Cut Ten Commandments down to 6?

General discussion - Feel free to discuss anything you want here. Firearm related is preferred, but not required
User avatar
dorminWS
VGOF Platinum Supporter
VGOF Platinum Supporter
Posts: 7163
Joined: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:00:41
Location: extreme SW VA

Re: Cut Ten Commandments down to 6?

Post by dorminWS »

allingeneral wrote:Shall we remove "In God We Trust" from all coins now? Our country was founded on Christianity. It's everywhere. If you don't like it, then move to Kenya.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yup. And check out about any of the national monuments in DC.

Also, check out the multiple references to the Almighty in the Declaration of Independence:

The Unanimous Declaration
of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776
"The Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." -Thomas Jefferson
Gun-crazy? Me? I'd say the gun-crazy ones are the ones that don’t HAVE one.
User avatar
ratherfish
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:22:29
Location: Fredericksburg

Re: Cut Ten Commandments down to 6?

Post by ratherfish »

Freedom OF religion is not the same as freedom FROM religion.

The constitution underwrites the concept that the rights of us all stem from "the creator" God. The first conerstone of those rights is the 10 commandments. Our system ove civil law is based on that.

If we as a society seek to purge God from our laws it is clearly NOT constitutional.

Even as once again those who don't believe in Judeo-Christian concept of God's laws would seek to purge all vestages of it from civil society in the name of "the separation of church and state", which by the way is clearly NOT in the Constitution, God is the source of our natural rights and all who live in this fine country benefit from that . That my friends was the wisdom of the founders.

Many now believe the state or the will of the people is the source of our rights. They would change those rights to forward their ideologies. Ideologies and elected men change. God's laws do not. This is merely one more attempt by men to modify our civil society so it can then be molded into a society more easily manipulated by the ideology of men who believe the peoples will and the goverment are god.
There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'
-C. S. Lewis
User avatar
ShotgunBlast
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 20:46:31
Location: Richmond

Re: Cut Ten Commandments down to 6?

Post by ShotgunBlast »

dorminWS wrote:OK, CCFan & ShotGunBlast, what do you two constitutional scholars make of this:

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution protects freedom of speech as well as religion.

So, if you have freedom of speech AND freedom of religion, and if a writing is a form of speech, why can't you speak about religion wherever you damn well want to?
Because the 1st amendment has the built-in caveat that the government (and those associated with the government such as government buildings, employees, etc) will not be in the religion business. As I've stated in this thread before, there's two parts to the amendment.

1. Congress (government) will not get into the religion business "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
2. Congress (government) will not prevent you from practicing your religion "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

It's situations like these that generate the friction that the majority of Americans have interpreted the amendment to mean there is a separation of church and state. If you as a private citizen want to go into a government building and talk to everyone there about your religion there's no one stopping you from doing that. There is no problem with Joe Blow saying his prayers at home or in line at the grocery store, but people don't want Principal Joe Blow who's a government employee that's performing his official duties saying his prayers at his government building work area in front of the public. If Principal Joe Blow wants to take out his cross, shut his office door, say a prayer in the privacy of his office, then put his cross away that's fine. If Principal Joe Blow has a student who misbehaved in his office and he says to the student "let's pray" that's a problem.

Why do you think there has been such an effort to omit "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance?

Why do you think there is a movement to omit the words "so help me God" when swearing in jurors, witnesses or in oaths of office?

The majority of Americans don't want religion in their government. To allow one religion into government means you need to allow all religions into government and while religious people may want their religion in government, they most likely don't want other religions allowed in government and that's not fair.
User avatar
ratherfish
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:22:29
Location: Fredericksburg

Re: Cut Ten Commandments down to 6?

Post by ratherfish »

The phrase is that they will "establish no religion" not that they will purge ALL religion.
There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'
-C. S. Lewis
User avatar
ShotgunBlast
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 20:46:31
Location: Richmond

Re: Cut Ten Commandments down to 6?

Post by ShotgunBlast »

dorminWS wrote:Also, check out the multiple references to the Almighty in the Declaration of Independence:

The Unanimous Declaration
of the Thirteen United States of America
Jefferson also wrote a letter just 26 years later concerning "a wall of separation between church and state".

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_to ... ry_1,_1802

So was Jefferson the origional political flip-flopper, or was he simply tweaking the framework of our nation based on the needs of its law abiding tax paying citizens?
User avatar
allingeneral
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 9678
Joined: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:38:25
Location: King George, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Cut Ten Commandments down to 6?

Post by allingeneral »

One could easily argue that the choice to "not believe in God or religion" is freedom of religion. You are free not to believe...you are free to believe. The incorporation of God into our founding documents and in our everyday life is not forcing you to believe. If you want to spend a quarter that says "In God We Trust", then do it. It you want to refuse to use American money because the word God is printed on it, then so be it.

If you want to be an atheist, you are free to do so under the laws of our land - but don't try to extend your atheist beliefs into our government - which would clearly be a violation of your so-called "Separation of Church and State".
Please consider a DONATION to VGOF to help cover our operating costs

Image
User avatar
dorminWS
VGOF Platinum Supporter
VGOF Platinum Supporter
Posts: 7163
Joined: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:00:41
Location: extreme SW VA

Re: Cut Ten Commandments down to 6?

Post by dorminWS »

ShotgunBlast wrote:
dorminWS wrote:Also, check out the multiple references to the Almighty in the Declaration of Independence:

The Unanimous Declaration
of the Thirteen United States of America
Jefferson also wrote a letter just 26 years later concerning "a wall of separation between church and state".

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_to ... ry_1,_1802

So was Jefferson the origional political flip-flopper, or was he simply tweaking the framework of our nation based on the needs of its law abiding tax paying citizens?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That was just a private letter. In 1779, he wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Read that:
Text of Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:









Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.
"The Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." -Thomas Jefferson
Gun-crazy? Me? I'd say the gun-crazy ones are the ones that don’t HAVE one.
User avatar
ratherfish
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:22:29
Location: Fredericksburg

Re: Cut Ten Commandments down to 6?

Post by ratherfish »

"The Baptist complaint was that the Connecticut state constitution did not prohibit the state from legislating about religious matters"

Protecting the free practice of religion.

Not purging it from civil society!

Glad though thet you pointed out thet the genisis of this "constitutional right" is not the Constitution, but a letter wrongly interpreted to purge all religion from civil society!
There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'
-C. S. Lewis
User avatar
ShotgunBlast
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 20:46:31
Location: Richmond

Re: Cut Ten Commandments down to 6?

Post by ShotgunBlast »

dorminWS wrote:That was just a private letter. In 1779, he wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Read that:
Text of Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
OK, I found the text in the Wikipedia article easier to read than the black on brown of this website.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_S ... us_Freedom

So the Va Statuate for Religious Freedom supports the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st amendment. So if you click on the Establishment Clause link you get this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause
The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
Wouldn't you say having the 10 commandments displayed on a piece of government property where there are no other religious historical documents in having the preference by the US government of one religion over another?

Look, I would be happy with the 10 commandments there if it was displayed alongside the Koran, Torah, and other religious historical documents, but it seems the people who want the 10 commandments displayed only want THEIR religion represented and not anyone else's.

If you take the religion out of it and just look at it as the government helping one group of people to have something displayed at the expense of everyone else, hopefully you can see that is not what liberty is about.

Hopefully you will find this video beneficial. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
CCFan
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri, 08 May 2009 21:51:35

Re: Cut Ten Commandments down to 6?

Post by CCFan »

It's pretty simple, actually. Our country was not founded on *their* religion.

The Koran advocates the killing of non-believers. Those beliefs are incongruent with the beliefs of what this country was founded on..

Those who fail to remember the past are doomed to repeat their mistakes.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Resistance to Tyranny is Obedience to God.
User avatar
dorminWS
VGOF Platinum Supporter
VGOF Platinum Supporter
Posts: 7163
Joined: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:00:41
Location: extreme SW VA

Re: Cut Ten Commandments down to 6?

Post by dorminWS »

ShotgunBlast wrote:
dorminWS wrote:That was just a private letter. In 1779, he wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Read that:
Text of Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
OK, I found the text in the Wikipedia article easier to read than the black on brown of this website.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_S ... us_Freedom

So the Va Statuate for Religious Freedom supports the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st amendment. So if you click on the Establishment Clause link you get this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thank you, sir, for your learned discourse on what Wikipedia says. :hysterical:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause
The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
Wouldn't you say having the 10 commandments displayed on a piece of government property where there are no other religious historical documents in having the preference by the US government of one religion over another?

Look, I would be happy with the 10 commandments there if it was displayed alongside the Koran, Torah, and other religious historical documents, but it seems the people who want the 10 commandments displayed only want THEIR religion represented and not anyone else's.

If you take the religion out of it and just look at it as the government helping one group of people to have something displayed at the expense of everyone else, hopefully you can see that is not what liberty is about.

Hopefully you will find this video beneficial. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
"The Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." -Thomas Jefferson
Gun-crazy? Me? I'd say the gun-crazy ones are the ones that don’t HAVE one.
User avatar
ratherfish
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:22:29
Location: Fredericksburg

Re: Cut Ten Commandments down to 6?

Post by ratherfish »

"Look, I would be happy with the 10 commandments there if it was displayed alongside the Koran, Torah, and other religious historical documents, but it seems the people who want the 10 commandments displayed only want THEIR religion represented and not anyone else's."


They are...

But what about the so-called "Ten Commandments," the words recorded in Exodus 20, the words that the Creator Himself wrote on the two stone tablets that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai (Ex. 31:18), which Moses smashed upon seeing the idolatry of the golden calf (Ex. 32:19)? In the Torah, these words are never referred to as the Ten Commandments. In the Torah, they are called Aseret ha-D'varim (Ex. 34:28, Deut. 4:13 and Deut. 10:4). In rabbinical texts, they are referred to as Aseret ha-Dibrot. The words d'varim and dibrot come from the Hebrew root Dalet-Beit-Reish, meaning word, speak or thing; thus, the phrase is accurately translated as the Ten Sayings, the Ten Statements, the Ten Declarations, the Ten Words or even the Ten Things, but not as the Ten Commandments, which would be Aseret ha-Mitzvot.

http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm


The Koran;

http://www.answering-christianity.com/q ... dments.htm



So we agree! :friends:
There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'
-C. S. Lewis
User avatar
tursiops
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 447
Joined: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:09:29

Re: Cut Ten Commandments down to 6?

Post by tursiops »

allingeneral wrote:Shall we remove "In God We Trust" from all coins now? Our country was founded on Christianity. It's everywhere. If you don't like it, then move to Kenya.
Our country was not founded on Christianity. If it were, the coins would say, "In Jesus We Trust." Lots of religions have a God or supreme entity, under various names. Our founding fathers were mostly Diests with a strong belief in God, but were not generally Christians and many were definitely suspicious of the bible, especially the New Testament. Today's conservative Christians are not happy with this historical reality, but it is what it is. The evidence is not ambiguous. It may be despised by some and ignored by many, but it is not ambiguous. Sorry.
User avatar
ratherfish
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:22:29
Location: Fredericksburg

Re: Cut Ten Commandments down to 6?

Post by ratherfish »

Take it away AIG!
There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'
-C. S. Lewis
User avatar
Kreutz
VGOF Silver Supporter
VGOF Silver Supporter
Posts: 4318
Joined: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 10:26:42

Re: Cut Ten Commandments down to 6?

Post by Kreutz »

Jesus himself whacked them down to two....not sure why all 10 are so important.

:confused:
User avatar
vt800c
Marksman
Marksman
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:15:11
Location: Springfield, VA

Re: Cut Ten Commandments down to 6?

Post by vt800c »

ok..gotta chime in..: I'm not overly religous..but when it comes to people getting death threats for drawing a CARTOON that Represents a Prophet, or that one MUST wear gloves whenhandling a 'sacred book' that was nothing but ink and paper a few days before....then I start to get a bit nervous.

Our nation was founded on christian law...NOT sharia law...if it HAD, it'd be LEGAL to kill a rapist...or your sister if she was raped and brought dishonor to your family. And you could sell your children into a sham marrage with a much older gentleman..

Technially, the first things the founding fathers did after penning the constitution would be in violation: they had a prayer!

I'd rather be in an imperfect christian nation with a constitution than a 'perfect utopia' where I MUST follow the rules of 'Big Brother' (who's initials happen to be BHO)
The day they outlaw firearms is the day I become a criminal.
User avatar
Kreutz
VGOF Silver Supporter
VGOF Silver Supporter
Posts: 4318
Joined: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 10:26:42

Re: Cut Ten Commandments down to 6?

Post by Kreutz »

vt800c wrote:ok..gotta chime in..: I'm not overly religous..but when it comes to people getting death threats for drawing a CARTOON that Represents a Prophet, or that one MUST wear gloves whenhandling a 'sacred book' that was nothing but ink and paper a few days before....then I start to get a bit nervous.

Our nation was founded on christian law...NOT sharia law...if it HAD, it'd be LEGAL to kill a rapist...or your sister if she was raped and brought dishonor to your family. And you could sell your children into a sham marrage with a much older gentleman..

Technially, the first things the founding fathers did after penning the constitution would be in violation: they had a prayer!

I'd rather be in an imperfect christian nation with a constitution than a 'perfect utopia' where I MUST follow the rules of 'Big Brother' (who's initials happen to be BHO)

What does any of that have to do with a lawsuit involving Giles county's school board? :confused:
User avatar
dorminWS
VGOF Platinum Supporter
VGOF Platinum Supporter
Posts: 7163
Joined: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:00:41
Location: extreme SW VA

Re: Cut Ten Commandments down to 6?

Post by dorminWS »

Well, religion has never been a completely rational pursuit, if you ask me. Jews, Christians and Muslims have been killing each other for a couple of thousand years over exactly how one should worship, and what to call, the same God of Abraham they all worship. And the Christians and Muslims have at least persecuted and at various times tried to exterminate the Jews from whose religion their own sects originated. Go figure.

Then, in 1776, our Founding Fathers made their case for independence to the community of man based upon the proposition that: … “all men are created equal, that they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” - - and basically, that the King of England had lost their consent because of his very bad treatment of the people.

And grounded in that divine sanction claimed by the Founding Fathers, a new nation was established.

Now the ACLU and their atheist clients show up and during the last few decades tell us there ain’t no God and we aren’t allowed to even talk about him on government property even if there was.

So, I reckon the next step is for somebody to argue that since there is no God to have granted the rights upon which we founded our nation, the founding of the USA is a nullity and we are still part of England. This will get confusing as Hell (which I guess is the only option if there is no God, if you think about it). There we’ll be, as English as steak and kidney pudding, but we won’t be allowed to say “God save the Queen”. That’ll suck, won’t it? The only consolation will be that the ACLU won’t have an America or a Constitution to kick around anymore, so those bastards will have to disband.

That satisfy you guys? (I’m talking to Kreutz, ShotGunBlast, & turnips, here)
"The Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." -Thomas Jefferson
Gun-crazy? Me? I'd say the gun-crazy ones are the ones that don’t HAVE one.
User avatar
ShotgunBlast
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 20:46:31
Location: Richmond

Re: Cut Ten Commandments down to 6?

Post by ShotgunBlast »

You know the ACLU fights for Christians too, right? Unlike a lot of people, the ACLU fights for liberty for ALL people, not just a select group. The "A" in ACLU stands for "American", not "Atheists".

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/
User avatar
dorminWS
VGOF Platinum Supporter
VGOF Platinum Supporter
Posts: 7163
Joined: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:00:41
Location: extreme SW VA

Re: Cut Ten Commandments down to 6?

Post by dorminWS »

ShotgunBlast wrote:You know the ACLU fights for Christians too, right? Unlike a lot of people, the ACLU fights for liberty for ALL people, not just a select group. The "A" in ACLU stands for "American", not "Atheists".

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NO SH!T, SHERLOCK? :hysterical:

I'm so lucky to have you around to tell me this stuff! :clap:

Why don't you go to Wikipedia, look up "irony" and tell me what THAT means? :hysterical:
"The Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." -Thomas Jefferson
Gun-crazy? Me? I'd say the gun-crazy ones are the ones that don’t HAVE one.
Locked

Return to “General Discussion”