• 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!

Cut Ten Commandments down to 6?

I see some of the people opposed to the presence of the Ten Commandments here are the same ones fighting for women to be able to walk around topless in another thread. Why don't you take your own advice? If you don't like them then don't look at them.

A good point but the Left, as always, want to control ideas. That is why, in any leftist country, they always attack and attempt to eliminate religion, particularly Christianity. They prefer people believe in Big Government.

This is certainly not a new observation, but it continues to be true.
 
The problem with Christians is that if you give them an inch they take a mile. First it's just an innocent little poster, then they start preaching in the hallways and calling the children sinners, then they start demanding schools teach creationism, then they rewrite the history books, then the next thing you know our tax dollars are supporting a religion. No, I think it's better to nip them in the bud so to speak and not allow them to get a foothold in the door in the first place.

The same can be said of non-Chrisitians.

Some say it's okay to have people of other religions in America because they make up less than 5 percent of the population.

We let more non-Europeans in this country and the next thing you know the non-Christian population in America is over 10 percent. Where will it end?

Remember that America is a Christian nation.
 
Because according to you this country was founded on Christianity and had a great influence in writing the Constitution and yet there is no mention of it whatsoever. Don't you think thats odd?

No, I don't. What would be the purpose?

My point was and still is that this country was not founded on Christianity. The fact that there is no mention of it in the constution except to provide a wall of separation more than validates this fact, but if you want more proof........

It was founded on Christian ideals. It's a pity that children are being raised without any understanding of their heritage. This "why isn't God mentioned in the Constitution" argument is frequently mentioned by Leftists as a sort of 'gotcha', but in fact it means nothing.

The confusion just over that one line in the Constitution strongly suggests that there is a lack of education and understanding about what made America so outstanding in world history, and why it became the symbol of freedom throughout the world. Now that freedom they once enjoyed is disappearing and that is largely the result of the American education system not teaching their students about their own history, or why it was tyhat made America special.

Signed into law by co-author of the Declaration of Indepence and founding father, President John Adams.

This was a sop to the Muslims of the day, just as is often done now. It's not wise to take these lines with tyrannical Muslims too seriously, though many of those who want to minimize the influence of Christianity on western democracies certainly do.
 
It was founded on Christian ideals. It's a pity that children are being raised without any understanding of their heritage.

Exactly. Because of our nation's Christian history and heritage, non-Christian school children should be required to learn Christianity.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. Because of our nation's Christian history and heritage, non-Christian school children should be required to learn Christianity.

How about we just stick to our nation's history - actually get the facts staright - and leave it at that?

They only need to know the general ideas and beliefs of those who founded the nation - not necessarily to be indoctrinated into the faith. We weren't just founded on the beliefs of Methodism or Weslyanism . . . One thing you should have learned about the founding father's is that they all believed others had the right to follow their *own* path to their own faith. They believed not everyone had to share the same views. So I think they'd be offended by your statement.

I do not have to raise my children in a Christian environment or teach them ad nauseum about Christianity in order for them to know the past from a neutrally religious view. They will, however, learn about our nation's true and solid history - not one denomination's version of our history.
 
Exactly. Because of our nation's Christian history and heritage, non-Christian school children should be required to learn Christianity.

I don't think that's necessary. Do you?

But they should certainly learn of the influence Christianity had on the formation of their country. It seems many remain in the dark on this part of their history, or are being taught an alternate version.
 
No, I don't. What would be the purpose?



It was founded on Christian ideals. It's a pity that children are being raised without any understanding of their heritage. This "why isn't God mentioned in the Constitution" argument is frequently mentioned by Leftists as a sort of 'gotcha', but in fact it means nothing.

The confusion just over that one line in the Constitution strongly suggests that there is a lack of education and understanding about what made America so outstanding in world history, and why it became the symbol of freedom throughout the world. Now that freedom they once enjoyed is disappearing and that is largely the result of the American education system not teaching their students about their own history, or why it was tyhat made America special.



This was a sop to the Muslims of the day, just as is often done now. It's not wise to take these lines with tyrannical Muslims too seriously, though many of those who want to minimize the influence of Christianity on western democracies certainly do.

This country was not founded on "Christian ideals" no matter how much clowns like David Barton claim it was.

To speak of "that one line in the Constitution" without mentioning the last sentence in Article 6 of the Constitution shows some ignorance of the thoughts the Founders had about religious interference with government. Despite that phrase having to do with "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States", we see a rather legalistic understanding of it, in that one party blatantly declares its candidates must be religious while the other party accedes to such demands without being outspoken on the matter. "Legalistic" because those who demand religiosity can say "Well, there's no legal requirement to hold office, but that don't mean we won't demand our candidates strongly profess their faith before we will support them"

The Treaty of Tripoli was a "sop to Muslims"? It was a treaty of peace between two nations.

There is a vast difference between Christian influence on western culture and its supposed influence on "western democracies". For 90% of its existence, Christianity supported authoritarian rule over the western nations. It was only following the success of democratic-ruled nations over authoritarian cultures did Christianity jump onboard and try to claim credit.

A few Thomas Jefferson quotes regarding his thoughts on religious influence over govenments
The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man (Letter to J. Moor, 1800).

The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion (Letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800).

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes (Letter to von Humboldt, 1813).

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own
(Letter to H. Spafford, 1814).
 
This country was not founded on "Christian ideals" no matter how much clowns like David Barton claim it was.

Yeah, okay you've convinced me.

The Treaty of Tripoli was a "sop to Muslims"? It was a treaty of peace between two nations.

That was in reference to a specific line in the treaty which, coming in late, you didn't notice.
 
A good opinion piece was written about this subject in American Thinker in 2007...


Judeo-Christian Values have a foundational role in America, beginning with the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."
Since the pursuit of happiness, as Sigmund Freud surmised, is tied to human love and to creative work and play, the principles of American Judeo-Christian Values can rightly be summarized as the honoring of God-given Life, Liberty and Creativity. This seed of American Social Justice was then fleshed out in the U.S. Constitution through reason and common sense, unencumbered by the dysfunctional religious and secular traditions and laws of Old Europe.

Our Founding Fathers separated church from state, but they wisely did not separate God from state; they acknowledged God as the source of our rights, and, in fact, they were careful to place Biblical morality directly into our founding documents and laws, and into our values and culture precisely to help prevent a future of totalitarian or tyrannical rule in America. The combination of keeping Judeo-Christian religious morality in the state, as opposed to the church it's self; and, additionally, setting up our laws based on reason and common sense has contributed to the American Character, and to what is known as "American Exceptionalism."

Archived-Articles: The Judeo-Christian Values of America


More recently Dr. Cherry wrote an understanding of Socialist/Marxist ideology that I think is spot on here:

Understanding and reversing the American Marxist counter-revolution

So with the famous Karl Marx quote of "Religion being the opiate of the masses" Socialists see religion as a threat of magnitude that parallels Socialism, therefore religious freedom must be mocked, derided, stamped out as a source of organizational power.

This is what I think we see from the left today in political terms....It is dangerous, and a bastardization that can not be allowed to take hold for those who believe in our experiment in freedom, and exceptionalism.....


j-mac
 
Yeah, okay you've convinced me.



That was in reference to a specific line in the treaty which, coming in late, you didn't notice.

Sorry, but I know exactly which line was being noted as I'm quite familiar with its usage in debates over the "christian origins" of our national govenment.

Yeah, sure I've "convinced" you. Your earlier posts have shown us what you believe and that you also prefer not taking the time to investigate the basis for your beliefs. It ain't something that the Google will do for you in a couple of minutes. It does not require a university level course in early America but it does take at least a few hours of reading and comparing not only original documents but also historical analysis undertaken over the past 100+ years. Always examining the source and its purpose in why it makes certain statements and claims.

One of the more interesting grad courses I took was one in which we looked at the way in which personal bias and prejudice affects historians and their work. To keep modern prejudice to a minimum in the classroom, we examined explanations for the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, starting with the classic work by Gibbons and continuing on to the work of 20th C. academics in that one subject. There were some crazy guys in the field over the years that were obviously off track and funny but the purpose of the class was to make us more self-aware of our own biases and the ways in which that might affect our work in the future.
 
Not mine.

123
Right, whoever bought the poster, assuming it was perchised with tax money at all, can take the $5 out of the taxes I paid, not the taxes you paid.
 
Right, whoever bought the poster, assuming it was perchised with tax money at all, can take the $5 out of the taxes I paid, not the taxes you paid.

When I can opt-out of paying for the invasion of Iraq, then maybe that'll be an option, too. Either way, though, the government has no business trying to run churches.
 
When I can opt-out of paying for the invasion of Iraq, then maybe that'll be an option, too. Either way, though, the government has no business trying to run churches.


So hanging a poster of the ten commandments for you is tantamount to making war on a country?....Wow.

j-mac
 
So hanging a poster of the ten commandments for you is tantamount to making war on a country?....Wow.

j-mac

Did I say that, or are you making stuff up? Point is, you can't pick and choose what taxes you want to pay. If you could, I wouldn't pay for invading Iraq.

Either way, though, running establishments for the proselytization, practice, and teaching of religion isn't the government's job. That's what churches are here for, not what governments are here for. If you think the churches aren't doing a good enough job, then start some new churches . . . don't ask the government to do it for you.
 
Did I say that, or are you making stuff up? Point is, you can't pick and choose what taxes you want to pay. If you could, I wouldn't pay for invading Iraq.

Ok, so your words are only to be taken of the literal sense. Understood. However, that is a tough road to hoe. As humans often read what you write and understand the communicated meaning of what it is you are trying to relate. Sometimes we get it right, sometimes not, and sometimes we get it right, and those who say it don't want that known.....:wink:

Either way, though, running establishments for the proselytization, practice, and teaching of religion isn't the government's job. That's what churches are here for, not what governments are here for. If you think the churches aren't doing a good enough job, then start some new churches . . . don't ask the government to do it for you.

Agreed, and who said I wanted the government to do it for me? As far as I understand it was a student that hung the poster. And there are not religious classes at the school so, being pissed about a poster is just a little stupid if you ask me. And I wonder why it is that those people that bring such stupid cases are so afraid of seeing the words on a poster hung in a hallway?


j-mac
 
As far as I understand it was a student that hung the poster.

No, the school board took it down and hung it back up several times. I don't know who hung it in the first place, but there were complaints, so the SB took it down. Then people complained that they took it down, so they put it back up. The school board finally decided that they needed to put up religious laws, so they mounted it in a display case. That's not the governments job, so they're being sued.

And I wonder why it is that those people that bring such stupid cases are so afraid of seeing the words on a poster hung in a hallway?

Because they value religious liberty.

What I wonder is why some people want the government to teach their kids about god, instead of having their church do it. Why do they think the government would be better at it?
 
Because they value religious liberty.

What I wonder is why some people want the government to teach their kids about god, instead of having their church do it. Why do they think the government would be better at it?

This is the second time you have written this tripe. Now I like ya Grendel, but no one has said they want the government teaching religion. And that isn't what has happened here.


j-mac
 
but no one has said they want the government teaching religion. And that isn't what has happened here.

Then why does it need to post religious law? What's it's purpose if not to teach and proselytize religious teachings? What's the secular value of the ten commandments being posted in a hallway?
 
When I can opt-out of paying for the invasion of Iraq, then maybe that'll be an option, too. Either way, though, the government has no business trying to run churches.
A decorative laminated piece of paper hanging on a wall is not a church. Geez you people can be so stupid. It's a poster, there's nothing to "run". It just sits there. And you don't know tax money was used to buy it anyway.
 
A decorative laminated piece of paper hanging on a wall is not a church. Geez you people can be so stupid. It's a poster, there's nothing to "run". It just sits there. And you don't know tax money was used to buy it anyway.

What was the purpose of the poster? Why did they hang it on the wall of the school?
 
A decorative laminated piece of paper hanging on a wall is not a church. Geez you people can be so stupid. It's a poster, there's nothing to "run". It just sits there. And you don't know tax money was used to buy it anyway.

Public schools = religious-neutral.
Private schools = religious

Why does everything have to be even remotely showing of religion - can't people who are religious go for even a short amount of time without it around? is it really that big of a deal to everyone to just not have it there?

This encroaches on the topic of 'witnessing to the masses' - we all know what it means *to* religious people . . . it's a way for 'the message to get out' - well: some of us don't want to have to hear it. :shrug:

But I push the opposite direction: I push for a display of all sorts of religious-sayings: why not. . . some Buddhist dogma, some Catholicism, some Judaism, some Hinduism, Voodoo, Paganism . . . so on, so forth. Why not? I think a display encorporating important symbolism from all religions is the only way to be fair if you permit even one be given any sort of representation.
 
Last edited:
What was the purpose of the poster? Why did they hang it on the wall of the school?
It was a cultural vestige of the people, just like Spanish Catholic missionaries and greek goddesses on various state seals.
 
It was a cultural vestige of the people, just like Spanish Catholic missionaries and greek goddesses on various state seals.

Sounds like an ex post facto defence to me. Every single time the supporters of these religious artifacts are allowed to speak, we hear the same thing - it's part of our "Judeo-Christian heritage". The more nuanced defence is the "cultural" one which attempts to place such blatantly religious displays into a more general societal definition but really for the overwhelming majority of the defenders of Ten Commandment displays it is the religious purpose that they support.
 
Public schools = religious-neutral.
Private schools = religious

Why does everything have to be even remotely showing of religion - can't people who are religious go for even a short amount of time without it around? is it really that big of a deal to everyone to just not have it there?

This encroaches on the topic of 'witnessing to the masses' - we all know what it means *to* religious people . . . it's a way for 'the message to get out' - well: some of us don't want to have to hear it. :shrug:

But I push the opposite direction: I push for a display of all sorts of religious-sayings: why not. . . some Buddhist dogma, some Catholicism, some Judaism, some Hinduism, Voodoo, Paganism . . . so on, so forth. Why not? I think a display encorporating important symbolism from all religions is the only way to be fair if you permit even one be given any sort of representation.
Private religious schools receive federal funding too. A lot of federal funding. The difference between "public" and "private" is who's in charge of running the school, not where the money comes from.

As a public school the state is obligated by the 1st Amendment to allow religious cultural vestiges and worship on school grounds so long as they do not disrupt the classroom. Only private schools are free to ban religious practices.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom