Why are the 10 commandments so bad to display?

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
It's called symbolism.

The Ten Commandments are a pillar of Western Civilization. The United States is the pinnacle of Western Civilization. We pay homage to the Ten Commandments.

Exactly.

It also is like seeing the shadow of a parent sneaking up on you when you start to steal cookies out of the cookie jar.....or seeing yourself in a mirror when you are doing something else you shouldn't be doing.

It puts you face to face with personal responsibility when you know you should be doing what is right.

A guilty conscience when seeing the 10 Commandments is why people want it GONE.

What is the problem, matt?

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Exactly.

It also is like seeing the shadow of a parent sneaking up on you when you start to steal cookies out of the cookie jar.....or seeing yourself in a mirror when you are doing something else you shouldn't be doing.

It puts you face to face with personal responsibility when you know you should be doing what is right.

A guilty conscience when seeing the 10 Commandments is why people want it GONE.

What is the problem, matt?

Do Atheists need to have the "10 Commandments" shoved into their faces as they go to court in order to have a guilty conscience? Oh, I'm guilty of not keeping the Sabbath holy last week. I'm so ashamed.

Look. Practically everyone knows that it is wrong to lie, cheat, and steal. When going to court, people don't need a Judeo-Christian symbol telling them that. It is an insult to those who do not hold Judeo-Christian values as itemized by the "10 Commandments".

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Do Atheists need to have the "10 Commandments" shoved into their faces as they go to court in order to have a guilty conscience?

Need? Of course not. Do I personally care? Not at all.

Some, perhaps most, atheists have a problem with it. I would imagine that is the case for one reason: They are not secure in their atheism.

The 'separation of church and state' is a red hering. It just makes them feel uncomfortable. My opinion only.


At any rate, we atheists comprise maybe 5% of the population, and our feelings shouldn't be over represented.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Need? Of course not. Do I personally care? Not at all.

Some, perhaps most, atheists have a problem with it. I would imagine that is the case for one reason: They are not secure in their atheism.

The 'separation of church and state' is a red hering. It just makes them feel uncomfortable. My opinion only.


At any rate, we atheists comprise maybe 5% of the population, and our feelings shouldn't be over represented.

As one who used to be in that category, I completely agree.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Need? Of course not. Do I personally care? Not at all.

Some, perhaps most, atheists have a problem with it. I would imagine that is the case for one reason: They are not secure in their atheism.

The 'separation of church and state' is a red hering. It just makes them feel uncomfortable. My opinion only.


At any rate, we atheists comprise maybe 5% of the population, and our feelings shouldn't be over represented.

No such thing as overrepresenting a minority--not here in America----we are all to be represented as equal. If you are too wise,you must become stupid.
I know, Zhuk----you understand the flaws in our system even if you don't understand all the religious ins and outs. Communists are alive and doing well in America as I'm sure you have seen

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by Zhukov

Some, perhaps most, atheists have a problem with it. I would imagine that is the case for one reason: They are not secure in their atheism.

The 'separation of church and state' is a red hering. It just makes them feel uncomfortable.

No. They don't care to have Judeo-Christianity shoved at them by government, via taxpayer money, at practically every possible opportunity with which government provides itself. Thankfully, recently, students are no longer obligated to serve as a captive audience while teachers or school administrators recite prayers. Yet there is still much to be done. No matter what the population statistics are with respect to religions, it is not the government's roll to play favorites. Yet it does play favorites, supporting monotheism in general and Judeo-Christianity in particular.

 

[Zhukov]

They don't care to have Judeo-Christianity shoved at them by government, via taxpayer money, at practically every possible opportunity with which government provides itself.

Tough.

Our government is a democracy. So it is the government's job to play favorites.

They just can't force a religion on me. I've never felt forced upon.

They can't establish a state religion. They haven't.

But as I said with respect to the fish, it's just my opinion.


I would add that history does teach us something relevant here, and that is: trying to suppress religion is the surest way to make it flourish.

Witness America today.

 

[acludem]

I once again take issue with the idea that the 10 commandments are "pillars" of the U.S. system. You do realize that most of what was in the 10 commandments isn't even original. The very first written code of laws, the Code of Hammurabi, which was written well before biblical times, had laws against stealing, murder, etc. What is in most of the commandments is common sense. "Thou shalt hold no other God before me" is not common sense, it is not a principle our system was founded on. It is a statement that says to someone, if you don't worship my God you are unwelcome in this courthouse.

acludem

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
I once again take issue with the idea that the 10 commandments are "pillars" of the U.S. system. You do realize that most of what was in the 10 commandments isn't even original.

Since you cannot understand that the overwhelming majority of citizens were Christian, it really doesn't matter what you take issue with as far as the pillars of the system. You do not accept reality, moral fiber, ethics, or intellect in our founders. You would have us believe they were self serving egotistical business people who wanted money and power with no REAL belief in the 10 Commandments.

If you would read The Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any biographies of these guys in addition to their Biblical beliefs, you would see how insane your perspective is.

Instead of spewing the garbage classes teach you, how about learning the documents themselves without the socialist bent.

The very first written code of laws, the Code of Hammurabi, which was written well before biblical times, had laws against stealing, murder, etc.

That is interesting. At what point was it written? Was that before the Earth was created? That was in the Bible, so we should be clear here. Oh...wait. It was before the flood, right? Somehow that survived infinite gallons of water running around the Earth's surface and appeared ABOVE miles of mud.

I am sure, somehow, you can show it invalidates the divinity and authority of the 10 Commandments.

Did Hammurabi know:

The hydrologic cycle defined? --(Job 36:27-28, Eccl 1:7) Realized in 1700s

Earth hangs on "nothing" in space -(Is 40:22,Job26:7) Realized in 1543

Light is in motion -(Job 38:19-20) Realized in 1600s

Air has weight -(Job 28:25) Realizes in 1643

Time, space, matter had a beginning (Gen, 2Tim 1:9, 1 Cor 2:7) Realized in 1916

1st Law of thermodynamics -(Gen 2:23, Heb 4:3-4, Ps 148:6, Is 40:26, 2 Peter 3:7, Heb 4:10) Realized in 1842

Defining genetic code for classification -(Gen 1:21-32, Gen 7:1-15, 1Cor 15:38-39) Realized in 1735

I could go on, but you are really looking bad, so we will stop here.

What is in most of the commandments is common sense. "Thou shalt hold no other God before me" is not common sense, it is not a principle our system was founded on.

?!?!?!?!?!?!?? What? If that weren't there, you would have no AUTHORITY in the Commandments, would you?

I guess this explains why you deem the Constitution lower than it claims. You cannot accept that a set of rules can be an absolute authority giving a moral absolute. I guess that explains everything.

It is a statement that says to someone, if you don't worship my God you are unwelcome in this courthouse.

Only if you are blind to reality.

 

[007]

Originally posted by mattskramer
No. They don't care to have Judeo-Christianity shoved at them by government, via taxpayer money, at practically every possible opportunity with which government provides itself. Thankfully, recently, students are no longer obligated to serve as a captive audience while teachers or school administrators recite prayers. Yet there is still much to be done. No matter what the population statistics are with respect to religions, it is not the government's roll to play favorites. Yet it does play favorites, supporting monotheism in general and Judeo-Christianity in particular.

Riiiiight matts. Stop anyone from saying a prayer, but then START playing an islamic call to prayer over a LOUD SPEAKER five times a day.

Riiiiiiiiiight.

 

[007]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Our government is a democracy.

Not to make a big deal about this Zhukov, but America is NOT a "democracy". It's a "Republic".


http://www.notademocracy.org/



***** America is NOT a Democracy! *****


Pledge of Allegiance:

"...and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation, under God..."


United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 4:

"...shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."


The Federalist #10, James Madison:

"...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions..."


U.S. War Department Training Manual No. 2000-25; November 30, 1928:

DEMOCRACY:

"A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of 'direct' expression. Results of mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic - negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."


REPUBLIC:

"Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment and progress. Is the 'standard form' of government throughout the world. A Republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of (1) an executive and (2) a legislative body who, working together in representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent unalienable rights. Take away any one of those four elements and you are drifting into democracy."


Lord Alexander Tytler on the fall of the Athenian republic:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

 

[acludem]

Pale Rider I've had this discussion with others. It's a matter of semantics: We are what is termed a Democratic Republic, or a Representative Democracy. We do, contary to your statements, have direct democracy in this country, it's called the ballot initiative in the form of the referendum or recall. That, my friend, is direct democracy. The pledge of allegience was written over 100 years after the founding of our Representative democracy and originally did not include the words "under God"; those were inserted by President Eisenhower in the 1950s.

acludem

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
Pale Rider I've had this discussion with others. It's a matter of semantics: We are what is termed a Democratic Republic, or a Representative Democracy. We do, contary to your statements, have direct democracy in this country, it's called the ballot initiative in the form of the referendum or recall. That, my friend, is direct democracy. The pledge of allegience was written over 100 years after the founding of our Representative democracy and originally did not include the words "under God"; those were inserted by President Eisenhower in the 1950s.

acludem

Hello again.

More correction for you.

Since you are flying your socialism again, I have to correct you again.

We are a "Constitutional Republic". Just because the populace can vote for something like a recall, it doesn't mean we have a completely different form of government. It isn't just "semantics". There are names for forms of governments for a reason.

Just to show you once again how you spread lies, take this:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

Government United States

Country name:

conventional long form: United States of America
conventional short form: United States
abbreviation: US or USA
Government type:

Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition
Capital:

Washington, DC

Alexander Hamilton:

"We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."

James Madison wrote:

"In all cases where a majority are united by a common interest or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger!"

John Adams wrote:

"Unbridled passions produce the same effects, whether in a king, nobility, or a mob. The experience of all mankind has proved the prevalence of a disposition to use power wantonly. It is therefore as necessary to defend an individual against the majority (in a democracy) as against the king in a monarchy."

Washingtons Farewell Address (about Amending the Constitution):

"If in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional power be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way in which the Constitutional designates. But, let there by no change by usurpation, for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by acludem
I once again take issue with the idea that the 10 commandments are "pillars" of the U.S. system. You do realize that most of what was in the 10 commandments isn't even original. The very first written code of laws, the Code of Hammurabi, which was written well before biblical times, had laws against stealing, murder, etc. What is in most of the commandments is common sense. "Thou shalt hold no other God before me" is not common sense, it is not a principle our system was founded on. It is a statement that says to someone, if you don't worship my God you are unwelcome in this courthouse.

acludem

I didn't say it was a pillar of the U.S., I said it was a pillar of Western Civilization. Did the Babylonians assume control of the Roman empire under Constantine, or was it Christianity and it's adherence to the bible?

Was it the Cult of Mardok that swept across Europe, or was it Christianity?

Did the first white settlers who landed in America, the founders of this country, bring with them the Code of Hammurabi on stone tablets, or did they bring their bibles and their faith?

The Ten Commandments are a traditional facet of our history and our society.

And no where is it stated, implied, or thought that if you don't adhere to the ten commandments 'you are unwelcome in this courthouse.' You are attributing qualities to a monument that simply aren't there.



I predicted the argument you would get to 'what came first', but I was beaten to that point.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
Not to make a big deal about this Zhukov, but America is NOT a "democracy". It's a "Republic".

Yes, yes, but we live in a democratic country, and we choose to call it democracy, whether that is technically accurate or not.

My point was and is, in this country the majority rules.

 

[acludem]

This country was founded on a simple governing principle: Majority rule with protection for the minority.

acludem

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by acludem
This country was founded on a simple governing principle: Majority rule with protection for the minority.

acludem

majority rule? Where did you go to school?

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by Zhukov
My point was and is, in this country the majority rules.

That is no true. If that were the case, Gore would have won the last election. The electoral college is not a Majority Rules system. We are a representative democracy. A matter-of-fact, it was not until 1914 that Senators were elected. They were appointed before that by each state's legislature.

Sure, we have "become" more democratic over time, but that was NOT the intention of the founding fathers.

 

[Zhukov]

Majority rule with respect to Congress, the lawmaking bodies of our country and states.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
Riiiiight matts. Stop anyone from saying a prayer, but then START playing an islamic call to prayer over a LOUD SPEAKER five times a day.

Riiiiiiiiiight.

Have I ever given my position on the "islamic call to prayer over a LOUD SPEAKER five times a day" issue?!? Nooooooooooooooooo.

Did I say that I'm opposed to allowing ANYONE from saying a prayer?

Noooooooooooooooo.