• 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!

Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

Slightly off topic but it does relate to the stupid bill that started this thread: How many of the Ten Commandments can actually be connected to laws that are presently valid in America?


give me a commandment, I'll give you the corresponding U.S. law.

go
 
Slightly off topic but it does relate to the stupid bill that started this thread: How many of the Ten Commandments can actually be connected to laws that are presently valid in America?

Four currently.
 
1.) its also part of the 1st, so yes LAW :shrug: but please continue with your deflection
2.) then you dont understand rights laws and rights

1. that phrase appears nowhere in the constitution, but why start believing facts at this point
2. still not explaining how it infringes on your rights of religious choice/or non-religious choice
3. the rest of your responses are all about how people who don't agree with you are mean and evil. that act gets tired fast. more facts, less patting yourself on the back for being on the "good" side.
 
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

how does this change anything, the laws and rules?
 
1. that phrase appears nowhere in the constitution, but why start believing facts at this point
2. still not explaining how it infringes on your rights of religious choice/or non-religious choice
3. the rest of your responses are all about how people who don't agree with you are mean and evil. that act gets tired fast. more facts, less patting yourself on the back for being on the "good" side.

1.) correct it doesn't but i never said the exact verbiage is in there but it does talk talk about religion AND Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (which the lawsuits are based on and some more FACTS the other lawsuits that were based on that already WON so these things couldn't be directly done by the state) so YES please lets talk about facts lol so again your deflection fails
2.) already done see #1 as already explained
3.) nope just the facts, laws and how equal rights work but please continue the continued the deflections

any other deflections?
 
give me a commandment, I'll give you the corresponding U.S. law.

go


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.
 
Four currently.

Willing to bet that the justification for those laws has absolutely no ties to the Ten Commandments. Just because someone put them in a holy book, doesn't mean those that wrote the book thought them up.
 
I only see three and one of those is only in special circumstances

best part is even if its was 10 for 10 it doesnt change the laws and rights :)
 
I only see three and one of those is only in special circumstances

Adultery is a crime in several states.

Willing to bet that the justification for those laws has absolutely no ties to the Ten Commandments. Just because someone put them in a holy book, doesn't mean those that wrote the book thought them up.

No idea, I didn't write them.
 
Adultery is a crime in several states.

No idea, I didn't write them.

Adultery has not been punished as a crime in years (outside the military) and likely won't be because it really is between the two people. I see any state trying to bring adultery charges up against a person facing a constitutional challenge for it because it violates privacy rights and right to sexual autonomy. Even your spouse does not have the true right to tell you that you cannot have sex with someone else and have you criminally punished for doing so (civil punishment via divorce sure, since that could be seen as a contract violation). Criminally, no.
 
I think it is actually extremely rare for private businesses to discriminate against same sex couples or gay folk. It just receives a remarkable amount of media attention when it happens. That is why such a law is funny. In the long run, it is likely going to affect you and others like you far, far more than it will ever affect me or other gay folk.

Very likely. :shrug: I'm tempted to point out that rising generations now exit the public education system sauteed in left-wing assumptions, one of which is Diversity in Everything, Except Thought; but that doesn't exactly detract from the greater point. So long as no one seeks to use government power in either direction, the choices of free individuals should be left unhampered here. Furthermore, the system will be somewhat self-regulating; those who choose to degrade their own efficiency too much will be destroyed by the competition.

And ultimately, I think, this will be good for the Church. It's been a pretty low-cost choice to adhere to a faith for a while here in America.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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..
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
Back
Top Bottom