion. Though a display of the "10 Commandments" alone (with no accompanying examples from other religions) on Federal Property does not constitute "establishing a religion", it does go toward respecting monotheism above other religions. If symbols of Christianity are to exist on Federal property, it is only fair that symbols of other faiths be represented too - if only to distance ourselves from federally condoned religious bias.

Sorry, but you are writing your own definition into the Constitution. There is no Amendment that prohibits respecting one religion. The First Amendment prohibts "a church" from controlling the government.

Federally condoned religious bias? Puh-lease.

If the majority of taxpayers in a given area foot the bill for a government building and they wish to decorate it with a privately funded statue of the Ten Commandments, it should be their right to do so.

And before you try "tyranny of the majority" on me .... it is preferable to the current tyranny of the minority we are forced to suffer.

 

[Bonnie]

You do know that Sandra Day O'Connor wasnt on the Supreme court when Roe VS wade was decided, she was appointed under Reagan who was elected in 1980

I stand corrected, I should have posted that it was her swing vote in favor of preserving partial birth abortion that I was fererring to, which to me is extremely divisive and jaw dropping for someone who is represented in the media as an moderate. I don't buy that.

 

[Gunny]

I stand corrected, I should have posted that it was her swing vote in favor of preserving partial birth abortion that I was fererring to, which to me is extremely divisive and jaw dropping for someone who is represented in the media as an moderate. I don't buy that.

Partial birth abortion for any reason other than medical necessity is barbarism, and about as moderate as John Kerry.

 

[mattskramer]

The Feds should actually have NO say in what state buildings choose to display.

Good. At least we agree.

I find the ignorance level today on the US Civil War and it's causes nothing short of amazing due to PC revision.

That reminds me of the time I questioned my teachers long ago when she said that "Christopher Columbus 'discovered' the "New World". I asked her if I could wander down the road until I found some woodland and discover some new land and claim it in similar fashion. She basically told me to sit down and shut up. It seems to me as though students were not allowed to question what they were told. I am glad when I see examples of that attitude changing.

It is my position that students should taught the truth ... not some PC, secular version of the First Amendment and what it says.

Okay. Do you really want to have students taught the truth only through a non-secular perspective on the First Amendment? There are several ways in which the "First Amendment" can be taught.

(1.)It can be taught "as-written" (without interpretation or explanation). We can let the students decide for themselves what it means.

(2.)More comprehensively, it can be taught with commentary from different perspectives as to what it means. Give a secularist and non-secularist perspective.

(3.)Even more comprehensively, it can be taught as viewed through the "original intent" of the authors. Yet, the issue of what constituted the original intent is debatable. Therefore, to be fair, different perspectives can be brought to the students' attention on that as well.

Sorry, but you are writing your own definition into the Constitution. There is no Amendment that prohibits respecting one religion. The First Amendment prohibits "a church" from controlling the government.

No. That is not what it says. You are giving your perspective on what the "First Amendment" means. It does not even use the term a church. It uses the term religion.

Federally condoned religious bias? Puh-lease.

If the majority of taxpayers in a given area foot the bill for a government building and they wish to decorate it with a privately funded statue of the Ten Commandments, it should be their right to do so.

Please be more specific. For example, based on your comment, is it fair to conclude that:

If the most taxpayers want tax money (including mine) to go to decorate a Federal building with a statue of the "10 Commandments" as the only religions symbol it should be their right to do so.

And before you try "tyranny of the majority" on me .... it is preferable to the current tyranny of the minority we are forced to suffer.

No! That would be tyranny of the majority. It basically silences any and all minorities whose religion does not recognize the "10 Commandments" as a whole.

Also, you are not forced to suffer under the tyranny of the minority. I'm assuming that you are Christian. Are you allowed to attend Church? Are you allowed to pray in public lunch rooms? Are you allowed to talk about Jesus? Within reason, people of practically all faiths, even Christianity, are allowed to practice their religion.