• 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?

beerftw said:
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.
Click to expand...

For some reason the Library of Congress disagrees with you
ESTABLISHING A FEDERAL REPUBLIC
Although Thomas Jefferson was in France serving as United States minister when the Federal Constitution was written in 1787, he was able to influence the development of the federal government through his correspondence. Later his actions as the first secretary of state, vice president, leader of the first political opposition party, and third president of the United States were crucial in shaping the look of the nation's capital and defining the powers of the Constitution and the nature of the emerging republic.
Click to expand...


MY point however had to do with the claim made by the Reverend Willson that Jefferson was unsuitable for the Presidency because he - Thomas Jefferson - was not a Christian - which you would have read if you had bothered to click thru and read the sermon.
 
beerftw said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thats is not accurate. Here is officially what historians say on the matter.

Establishing a Federal Republic - Thomas Jefferson (Library of Congress Exhibition) Although Thomas Jefferson was in France serving as United States minister when the Federal Constitution was written in 1787, he was able to influence the development of the federal government through his correspondence. Later his actions as the first secretary of state, vice president, leader of the first political opposition party, and third president of the United States were crucial in shaping the look of the nation's capital and defining the powers of the Constitution and the nature of the emerging republic.

Jefferson played a major role in the planning, design, and construction of a national capitol and the federal district. In the various public offices he held, Jefferson sought to establish a federal government of limited powers. In the 1800 presidential election, Jefferson and Aaron Burr deadlocked, creating a constitutional crisis. However, once Jefferson received sufficient votes in the electoral college, he and the defeated incumbent, John Adams, established the principle that power would be passed peacefully from losers to victors in presidential elections. Jefferson called his election triumph "the second American Revolution."

While president, Jefferson's principles were tested in many ways. For example, in order to purchase the Louisiana Territory from France he was willing to expand his narrow interpretation of the Constitution. But Jefferson stood firm in ending the importation of slaves and maintaining his view of the separation of church and state. In the end, Jefferson completed two full and eventful terms as president. He also paved the way for James Madison and James Monroe, his political protégés, to succeed him in the presidency.

[...]Jefferson objects to absence
of Bill of Rights

Thomas Jefferson's December 20, 1787, letter to James Madison contains objections to key parts of the new Federal Constitution. Primarily, Jefferson noted the absence of a bill of rights and the failure to provide for rotation in office or term limits, particularly for the chief executive. During the writing and ratification of the constitution, in an effort to influence the formation of the new governmental structure, Jefferson wrote many similar letters to friends and political acquaintances in America.
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
And do you have any idea what inspired those laws you now enjoy?
Click to expand...
Um, the Magna Carta, John Locke, Polybius, and Montesquieuand? Oh and habeus corpus (1679) and the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689), and the Act of Settlement (1701)?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Thats is not accurate. Here is officially what historians say on the matter.
Click to expand...

his ideas and sayings were used,but he didnt participate actively in it,and he himself said such.

he wasnt ignorant to the constitution,but has said many times he is not an authority of the constitution for such reasons.


this is stupid because the scotus still uses him today as reference and ignores the person whoactually wrote the first amendment.to be true it was impsossible to be active in the constitution as word by sea took six months then,unless the constitution took 60 years,it was impossible for him tobe active,or an authority on the constitution.
 
Grant said:
So when you said "Enlightenment values, not Judeo-Christian principle", you actually meant the Age of Enlightenment values? How does that change the meaning of the word?

And do you understand the values of that period? How did those values differ from the founders of the United States?.
Click to expand...

Your post at 9:19 PM tonight
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.
Click to expand...

I read this as a comment using "enlightenment" in a way we sometimes hear from preachers where the word is defined as "the state of being enlightened: to live in spiritual enlightenment."

The Enlightenment was a philosophical school of thought which for the most part rejected theological thinking as too restrictive. It combined the new knowledge that was being gained thru scientific experimentation with different ways of looking at human governance, ways other than the divine right of monarchs to rule over their subjects. Philosophy in the 18th C had a very different meaning than it does at this time.

"How did those values differ from the founders of the United States?" They didn't and that is the point, Enlightenment thinking provided an alternative to the traditional Judeo-Christian pattern of the years since the Roman Empire.
 
Somerville said:
For some reason the Library of Congress disagrees with you



MY point however had to do with the claim made by the Reverend Willson that Jefferson was unsuitable for the Presidency because he - Thomas Jefferson - was not a Christian - which you would have read if you had bothered to click thru and read the sermon.
Click to expand...

jeffersons words and phrases were used,but he was nit there during the creation of the constitution.there were many who created the constitution.

btw jefferson was for small govt and extremely conservative by todays standards,yet madison who wrote the bill of rights that supported religious freedom was a federalist,or by todays standards borderline socialist.so you support the far right guy but call the left wrong??????
 
Moot said:
Um, the Magna Carta, John Locke, Polybius, and Montesquieuand? Oh and habeus corpus (1679) and the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689), and the Act of Settlement (1701)?
Click to expand...

You forgot English Common Law for your list
 
Moot said:
Um, the Magna Carta, John Locke, Polybius, and Montesquieuand? Oh and habeus corpus (1679) and the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689), and the Act of Settlement (1701)?
Click to expand...

But why stop there? Do you know what inspired all of this?

The most revolutionary idea in the history of mankind was the idea that the poor, like the rich, had a soul and were recognized as equals in the eyes of God. This is central to the teachings of Jesus, Christianity and all that comes after it in the Christian world. These teachings are still reverberating in the world today. Of course those historical references you referred to are all from the Christian world. The non Christian world is, and was, quite different.

But as this is not being taught in most schools today many students, and adults, will remain ignorant of their heritage and thus the world around them. They think it all happened naturally, that values just rise up from nowhere in particular, and the traditions they inherited will somehow continue uninterrupted into the future.
 
Last edited:
Liberals would love to get it down to 6, then 4, then 2, then none at all. Or they could rewrite them and claim it's a sin to be rich.
 
johnny_rebson said:
Liberals would love to get it down to 6, then 4, then 2, then none at all. Or they could rewrite them and claim it's a sin to be rich.
Click to expand...

thats not the point at hand:confused:
 
beerftw said:
jeffersons words and phrases were used,but he was nit there during the creation of the constitution.there were many who created the constitution.

btw jefferson was for small govt and extremely conservative by todays standards,yet madison who wrote the bill of rights that supported religious freedom was a federalist,or by todays standards borderline socialist.so you support the far right guy but call the left wrong??????
Click to expand...

Wow! that is so far out there, it is impossible to answer. The governing philosophies of the two men have very little to do with your modernising analogies.

By the definitions of the 18th C, an advocate for small government was a radical liberal. Conservatives were the ones who supported strong central government because that was what they had always known, therefore they wanted to conserve their heritage.

This is always a problem with discussing matters of the past with those who have not studied history in an academic setting but instead get their 'history' from clowns like David Barton and Glenn Beck.
 
Somerville said:
Wow! that is so far out there, it is impossible to answer. The governing philosophies of the two men have very little to do with your modernising analogies.

By the definitions of the 18th C, an advocate for small government was a radical liberal. Conservatives were the ones who supported strong central government because that was what they had always known, therefore they wanted to conserve their heritage.

This is always a problem with discussing matters of the past with those who have not studied history in an academic setting but instead get their 'history' from clowns like David Barton and Glenn Beck.
Click to expand...

it doesnt,but simply put madison is the authority on the first amendment,not jefferson.

using jefferson for the first amendment would be the same as using obama as the authority for the second amendment,he didnt write,he didnt participate in it,so why are people using him instead of the person who wrote it as to what it means.

simple answer,the person who wrote it doesnt agree with you,therefore you seek to find someone who does or simply argue that amendments are out of date just because they block your cause.
 
the poor, ... had a soul and were recognized as equals in the eyes of God
Click to expand...
But not in the eyes of society until the 20th Century.

and then there was that whole ordinance about how servants were to behave - don't sound like equality to me
Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
Click to expand...

or perhaps you meant the poor in spirit found in Matthew 5:3 - who probably have a truly crappy life on earth but they shall have the "kingdom of heaven", so they shouldn't worry too much about how life sucks while they are alive.
 
We have really wandered away from the topic, interesting though the diversion has been.

Should American public schools be allowed to display posters, banners, signs, monuments, etc that are directly related to a specific religious belief?
 
Somerville said:
We have really wandered away from the topic, interesting though the diversion has been.

Should American public schools be allowed to display posters, banners, signs, monuments, etc that are directly related to a specific religious belief?
Click to expand...

individuals have the right so long as it is not part of the education as per the first amendment.

if the school or government itself does it or a teacher tries to implement it,that would be a violation of the first amendment.
 
Somerville said:
But not in the eyes of society until the 20th Century.
Click to expand...

That's clearly untrue, as pointed out in the examples which were listed.earlier on this thread.

and then there was that whole ordinance about how servants were to behave - don't sound like equality to me
Colossians 3:22
Click to expand...

That is not a quote of Jesus.
Click to expand...
 
beerftw said:
individuals have the right so long as it is not part of the education as per the first amendment.

if the school or government itself does it or a teacher tries to implement it,that would be a violation of the first amendment.
Click to expand...

That is also untrue. You appear unfamiliar with the First Amendment.
 
Grant said:
That is also untrue. You appear unfamiliar with the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

i am referring to the first amendment as written,not as interperated.
please show me where im wrong,as it is stated the government shall make no law supporting the establishment of religion.

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.

it doesnt apply to government since it would require law,and buildings and government organizations dont qualify under protection of the first amendment,it only applies to groupsor individuals as per protection,but not a government organization or a corporation.
 
beerftw said:
i am referring to the first amendment as written,not as interperated.
please show me where im wrong,as it is stated the government shall make no law supporting the establishment of religion.

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.

it doesnt apply to government since it would require law,and buildings and government organizations dont qualify under protection of the first amendment,it only applies to groupsor individuals as per protection,but not a government organization or a corporation.
Click to expand...

Having a copy of the 10 Commandments in a school hallway is not establishing a religion. Christianity was established long before America was even discovered.
 
Grant said:
Having a copy of the 10 Commandments in a school hallway is not establishing a religion. Christianity was established long before America was even discovered.
Click to expand...

i never said it was,but as it is a government building,not a person or group or even a building belonging to a religious geoup,it holds no protection,only the individuals working there would hold protection.

in a government organization only the individuals hold protection,as the government can have no involvment in religion.read the first amendment,read no.10 of the federalist papers.you will see what is intended.by logic a building under the government cannot an shouldnt post religious material,as i said,seperation of church and state does not mean seperation from religion,but rather that government itself can hold no part in religion.peoplewho work for government can affilliate with religion not use government as a medium for their religion.
 
beerftw said:
i never said it was,but as it is a government building,not a person or group or even a building belonging to a religious geoup,it holds no protection,only the individuals working there would hold protection.

in a government organization only the individuals hold protection,as the government can have no involvment in religion.read the first amendment,read no.10 of the federalist papers.you will see what is intended.by logic a building under the government cannot an shouldnt post religious material,as i said,seperation of church and state does not mean seperation from religion,but rather that government itself can hold no part in religion.peoplewho work for government can affilliate with religion not use government as a medium for their religion.
Click to expand...

Separation of Church and State is not part of the Constitution. Again, it is all about the establishment of a religion and no arm of government is doing that.
 
Grant said:
But why stop there? Do you know what inspired all of this?

The most revolutionary idea in the history of mankind was the idea that the poor, like the rich, had a soul and were recognized as equals in the eyes of God. This is central to the teachings of Jesus, Christianity and all that comes after it in the Christian world. These teachings are still reverberating in the world today. Of course those historical references you referred to are all from the Christian world. The non Christian world is, and was, quite different.

But as this is not being taught in most schools today many students, and adults, will remain ignorant of their heritage and thus the world around them. They think it all happened naturally, that values just rise up from nowhere in particular, and the traditions they inherited will somehow continue uninterrupted into the future.
Click to expand...
How odd then that Christianity or God is not mentioned in the Constitution anywhere. In fact the only time religion is mentioned is to instruct government from establishing a religion. Now what do you suppose the forefathers intended with that short little clause? Surely you don't believe it was to establish Christianity as a state religion with all the bells, symbols and whistles, do you?
 
Moot said:
How odd then that Christianity or God is not mentioned in the Constitution anywhere. In fact the only time religion is mentioned is to instruct government from establishing a religion. Now what do you suppose the forefathers intended with that short little clause? Surely you don't believe it was to establish Christianity as a state religion with all the bells, symbols and whistles, do you?
Click to expand...

well it intends that government shall make no law reguarding religion,or prohibiting the practive of.

people like him see the amendment but ignore the federalist papers,which is basically the constitution for dummies papers.the forst amendment say no one shall be prohibited from,but no laws shall be made,since the government runs off laws,and the 14th amendment,it prohibits govt from making rules involving religion.

however no one religious san be prohibited from showing thier faith as it prhibits religious practice,just the same as no one can be prohibited from being in school with a athiest t-shirt .

peopletend to confuse allowing religion and promoting it.government is prohibited from such,individuals are not.promoting religion is not forced indoctrination,though examples of real indoctrintaion can be made for both religions and athiests.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
Having a copy of the 10 Commandments in a school hallway is not establishing a religion. Christianity was established long before America was even discovered.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom