• 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?

Thunder said:
doesn't this belong in the Religion section?

just sayin'.
Click to expand...

Well it's certainly better here than in the philosophy forum.
 
Jerry said:
Since God is the issuing authority of the Commandments I guess He can edit them down to 6 if He wants. Not sure why God would do that, though.
Click to expand...

If they are just a display in a school for no more purpose than decoration, then why is it bad for them to be cut down to the six that are unlikely to offend or intimidate anyone? Personally, I would have just told them to take them down.

Jerry said:
If a poster is intimidating students then said students have some anxiety problems which need to be addressed.
Click to expand...

Because all children and teens know that just because something is so important to the school that they need it displayed, that it isn't really something they need to take to heart or think that not believing in would cause them any grief. Sure.

Plus, I noticed you didn't address my other point in this. Do you think that it would be the other side having an issue with a display of the Laws of Islam being up in a school as the only image until being advised by legal council that they should include other, non-religious, historical documents?

Jerry said:
"Murder" under US laws only applies to humans. The point is to refrain from needless killing, and yes this extends into killing animals just for the fun of it. Our civil laws do forbid most of these behaviors, which of course is why hunters have to have a license, a bag-tag, and can only hunt certain game during a specified time.
Click to expand...

And those hunting laws would not apply to bugs. The only time any "no killing" law applies to bugs is when the bug in question is an endangered species. Most aren't.

And the KJV Bible says "thou shalt not kill". And the one up in the HS appears to be "thou shall not kill", not "thou shall not murder". (going off the images I can find on this)

Not that this is really a big deal in the issue overall, since I think not killing is a good thing to believe.
 
danarhea said:
I don't see a problem with the school hanging the 10 commandments up in a hallway, just as long as other religions can have their teachings hung up in a hallway too....... Oops, you mean the school won't hang up teachings other than Christian ones? Then that IS a violation of separation of church and state. The government is not allowed to force any one particular religion down the throats of others.

But if the school would like to hang up ONLY christian teachings in the hallway, how about the quote from Jesus where he says "Give all you have to the poor and follow me"? Or "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven"?

And why do schools hang up plaques of the 10 commandments, when they break an important one by doing the pledge of allegiance in class, where the 2nd commandment forbids idol worship?

You see, there is nothing at all Christian about some demands that some who think they are Christians make. It's not about Christianity. It's about power, and nothing more. When Jesus returns, he is going to be kicking a lot of ass. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I don't know, I just don't feel it that way. I think that maybe we see more Christian stuff because demographically we're mostly Christian. I mean, sure they should hang up other things; I just don't think that they should have to. Let the local school boards decide what's appropriate. So long as students aren't being forced or the rights of others are not being infringed upon, I see no real issue.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Indeed - I was a bit peeved last night when they did a super religious song about Bethlehem at my kid's kindergarten graduation ceremony.
Click to expand...
Thats bad, but pales in comparison to what I have to put up with in my state. Fortunately the LDS church was forced to relocate their seminarys off public school property and the students are no longer allowed to get credit towards graduation for attending religious indoctrination. But that is just the tip of the ice burg since the Mormons control the legislature. If you ever want to see what a theological state in the US looks like, come to Utah. The only positive is that it helps keep masses of people from moving here and over development. But even that is starting to change now.
 
Ikari said:
I don't see why we really care that much. Hanging the 10 commandments up in school isn't the worst thing in the world. So long as they ain't forcing you to pray or go to church or what have you.

I don't know, in the end I see lawsuits like this on both sides as useless and we could better focus our energies on real issues instead.
Click to expand...
Students are forced to go to school and if religious influence is plastered all over the walls and/or taught in the classroom, then that is forced indoctrination.
 
digsbe said:
Why do militant atheists have to throw a fit over hanging the 10 Commandments? People are to hypersensitive, and it's a public place and should be allowed to hang.
Click to expand...

You think anyone can hang anything in a public place and that's a good idea? Satanists, muslims, FSM rastafarians, hindus Pagans and everyone else should have the freedom to put up whatever they want anywhere on public land at public expense? Including atheists putting up "There is no God" banners for the county schools to maintain at public expense?
 
Sarcogito said:
The courts are the ones who interpret the Constitution and our laws and time after time after time they reaffirm the concept of Separation of Church and find against schools in cases like this. Now, you may disagree with their interpretation of the 1st Amendment just as I disagree with their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Your and my interpretation is opinion. Theirs is law.
Click to expand...

Mine is not my opinion but the opinion found in the federalist papers. Yours was dreamed up to restrict speech without any grounding in the Constitution or the federalist papers for such a decision.

You might not know this but when I look at supreme court ruling I look for how they came to that decision and see nothing in those decisions that is accurate. Maybe you can help me and tell me what is supporting such a claim that was made in the supreme court. If not, I see nothing in there to support the claims.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
If that is the case, then I have just as much right, if I were a teacher, to make my students bow down to Allah, or worship Buddha, talk like a pirate to the flying spaghetti monster, or get on their knees to Cthulhu. After all, we are talking about freedom of religion here. I think that, with separation of church and state, our forefathers also had another idea in mind.... Freedom FROM religion.
Click to expand...

Prove it. I see nothing to support that claim.
 
rocket88 said:
Religion is like a penis. It's ok to have one. It's ok to be proud of it. It's not ok to wave it around in everyone's face.
Click to expand...

images


You just got uninvited to a lot of interesting parties.
 
Henrin said:
Mine is not my opinion but the opinion found in the federalist papers. Yours was dreamed up to restrict speech without any grounding in the Constitution or the federalist papers for such a decision.

You might not know this but when I look at supreme court ruling I look for how they came to that decision and see nothing in those decisions that is accurate. Maybe you can help me and tell me what is supporting such a claim that was made in the supreme court. If not, I see nothing in there to support the claims.
Click to expand...

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that 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 & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

that letter from jefferson is the basis for separation of church and state,it is in no way affiliated with the federalist papers or the constitution.

determining the seperation of church and state from that letter would be the same as saying the 10nth amendment doesnt apply because bill clinton wrote a letter about it.
 
Jefferson was also of the belief that the government belongs to the living and not the dead, so meh.
 
beerftw said:
Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that 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 & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

that letter from jefferson is the basis for separation of church and state,it is in no way affiliated with the federalist papers or the constitution.

determining the seperation of church and state from that letter would be the same as saying the 10nth amendment doesnt apply because bill clinton wrote a letter about it.
Click to expand...

The federalist papers are not law. They're only useful in demonstrating the intent of the founders -- which is the same use as the Danburry Baptist letter. I don't know why you guys want the government to run your churches so badly, but it's against the law. Socialised religion is illegal.
 
beerftw said:
that letter from jefferson is the basis for separation of church and state,it is in no way affiliated with the federalist papers or the constitution.

determining the seperation of church and state from that letter would be the same as saying the 10nth amendment doesnt apply because bill clinton wrote a letter about it.
Click to expand...

Well, there's always the First Amendment's prohibition of the establishment of a state religion. Which, while not saying the phrase "separation of church and state" certainly keeps the government out of the religion business.
 
Grendel said:
The federalist papers are not law. They're only useful in demonstrating the intent of the founders -- which is the same use as the Danburry Baptist letter. I don't know why you guys want the government to run your churches so badly, but it's against the law. Socialised religion is illegal.
Click to expand...

the letter demonstrated where the belief seperation of church and state and freedom from religion come from.the letter was written 11 years after the first amendment was ratified whereas the federalist papers shows the founding fathers intent of the constitution and the later bill of rights.

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.

the first amendment already prohibits the government from a state run religion,as that would require making laws respecting the establishment of religion.somewhere along the lines someone decided that freedom of religion meant freedom from religion,and decided that a seperation of church and state was in order to prevent all religion from government buildings to praying in school.

however there is not anywhere in the constitution stating a seperation of church and state,it says that no laws may be made reguarding religion,or prohibiting the excersize of
 
Henrin said:
Mine is not my opinion but the opinion found in the federalist papers. Yours was dreamed up to restrict speech without any grounding in the Constitution or the federalist papers for such a decision.

You might not know this but when I look at supreme court ruling I look for how they came to that decision and see nothing in those decisions that is accurate. Maybe you can help me and tell me what is supporting such a claim that was made in the supreme court. If not, I see nothing in there to support the claims.
Click to expand...

The Federalist Papers are not law.

You might not know this, but you aren't a Supreme Court justice. You're free to have a different point of view, but their interpretation of the Constitution is what counts. Unless you are a Constitutional law scholar, and the greatest unrecognized legal mind of your generation...
 
beerftw said:
the letter demonstrated where the belief seperation of church and state and freedom from religion come from.the letter was written 11 years after the first amendment was ratified whereas the federalist papers shows the founding fathers intent of the constitution and the later bill of rights.

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.

the first amendment already prohibits the government from a state run religion,as that would require making laws respecting the establishment of religion.somewhere along the lines someone decided that freedom of religion meant freedom from religion,and decided that a seperation of church and state was in order to prevent all religion from government buildings to praying in school.

however there is not anywhere in the constitution stating a seperation of church and state,it says that no laws may be made reguarding religion,or prohibiting the excersize of
Click to expand...

The wall separating the two is not mirrored glass that allows one way and not the other. Freedom from those things is implied.

Take the other parts of the First Amendment, like Free Press. They have the right to print it, but they don't have the right to force you to read it. You have the right to speak your mind, but you don't have the right to make me listen.
 
rocket88 said:
The wall separating the two is not mirrored glass that allows one way and not the other. Freedom from those things is implied.

Take the other parts of the First Amendment, like Free Press. They have the right to print it, but they don't have the right to force you to read it. You have the right to speak your mind, but you don't have the right to make me listen.
Click to expand...

then it simply comes down to ones definition of forced.are you not forced to see advertising on the road?are you not forced to see campaign ads,or listen to public speakers on the street corner.i fail to see where anyone is forced religion upon them by the state,and i have yet to see anything that suggests freedom from religion in the constitution.

freedom from religion can also be viewed as prohibiting the free excersise of,since deciding where people are allowed and not allowed to practice religion is a direct violation of the first amendment,as clearly written.

however posting or practicing religious matters is fully supported by the first amendment,i fail to see where a building is a person or a group,so technically there is nothing in the constitution protecting a courthouse or a school's right to have religious matter,but banning something like praying within that school or courthouse directly violated the first amendment blatantly in clear english!!!
 
beerftw said:
the first amendment already prohibits the government from a state run religion
Click to expand...

Public schools are run by the government. Turn the schools into churches and you have government churches. Teaching religious mores is the job of the churches, not the job of the government. Anyone who values freedom understands that letting the government take over religion is an instant path to tyranny, which is why we have a separation between the two.

The separation clause is lifted from the Virginia rights statements, authored by Jefferson. Jefferson explaining what he meant is a lot more telling than you explaining what he meant, especially when he disagrees with you about what he meant.

Ie: You're wrong. Theocracy is bad. It's also illegal. No government churches, including in the school system.
 
Grendel said:
Public schools are run by the government. Turn the schools into churches and you have government churches. Teaching religious mores is the job of the churches, not the job of the government. Anyone who values freedom understands that letting the government take over religion is an instant path to tyranny, which is why we have a separation between the two.

The separation clause is lifted from the Virginia rights statements, authored by Jefferson. Jefferson explaining what he meant is a lot more telling than you explaining what he meant, especially when he disagrees with you about what he meant.

Ie: You're wrong. Theocracy is bad. It's also illegal. No government churches, including in the school system.
Click to expand...

that entire post was thrown so far out of context straw man doesnt even apply,maybe a straw giant.


next time try and argue against what i say not a distorted view of what you think i meant:)
 
beerftw said:
then it simply comes down to ones definition of forced.are you not forced to see advertising on the road?are you not forced to see campaign ads,or listen to public speakers on the street corner.i fail to see where anyone is forced religion upon them by the state,and i have yet to see anything that suggests freedom from religion in the constitution.

freedom from religion can also be viewed as prohibiting the free excersise of,since deciding where people are allowed and not allowed to practice religion is a direct violation of the first amendment,as clearly written.

however posting or practicing religious matters is fully supported by the first amendment,i fail to see where a building is a person or a group,so technically there is nothing in the constitution protecting a courthouse or a school's right to have religious matter,but banning something like praying within that school or courthouse directly violated the first amendment blatantly in clear english!!!
Click to expand...

It all depends on who's doing it. If the school administration does it, they are endorsing a religion as an arm of the government. That's not OK.
 
rocket88 said:
It all depends on who's doing it. If the school administration does it, they are endorsing a religion as an arm of the government. That's not OK.
Click to expand...

well yesif it is done by the school or any part of govt,yes that would violate the first amendment,as govt would be dealing with religious matters.

if someone like a teacher had a cross pinned to his shirt,no that would not be a violation,so long as it is not part of the school education.
 
rocket88 said:
The Federalist Papers are not law.

You might not know this, but you aren't a Supreme Court justice. You're free to have a different point of view, but their interpretation of the Constitution is what counts. Unless you are a Constitutional law scholar, and the greatest unrecognized legal mind of your generation...
Click to expand...

So basically you can't defend their ruling so you're deciding to fall back on their authority only. We have a name for that its called the appeal to authority fallacy.

And you have no idea who I am so discrediting me personally based on my qualifications that you haven't a clue about is not workable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom