• 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?

j-mac said:
OMG!!!! Get the child psychiatrist....You must have been scared for at least 3 minutes...


j-mac
Click to expand...
Do you have anything relevant to say or are you just here to ridicule those who disagree with you?
 
j-mac said:
OMG!!!! Get the child psychiatrist....You must have been scared for at least 3 minutes...


j-mac
Click to expand...

Not scared, just annoyed. You know, that feeling when someone does something that you don't like. The feeling you get when you find out that people dare disagree with your almighty opinion.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Why do extremist whack job atheists continue to files these lawsuits that in the long run cost tax payers money fighting these extremist whack job atheists? There is nothing in the constitution that says you can put up religious decorations on public property.
Click to expand...

Isnt it obvious? Because extremist whack job Theists keep stupidly giving them ammo.
 
just read james madisons words on the first amendment.seperation of church and state started with jefferson 11 years after the first amendment,and holds no value since jefferson didnt write the first amendment,madison was the godfather of that one.


madison himself later on used the words seperation of church and state,decades after he wrote the first amendment.from his own words and his own actions,nothing suggests freedom from religion,rather he had a beef with government having any involvement in religion,whether iit was supporting or against.while he was president he vetoed everything involving anything religious.

people foam at the mouth over stupid things while not realizing there are many laws on the books over religious values,but people would rather foam at the mouth over a posting of the ten comandments,and call it forced indoctrination,while it is simply not.however it is not any position of the government to promote or deny religion.individuals working for the government would be in the right to have religious sybols within their person or on their personal property.the government however can not do such as they can make no law respecting religion.
 
beerftw said:
just read james madisons words on the first amendment.seperation of church and state started with jefferson 11 years after the first amendment,and holds no value since jefferson didnt write the first amendment,madison was the godfather of that one.


madison himself later on used the words seperation of church and state,decades after he wrote the first amendment.from his own words and his own actions,nothing suggests freedom from religion,rather he had a beef with government having any involvement in religion,whether iit was supporting or against.while he was president he vetoed everything involving anything religious.

people foam at the mouth over stupid things while not realizing there are many laws on the books over religious values,but people would rather foam at the mouth over a posting of the ten comandments,and call it forced indoctrination,while it is simply not.however it is not any position of the government to promote or deny religion.individuals working for the government would be in the right to have religious sybols within their person or on their personal property.the government however can not do such as they can make no law respecting religion.
Click to expand...

The point of the separation of church and state is to keep both separate. And through the First Amendment we make sure the Government does not dictate to us what religion to believe in etc. With a system set up to disallow the Government from interfering officially with religion by effect we also have made it where religion cannot have an effect on the Government. Obviously we have failed at this task through out American history. But none the less the Government by law has no place in religion and religion has no place in the Government.
 
MadLib said:
Enlightenment values, not Judeo-Christian principle.
Click to expand...

Where do you suppose that enlightenment came from?

This is the sort of thing that happens when children are not taught their heritage in schools.
 
MadLib said:
Not scared, just annoyed. You know, that feeling when someone does something that you don't like. The feeling you get when you find out that people dare disagree with your almighty opinion.
Click to expand...

Why does the sight of the 10 Commandments annoy you? I'm not religious but they don;t annoy me anymore than a Christmas tree does.

Perhaps you. like many others. need some anti-sensitivity training. Their is far too much annoyances occurring over rather petty little things.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
The point of the separation of church and state is to keep both separate. And through the First Amendment we make sure the Government does not dictate to us what religion to believe in etc. With a system set up to disallow the Government from interfering officially with religion by effect we also have made it where religion cannot have an effect on the Government. Obviously we have failed at this task through out American history. But none the less the Government by law has no place in religion and religion has no place in the Government.
Click to expand...

the religion portion was made because in nearly every country priorto the us,either the govt ran the church,or the church ran the govt.look at the middle ages,the catholic church had more power than kings did,all the church had todo was excommunicate a king and no one would obey thatking.

the founding fathers dabbled with the idea of abolishing religion,and came to the conclusion that the cure was worse than the disease,as freedom of religion was required for a free state,despite the fact religion and other factors created an obstacle.the federalist papers refers to religions as factions,as groups them with other factions.

if people read the federalist papers no.10 they would get a better understanding of the first amendment and the speration between church and government.
 
The Reverend James Renwick Willson of the Reformed Presbyterian Church had a few words to say back in 1832 concerning George Washington and some of the other men we now call Founding Fathers

There is no satisfactory evidence that Washington was a professor of the Christian religion, or even a speculative believer in its divinity, before he retired from public life.[6] In no state paper, in no private letter, in no conversation, is he known to have declared himself a believer in the Holy Scriptures, as the word of God.
(...)
He was President of the convention, that voted the name of the living God out of the Constitution. His influence was great among the members of that body. Had he taken part with Dr. Franklin, in the attempt to have an acknowledgment of God inserted in the Constitution, they could hardly have failed of success. The conviction forces itself upon us, that that act of national impiety, was done with the approbation of Washington. It is to his everlasting dishonor, that he is not known to have opposed that insult offered to the Lord God, who had made him so great and successful a captain.
Click to expand...

The Reverend Willson also had a few words to say about the men who voted for the Constitution, and also about Thomas Jefferson's suitability for the Presidency
Besides, there is some reason to believe, that the people were not so bad as a few practical atheists, into whose hands the management of the national affairs fell, immediately after the revolution. These men voted God out of the Constitution, and discarded all moral qualifications for office. But the people, pending the election of Mr. Jefferson to the office of President, adopted a test. The opponents of that gentleman, insisted that he was an infidel, and therefore not to be honored with the highest office in the gift of the people. His friends admitted the doctrine that a deist ought not to be President; but denied the charge against Mr. Jefferson. His Notes on Virginia, are essentially deistical. But comparatively few had read them. The people, many thousands of Christians, did not believe the charge, and thinking it a slander of his political enemies, they voted for him. Had the people known his malevolent opposition to the Bible, truth, church and worship, of God as it is now known, the writer believes that he never would have been President of the United States. That very contest rendered Deism forever unpopular in this nation.
Click to expand...
my emphasis
 
Somerville said:
The Reverend James Renwick Willson of the Reformed Presbyterian Church had a few words to say back in 1832 concerning George Washington and some of the other men we now call Founding Fathers



The Reverend Willson also had a few words to say about the men who voted for the Constitution, and also about Thomas Jefferson's suitability for the Presidency
my emphasis
Click to expand...

thomas jefferson was in france and didnt vote on the constitution,he was busy being an ambassador.thomas jefferson also said many times not to use him as a reference for anything constitution as he wasnt there for its creation and other than a few inspirational words had nothing to do with the bill of rights.

infact james madison was the main author and inspiration for the bill of rights,off we ignore the man who wrote them and ask the man who had nothing to do with it for its meaning.
 
I liked it better when religion was a more personal thing. Between someone and their Gawd, not something worn like a flag lapel pin.

I could do without all 10 and just go by the Golden Rule.

As far as 'needing' the commandments... we have laws that say the same thing with penalties. like grown ups...
 
notquiteright said:
I liked it better when religion was a more personal thing. Between someone and their Gawd, not something worn like a flag lapel pin.

I could do without all 10 and just go by the Golden Rule.

As far as 'needing' the commandments... we have laws that say the same thing with penalties. like grown ups...
Click to expand...

And do you have any idea what inspired those laws you now enjoy?
 
thomas jefferson was in france and didnt vote on the constitution
Click to expand...

You know that might be why I wrote "and also about Thomas Jefferson's suitability for the Presidency" It was meant to indicate two separate subjects, the way I phrased it, probably should have been separate sentences for clarity.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
The point of the separation of church and state is to keep both separate. And through the First Amendment we make sure the Government does not dictate to us what religion to believe in etc. With a system set up to disallow the Government from interfering officially with religion by effect we also have made it where religion cannot have an effect on the Government. Obviously we have failed at this task through out American history. But none the less the Government by law has no place in religion and religion has no place in the Government.
Click to expand...

Here is what the First Amendment actually says.


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.
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
I certainly understand the meaning of "enlightenment".

Which meaning did you intend?
Click to expand...



The Age of Enlightenment

or

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Enlightenment
The Enlightenment is the period in the history of western thought and culture, stretching roughly from the mid-decades of the seventeenth century through the eighteenth century, characterized by dramatic revolutions in science, philosophy, society and politics; these revolutions swept away the medieval world-view and ushered in our modern western world. Enlightenment thought culminates historically in the political upheaval of the French Revolution, in which the traditional hierarchical political and social orders (the French monarchy, the privileges of the French nobility, the political power and authority of the Catholic Church) were violently destroyed and replaced by a political and social order informed by the Enlightenment ideals of freedom and equality for all, founded, ostensibly, upon principles of human reason.
Click to expand...
 
Somerville said:
You know that might be why I wrote "and also about Thomas Jefferson's suitability for the Presidency" It was meant to indicate two separate subjects, the way I phrased it, probably should have been separate sentences for clarity.
Click to expand...

so you write about his suitabilty for someone with little to no involment in the constitution being acceptable as written by a priest,seems you have a certain hatred for the constitution
 
beerftw said:
the religion portion was made because in nearly every country priorto the us,either the govt ran the church,or the church ran the govt.look at the middle ages,the catholic church had more power than kings did,all the church had todo was excommunicate a king and no one would obey thatking.

the founding fathers dabbled with the idea of abolishing religion,and came to the conclusion that the cure was worse than the disease,as freedom of religion was required for a free state,despite the fact religion and other factors created an obstacle.the federalist papers refers to religions as factions,as groups them with other factions.

if people read the federalist papers no.10 they would get a better understanding of the first amendment and the speration between church and government.
Click to expand...

I am a little unclear of your potion on religion and the Government at this point honestly. But I am really happy that you brought up federalist papers no.10. Since I do assert that factions are the main problem with the country through out its history. Which is why I am an Independent voter I refuse to join a faction since that is what I am against. I happen to agree that religions are factions but I do not think that religions should be outlawed just not allowed to influence the Government. I feel the same way about political parties, that no political party should be outlawed out right just that they should not be in the Government just the same as religions. But most people do not understand the reasoning and I always point them to the early writings of George Washington and James Madison. the original intention was that the US was to be factionalless in effect no political parties. But soon that changed as factions started forming. Until today the Government has become a quagmire of misrepresentation. When one party has more party those not in that party are forced to go along with them. It is that disenfranchised relationship that causes most of the conflict between the Left and the Right. The practice of sticking to the other side while in office does not work.
 
beerftw said:
so you write about his suitabilty for someone with little to no involment in the constitution being acceptable as written by a priest,seems you have a certain hatred for the constitution
Click to expand...

I do not understand what you are trying to say.
 
notquiteright said:
I liked it better when religion was a more personal thing. Between someone and their Gawd, not something worn like a flag lapel pin.

I could do without all 10 and just go by the Golden Rule.

As far as 'needing' the commandments... we have laws that say the same thing with penalties. like grown ups...
Click to expand...

having religious symbols on a person does not violate the first amendment.however as you pointed out the ten commandments.

our laws already follow some of them,but also the laws by every civilized country in the world despite religion.that however since it is a government building not a person or a group does not fall under protection of the first amendment.

however an individual praying in school would be protected under the first amendment,as it does not allow the infringment upon practicing a religion,and it does not say that religion cannot be practiced in a government building,but says the government has no right to be involved in religion,one way or another.
 
Somerville said:
I do not understand what you are trying to say.
Click to expand...

jefferson had nearly zero involvement in the constitution,he was ambassador to france during its creation,he would be more an autority on the declaration of independance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom