Page 25 of 26 FirstFirst ... 1523242526 LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 257

Thread: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

  1. #241
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Seriously? There are multiple ways to number the commandments but I'll use the system most common in American churches, though not all
    1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - show me the laws

    #6 (KJV) Thou shalt not kill (NIV) You shall not murder

    #7 (KJV) Thou shalt not commit adultery (NIV) You shall not commit adultery. Adultery is not a crime in the US

    #8 (KJV) Thou shalt not steal (NIV) You shall not steal.

    #9 (KJV) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour (NIV) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Lying is only a crime when a statement is required in legal matters

    #10 (KJV) Thou shalt not covet ... (NIV) You shall not covet your neighbor's house; You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
    The thing that many tend to not realize when trying to make a connection between the Commandments and our laws is that they can be connected only through coincidence and generally only in a limited way.

    For instance:

    Thou shalt not kill is not really the same as "thou shalt not murder". "Murder" is completely dependent on the law and actually varies from any place. So what might be justified in one place when it comes to killing may not be in another, and vice versa. So saying "thou shalt not murder" would be very bad as a commandment since it would all depend on what place you were in at the time and the laws of that place. But then that would mean that going to "thou shalt not kill" would not be completely covered in our laws, since we (the US) allow for certain justified killings, such as in defense of self or someone else or even property, during war, even as punishment. So it would need a qualifier to even fit as being the basis of our laws "thou shalt not kill unjustifiably", and even then there is some sort of law preventing some sort of killings in pretty much every culture, even those who have never heard of the Bible or 10 Commandments.

    I covered adultery. Due to the Lawrence decision, it is not likely that adultery laws (outside of the military at least) would stand up to a constitutional challenge if they were ever enforced criminally (a person hasn't been charged with adultery outside of the military in the US since 1983). The fact that they haven't been enforced in 30 years pretty much tells us that out justice system doesn't even truly believe that criminal adultery laws are likely to stand up to a challenge.

    Stealing is sort of like the killing/murder thing. While stealing is illegal in most cases, it can be argued that we don't consider everything when it comes to stealing as actually stealing. For instance, there are some that claim taxes are stealing. There are others that believe that all land belongs to everyone or no one, and so either a) owning land in itself is stealing or b) things like taking food off of either public land or even private land wouldn't be stealing since everyone should be able to take such things. But it also goes back to pretty much every culture also having some laws against stealing, without inspiration from the Commandments.

    The lying thing you nailed. It is not covered in the vast majority of our laws and the only time it is is when it can cause measurable harm to someone, like getting them punished for a crime or avoid justice, or when used in combination of stealing something from someone else.

    Thou shalt not covet to most is referring to wanting what your neighbor has. This is in no way illegal. It would be thought policing to make it illegal. In fact, it is almost a tenet of capitalism to want something your neighbor has or even something better than your neighbor has.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  2. #242
    Professor
    JoeTrumps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Memphis
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,570

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil E Buster View Post
    1 through 4 and 10.
    yeah, one and two I can't defend. 3 and 4 can be traced from many current laws(no alcohol sales on sunday, no cursing on tv or radio). My point was the people who established the laws clearly used their faith as a road map, which means the Ten Commandments was VERY important to them, which means if people vote to allow it in their courthouse it seems reasonable and certainly should NOT be illegal. end of story

  3. #243
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeTrumps View Post
    again, if the satanists could point to any of their beliefs and ideals helping create this country then I wouldn't deny them some public space to acknowledge those contributions(assuming the citizens vote on the issue). I think there is a clear distinction
    The constitution doesn't say anything about religions needing to prove historic significance to have equal rights. If the folks in Oklahoma want to open their courthouse lawn to privately donated sculptures with religious themes that is fine as long as they provide equal access for all such sculptures. It is unconstitutional, rude and a bad precedent to allow the government to provide a privilege to only one particular religion or group of religions.

  4. #244
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,820

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeTrumps View Post
    yeah, one and two I can't defend. 3 and 4 can be traced from many current laws(no alcohol sales on sunday, no cursing on tv or radio). My point was the people who established the laws clearly used their faith as a road map, which means the Ten Commandments was VERY important to them, which means if people vote to allow it in their courthouse it seems reasonable and certainly should NOT be illegal. end of story

    or in other words, "What I wrote in post #227 isn't relevant because I say it isn't"
    give me a commandment, I'll give you the corresponding U.S. law.
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  5. #245
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeTrumps View Post
    yeah, one and two I can't defend. 3 and 4 can be traced from many current laws(no alcohol sales on sunday, no cursing on tv or radio). My point was the people who established the laws clearly used their faith as a road map, which means the Ten Commandments was VERY important to them, which means if people vote to allow it in their courthouse it seems reasonable and certainly should NOT be illegal. end of story
    Only sexual or excretory terms are currently banned on broadcast TV and radio, there are no prohibitions on damn, God, hell, Jehova etc..

  6. #246
    Professor
    JoeTrumps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Memphis
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,570

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
    Only sexual or excretory terms are currently banned on broadcast TV and radio, there are no prohibitions on damn, God, hell, Jehova etc..
    the term "god damn" isn't allowed on any radio or broadcast tv station I ever heard of. why do you think that is? or are you just going to deny it's true and make me go find proof.

  7. #247
    Professor
    JoeTrumps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Memphis
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,570

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
    The constitution doesn't say anything about religions needing to prove historic significance to have equal rights. If the folks in Oklahoma want to open their courthouse lawn to privately donated sculptures with religious themes that is fine as long as they provide equal access for all such sculptures. It is unconstitutional, rude and a bad precedent to allow the government to provide a privilege to only one particular religion or group of religions.
    even the one that was responsible for the creation of the nation itself?! No citizen living in those times(when the country was created) would say that's right, or else the commandments would have never been in the courthouse in the first place.

    You want other religions to be allowed to put their own stuff up, fine. Show me where they have historical significance to THIS country and I'll be happy to allow it.

  8. #248
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,792

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeTrumps View Post
    the term "god damn" isn't allowed on any radio or broadcast tv station I ever heard of. why do you think that is? or are you just going to deny it's true and make me go find proof.
    Then your experience is limited. While the FCC rules are quite vague, on purpose, they only control language between 6am and 10pm. You have a much wider latitude outside of those hours. And yes, if you're making the assertion, it's entirely up to you to find proof.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  9. #249
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,807

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeTrumps View Post
    even the one that was responsible for the creation of the nation itself?! No citizen living in those times(when the country was created) would say that's right, or else the commandments would have never been in the courthouse in the first place.

    You want other religions to be allowed to put their own stuff up, fine. Show me where they have historical significance to THIS country and I'll be happy to allow it.
    law and rights >>>>>>>>>>>>> your subjective meaningless opinion of historical significance
    this fact will never change and its what defeats your failed strawman every time lol
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  10. #250
    Professor
    JoeTrumps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Memphis
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,570

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    law and rights >>>>>>>>>>>>> your subjective meaningless opinion of historical significance
    this fact will never change and its what defeats your failed strawman every time lol
    got your opinion. noted. no need for any more bumper sticker responses. just ignore my further posts and assume your "debating" is just to much for me. thanks in advance

Page 25 of 26 FirstFirst ... 1523242526 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •