NationStates Jolt Archive

The Democratic part is just alienating itself from the Christians of this country by attacking things like the Ten Commandments in a court house. It's driving the Christians to the Republicans. I understand trying to keep seperation of church and state, but it takes it too far. Having the Ten Commandments artwork in the court house is no different from having a statue of some Greek mythological figure, yet the Democratic party decided to make a big deal out of it. If it would simply be a little more Christian friendly, we'd probably have a Democrat in office right now. Instead, it lets the Republicans dominate a major voting demographic.

The Democrats are just alienating themselves from the Christians of this country by attacking things like the Ten Commandments in a court house. They're driving the Christians to the Republicans. I understand trying to keep seperation of church and state, but they take it too far. Having the Ten Commandments artwork in the court house is no different from having a statue of some Greek mythological figure, yet the Democrats decided to make a big deal out of it. If they would simply be a little more Christian friendly, we'd probably have a Democrat in office right now. Instead, they let the Republicans dominate a major voting demographic.


I give you a troll rating of 7/10.

Cleverly diguised as a subject with merit, and not the flamebait it is.

The Democrats are just alienating themselves from the Christians of this country by attacking things like the Ten Commandments in a court house. They're driving the Christians to the Republicans. I understand trying to keep seperation of church and state, but they take it too far. Having the Ten Commandments artwork in the court house is no different from having a statue of some Greek mythological figure, yet the Democrats decided to make a big deal out of it. If they would simply be a little more Christian friendly, we'd probably have a Democrat in office right now. Instead, they let the Republicans dominate a major voting demographic.

Alienating, distancing, tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to. ;)

I first read the topic title as "Democrats Alienating Christmas".

The biggest difference between a statue of Zeus and a statue of Jesus is no one worships Zeus anymore, and he is now considered a piece of Greek history, while people will blow each other up "In the name of Jesus".

I give you a troll rating of 7/10.

Cleverly diguised as a subject with merit, and not the flamebait it is.Excuse me? How is this trollery? It looks like a legitimate subject to me. And if it is trollery, then please, by all means go tell the mods so we can see what they think.

I first read the topic title as "Democrats Alienating Christmas".

The biggest difference between a statue of Zeus and a statue of Jesus is no one worships Zeus anymore, and he is now considered a piece of Greek history, while people will blow each other up "In the name of Jesus".But putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse (for example) isn't going to inspire anyone to go suicide bomb a mosque.

So, by trying to adhere to the constitution Democrats are alienating christians? Maybe if those christians don't want to follow the constitution they should go somewhere else and live?

I give you a troll rating of 7/10.

Cleverly diguised as a subject with merit, and not the flamebait it is.

How is this trolling? He doesnt agree with you? If thats the case then you're in the wrong forum.

So, by trying to adhere to the constitution Democrats are alienating christians? Maybe if those christians don't want to follow the constitution they should go somewhere else and live?The thing is, some of the stuff the Democrats attack isn't violating seperation of church and state. If the Ten Commandments in a courthouse (for example) is violating the constitution, then so is any statue or image of a Greek mythological figure in government buildings or on government seals. The seal of the State of California prominently features Athena. Is that a violation of the seperation of church and state?

So, by trying to adhere to the constitution Democrats are alienating christians? Maybe if those christians don't want to follow the constitution they should go somewhere else and live?

Article. I.
Section 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section. 2.

Clause 1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Clause 2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (See Note 2) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

Clause 4: When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Section. 3.

Clause 1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, (See Note 3) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Clause 2: Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies. (See Note 4)

Clause 3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Clause 4: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

Clause 5: The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Section. 4.

Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Clause 2: The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, (See Note 5) unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
Section. 5.

Clause 1: Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Clause 3: Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Clause 4: Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Section. 6.

Clause 1: The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. (See Note 6) They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, beprivileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Clause 2: No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Section. 7.

Clause 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Clause 2: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Clause 3: Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Section. 9.

Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Clause 3: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (See Note 7)

Clause 5: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

Clause 6: No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Clause 8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Section. 10.

Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Article. II.
Section. 1.

Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Clause 3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President. (See Note 8)

Clause 4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Clause 6: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, (See Note 9) the Same shall devolve on the VicePresident, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Clause 7: The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Section. 2.

Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section. 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article. III.
Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3.

Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Article. IV.
Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2.

Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Clause 2: A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Clause 3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due. (See Note 11)
Section. 3.

Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Article. VI.

Clause 1: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Please show me where it says that in the constitution.

<mega-snip>I think you scared everyone away with that massive block of text.

You sure scared the crap out of me.

Jesus... Stop using "Christian" label for your Evangelical fundamentalism! There are millions of Christians that just can't stand your attitude! It's like calling all patriots and right-winger Nazists or left-wingers Communists...
I can write a thread titled "Right-wingers support Hitler" and it would have this same sense... It's just stupid to discriminate majority of Christians out there... No wonder if someone hates all Christians when he reads that. Don't even bother to reply - I won't debate about "purity" of YOUR faith. I just want to make it clear for anyone else...

The Democrats are just alienating themselves from the Christians of this country by attacking things like the Ten Commandments in a court house. They're driving the Christians to the Republicans. I understand trying to keep seperation of church and state, but they take it too far. Having the Ten Commandments artwork in the court house is no different from having a statue of some Greek mythological figure, yet the Democrats decided to make a big deal out of it. If they would simply be a little more Christian friendly, we'd probably have a Democrat in office right now. Instead, they let the Republicans dominate a major voting demographic.

I'm a Christian and an American (and able to vote after this weekend), and I certainly don't feel driven to the Republicans. Perhaps, by "Christian", you mean "Fundamentalist", but you know what? I'm scared to think anyone would want those in their political camp anyhow. It would be dishonest of the Democrats to pretend to cater to Archconservatives, and it would repulse their other voters.

Curious..

In the US, when you going to give evidence in a trial, do you have to swear on the bible still? If so, how does that work if you not christian?

Having the Ten Commandments artwork in the court house is no different from having a statue of some Greek mythological figure, yet the Democrats decided to make a big deal out of it.
The Ten Commandments are not artwork. They are religious doctrine.

If they would simply be a little more Christian friendly, we'd probably have a Democrat in office right now. Instead, they let the Republicans dominate a major voting demographic.
It's not a problem of not being friendly to a particular religion. It's a problem of the government favoring (implicitly or otherwise) a particular religion over others. Put the Ten Commandments in the courthouse, and you might as well have every other religion represented in that courthouse, so that Christianity and Judaism don't appear to be favored.

[gigasnip]
Please show me where it says that in the constitution.
The United States Constitution is a very long document, and you shouldn't copy-paste it into your post.

And, ironically, you left out the part of the Constitution that does forbid it. And here it is:

Bill of Rights, Amendment One

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.

But putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse (for example) isn't going to inspire anyone to go suicide bomb a mosque.

Perhaps, but statues of Greek mythological characters don't threaten Christianity, separation of church and state, political party stereotypes, Abe Vigoda, or whatever the hell else someone wants to bring into this argument.

And anyway, you missed my point. No one worships the Greek gods, so that's simply viewed as art, but putting a statue of the commandments in a public place is asking for trouble.

I mean, I wouldn't mind it so much if it wasn't for all the Christians who throw fits because Chinese restaurants have statues of Buddha or because our school has a mythology class.

Curious..

In the US, when you going to give evidence in a trial, do you have to swear on the bible still? If so, how does that work if you not christian?

I am told that it is possible to swear a recognized oath without* the inclusion of the bible (they just leave that part out). Whether it is possible to swear on another book of the swearer's choice, I do not know, but I doubt it. (Geez, it would be cool though to swear on, say, Lord of the Rings...)

*Edit: The official term for this is "affirm" rather than "swear", iirc.

(Geez, it would be cool though to swear on, say, Lord of the Rings...)

Blow something up and swear on the Anarchist's Cookbook.

I mean, I wouldn't mind it so much if it wasn't for all the Christians who throw fits because Chinese restaurants have statues of Buddha or because our school has a mythology class.
:D So true!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>_>

Then Ten Commandments being posted in a courthouse are hardly Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion. That would require a session of Congress, various Senators and Representatives drafting and then voting a bill into law, and then the subsequent enforcement of said law.

Otherwise, you just have one of the earliest legal "documents" posted in a public, albeit government, place. As soon as Congress passes the "Everyone Has to Be a Christian or Jew" law, you can enact the "seperation of Church and State" clause. Until then, you're barking up the wrong tree. To do otherwise, as has been done for several decades now, is to interpret that clause incorrectly.

And here I thought the Democrats were overwhelmingly Christian in their majority. Shows what I know! Turns out Democrat == Not Christian. Apparently you can only be Christian if you're Republican. Who knew?

Zany.

Then Ten Commandments being posted in a courthouse are hardly Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion. That would require a session of Congress, various Senators and Representatives drafting and then voting a bill into law, and then the subsequent enforcement of said law.
Following that logic, then, the courts can theoredically decide that Christianity is an illegal religion. That's a restriction on the free exercise of religion, which is something Congress (and by your interpretation, only Congress) also cannot do. Are you okay with that?

Otherwise, you just have one of the earliest legal "documents" posted in a public, albeit government, place.
It's not really a legal document. It's barely a document. It's Exodus 20:1-17. And like I said before, if the government is going to host the Ten Commandments on their property, they should include all religions. That would make for a very crouded courthouse. It's more sensible to not include any religions, even Christianity.

It's more sensible to not include any religions, even Christianity.

Actually, I'd prefer statues for every religion. I can't wait to see a statue of Mr.T in every courthouse in America.

Actually, I'd prefer statues for every religion. I can't wait to see a statue of Mr.T in every courthouse in America.
There's a religion around Mr. T? I pity that foo' ...

If there can be a religion based around the idea of "The Force", there can be a religion based around the coolest guy ever.

Well now I pity you, foo' ...

... :p

Perhaps, but statues of Greek mythological characters don't threaten Christianity, separation of church and state, political party stereotypes, Abe Vigoda, or whatever the hell else someone wants to bring into this argument.

And anyway, you missed my point. No one worships the Greek gods, so that's simply viewed as art, but putting a statue of the commandments in a public place is asking for trouble.

I mean, I wouldn't mind it so much if it wasn't for all the Christians who throw fits because Chinese restaurants have statues of Buddha or because our school has a mythology class.Actually, there still are small groups that worship Greek gods. The California state seal could be seen as favoring those groups of people. I really don't see putting up a statue of the Ten Commandments as being any different from putting up a statue of Ares or Athena.Turns out Democrat == Not Christian. Apparently you can only be Christian if you're Republican. Who knew?I never said nor implied that.Put the Ten Commandments in the courthouse, and you might as well have every other religion represented in that courthouse, so that Christianity and Judaism don't appear to be favored.I would have no problem with that.I'm a Christian and an American (and able to vote after this weekend), and I certainly don't feel driven to the Republicans. Perhaps, by "Christian", you mean "Fundamentalist", but you know what? I'm scared to think anyone would want those in their political camp anyhow. It would be dishonest of the Democrats to pretend to cater to Archconservatives, and it would repulse their other voters.I don't mean fundamentalist. I'm not saying that the Democrats should cater to the fundamentalists by doing anything major like supporting mandatory Bible class in schools or anything. All I'm saying is that they should leave the small stuff alone. As I said earlier, small things like having the Ten Commandments statue in a courthouse (for example) doesn't even violate seperation of church and state, since it is nothing more than a piece of art like a statue of Artemis or Athena.Jesus... Stop using "Christian" label for your Evangelical fundamentalism! There are millions of Christians that just can't stand your attitude! It's like calling all patriots and right-winger Nazists or left-wingers Communists...
I can write a thread titled "Right-wingers support Hitler" and it would have this same sense... It's just stupid to discriminate majority of Christians out there... No wonder if someone hates all Christians when he reads that. Don't even bother to reply - I won't debate about "purity" of YOUR faith. I just want to make it clear for anyone else...Arakaria=angry teen venting on the internet. I think if you'll review my other threads, such as the one in which I condemned "Republichristianism," you'll find that I'm far from being evangelical.

Excuse me? How is this trollery? It looks like a legitimate subject to me. And if it is trollery, then please, by all means go tell the mods so we can see what they think.
I wouldn't call it trolling, but I would call it a fine example of straw man argumentation.

Democrats--by which one must assume you mean the Democratic party--are not opposed to the Ten Commandments, or even their appearance in public places. Individual Democrats may be, but the party is not. However, the right-wing does not hesitate to describe the party by their least mainstream elements at times. It would be like me saying that Republicans are all racist xenophobes because Tom Tancredo is one. The shoe doesn't fit.

The Democratic party is christian friendly--most of our members are christian, believe it or not. If we were all a bunch of atheists or Wiccans or demon-lovers, we wouldn't win many elections, now would we?

Speaking as a Christian, I loathe the Republicans every bit as much as I loathe the Democrats. ;)

At least the Democrats support ALL religions equally... in the privacy of your own home or church and nowhere else. Religion doesn't belong anywhere else.

The thing is, some of the stuff the Democrats attack isn't violating seperation of church and state. If the Ten Commandments in a courthouse (for example) is violating the constitution, then so is any statue or image of a Greek mythological figure in government buildings or on government seals. The seal of the State of California prominently features Athena. Is that a violation of the seperation of church and state?

California does not have Athena, it has Calafia. Big difference. Plus, Calafia was not worshipped as a god, she is a mythical figure.

The Democrats are just alienating themselves from the Christians of this country by attacking things like the Ten Commandments in a court house. They're driving the Christians to the Republicans. I understand trying to keep seperation of church and state, but they take it too far. Having the Ten Commandments artwork in the court house is no different from having a statue of some Greek mythological figure, yet the Democrats decided to make a big deal out of it. If they would simply be a little more Christian friendly, we'd probably have a Democrat in office right now. Instead, they let the Republicans dominate a major voting demographic.

Of course, the big hole in your argument is that the group that makes the decision, the Supreme Court, is predominantly made up of conservative Republicans, who put that aside for faithful interpretation of the Constitution. Oh, wait, I see now. Yeah, it was the Democrats fault, of course!

I wouldn't call it trolling, but I would call it a fine example of straw man argumentation.

Democrats--by which one must assume you mean the Democratic party--are not opposed to the Ten Commandments, or even their appearance in public places. Individual Democrats may be, but the party is not. However, the right-wing does not hesitate to describe the party by their least mainstream elements at times. It would be like me saying that Republicans are all racist xenophobes because Tom Tancredo is one. The shoe doesn't fit.

The Democratic party is christian friendly--most of our members are christian, believe it or not. If we were all a bunch of atheists or Wiccans or demon-lovers, we wouldn't win many elections, now would we?I should have said "Democratic party," instead of "democrats." That was just a wording error on my part. I wasn't trying to generalize. However, it is the Democratic party that goes after small things like I mentioned earlier, and it alienates a lot of Christians (no, I don't mean fundamentalists). I realize that many Democrats are Christian, but unfortunately the Democratic party often portrays an anti-Christian image. Many average, middle class Christians that I know have been turned off by things like the Ten Commandments issue. I mean, I think you'll agree that that's not a major issue that the Democratic politicians should be worrying about. I think that if they would leave small things like that alone, they would have many more supporters. Again, I'd like to remind everyone that I'm not supporting mandatory Bible classes in schools or anything major like that.

I'm an independent, by the way.

Of course, the big hole in your argument is that the group that makes the decision, the Supreme Court, is predominantly made up of conservative Republicans, who put that aside for faithful interpretation of the Constitution. Oh, wait, I see now. Yeah, it was the Democrats fault, of course!Please, the sarcasm doesn't belong here. I've been very mature in this thread, and I'd appreciate it if others would do the same.

Actually, there still are small groups that worship Greek gods.
True, but you're still missing my point. It's supposedly okay to put the ten commandments up, but trying to put up a big stone slab reading "God is Dead" would be considered a crime.

So, if you can put the commandments up, do you think it would be okay to place statues of every other religion in public places? If so, good for you. If not, the you don't really have an argument, do you?

True, but you're still missing my point. It's supposedly okay to put the ten commandments up, but trying to put up a big stone slab reading "God is Dead" would be considered a crime.

So, if you can put the commandments up, do you think it would be okay to place statues of every other religion in public places? If so, good for you. If not, the you don't really have an argument, do you?1. The Virgin Mary covered in elephant crap was never considered a crime, so I disagree on that point.

2. Yes I do, and I already stated that the government puts other gods on its various seals, and erects statues of them.

Actually, there still are small groups that worship Greek gods. The California state seal could be seen as favoring those groups of people. I really don't see putting up a statue of the Ten Commandments as being any different from putting up a statue of Ares or Athena.
Then I guess we should debate about whether or not those statues should be removed and the California state seal changed. But not here.

I would have no problem with that.
Good for you. So let's cram the courthouse with everything religious. Everything. From every religion. Even Wicca. Even Satanism. Even Scientology. Even the religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/)! We must not exclude any religion.

As I said earlier, small things like having the Ten Commandments statue in a courthouse (for example) doesn't even violate seperation of church and state, since it is nothing more than a piece of art like a statue of Artemis or Athena.
Nothing more than a piece of art? Haha. It actually is more than art. It actually isn't art. It's Exodus 20:1-17. It's real religious doctrine. It's a section of the Bible!

Please, the sarcasm doesn't belong here. I've been very mature in this thread, and I'd appreciate it if others would do the same.

You really don't like the whole First Amendment, do you? Most points are made best through sarcasm and irony, because it adds humor. Crack a smile, it won't hurt you. And reply to my response. A mostly conservative court made that decision, so how do you justify your argument?

Please, the sarcasm doesn't belong here. I've been very mature in this thread, and I'd appreciate it if others would do the same.
Sarcasm is a very good weapon in debates. It conveys ideas so well. And the best part is that, contrary to your beliefs, it doesn't compromise one's maturity.

I would say that either you are upset that Kaledan made you aware of how wrong you are by using sarcasm, or you just don't like sarcasm, which I will honor if you just say the word.

You really don't like the whole First Amendment, do you? Most points are made best through sarcasm and irony, because it adds humor. Crack a smile, it won't hurt you. And reply to my response. A mostly conservative court made that decision, so how do you justify your argument?*sigh* so because I wanted to keep the thread mature, I'm against the first amendment.

No, you don't like the first Amendment because you try to mandate how people should write, which in essence is trying to control how they think. Many of the world's best writers and speakers use sarcasm to get thier points across. It does not make them immature. We are all here to have a good time, so lets shake and move on.

Sarcasm is a very good weapon in debates. It conveys ideas so well. And the best part is that, contrary to your beliefs, it doesn't compromise one's maturity.

I would say that either you are upset that Kaledan made you aware of how wrong you are by using sarcasm, or you just don't like sarcasm, which I will honor if you just say the word.I believe that sarcasm inevitably leads to flaming, and flaming leads to thread-locking.

As for his statement about the Supreme Court, I disagree with him about the justices being right wing. I think that they're very moderate. Anyway, he didn't prove me wrong about anything, because the whole point of this thread is that the Democratic party is alienating a demographic by pursuing things like that. Was it the Supreme Court who brought up the issue? No. It was the Democratic party.

*sigh* so because I wanted to keep the thread mature, I'm against the first amendment.
I think he was referring to your request that others not use sarcasm, and the phrase about free speech. He probably feels like you are trying to restrict his rights. Don't get me wrong, you have the right to request, but he has the right not to comply.

The Democrats are just alienating themselves from the Christians of this country by attacking things like the Ten Commandments in a court house. They're driving the Christians to the Republicans. I understand trying to keep seperation of church and state, but they take it too far. Having the Ten Commandments artwork in the court house is no different from having a statue of some Greek mythological figure, yet the Democrats decided to make a big deal out of it. If they would simply be a little more Christian friendly, we'd probably have a Democrat in office right now. Instead, they let the Republicans dominate a major voting demographic.

I'm a Christian; even worse, I am a Christian who is a Reformed Presbyterian, and member of a particularly "conservative" congregation. Yet, I do not agree that such is "alienating". Nor do members of my congregation (a PCA church). The presence of christianity intermeshing with Government is not close to any particular tenet of our beliefs. We have our own courts and government for handling discipline in our own church.... And need not influence or support from the general government (who should only be concerned with secular affairs)... I need not the courts of the general government handling my adherance to our religious laws and doctrines.... If such is in question it can be brought before the Session of Ruling Elders of my congregation; and they can impose restrictions and discipline within the realm of our beliefs within my own congregation....

As a Christian, as an American, and as a Libertarian; there needs to be a definitive and absolute seperation of powers between my Church Government, and the General (State and Federal) government(s).

I've been very mature in this thread

I think that's a matter of opinion and you are not in a position to judge it.

No, you don't like the first Amendment because you try to mandate how people should write, which in essence is trying to control how they think. Many of the world's best writers and speakers use sarcasm to get thier points across. It does not make them immature. We are all here to have a good time, so lets shake and move on.I'm not against the first amendment, I'm for keeping this thread open. In my time on this forum, I've seen sarcasm lead to flaming too many times. If you still think I'm against the first amendment, then please go read my comments in the thread about flag burning.I'm a Christian; even worse, I am a Christian who is a Reformed Presbyterian, and member of a particularly "conservative" congregation. Yet, I do not agree that such is "alienating". Nor do members of my congregation (a PCA church). The presence of christianity intermeshing with Government is not close to any particular tenet of our beliefs. We have our own courts and government for handling discipline in our own church.... And need not influence or support from the general government (who should only be concerned with secular affairs)... I need not the courts of the general government handling my adherance to our religious laws and doctrines.... If such is in question it can be brought before the Session of Ruling Elders of my congregation; and they can impose restrictions and discipline within the realm of our beliefs within my own congregation....

As a Christian, as an American, and as a Libertarian; there needs to be a definitive and absolute seperation of powers between my Church Government, and the General (State and Federal) government(s).I agree about there needing to be a seperation of Church and state. One of the things I'm trying to say is that the Ten Commandments statue in the courthouse was no more a violation of seperation of Church and state than is a statue of a Greek mythological figure in front of any government building.

But my main point is still this: the Democratic party alienates a major demographic.

while people will blow each other up "In the name of Jesus".

When was the last Christian suicide bombing?

I think that's a matter of opinion and you are not in a position to judge it.If you disagree, then please show me where I've been immature.

I believe that sarcasm inevitably leads to flaming, and flaming leads to thread-locking.
That hasn't happened in my experience. But, I'm feeling nice, so I'll try my best not to use sarcasm.

As for his statement about the Supreme Court, I disagree with him about the justices being right wing. I think that they're very moderate. Anyway, he didn't prove me wrong about anything, because the whole point of this thread is that the Democratic party is alienating a demographic by pursuing things like that. Was it the Supreme Court who brought up the issue? No. It was the Democratic party.
Everyone's alienating someone. The conservatives are alienating homosexuals. The liberals are alienating those who believe the fetus has rights. It's unavoidable, and fault can't really be pinned on the alienators. Most members of the Democratic party - myself included - know what they're doing is right. And the Supreme Court, for the most part, happens to agree with us, whether it's right-wing or left.

If you disagree, then please show me where I've been immature.

You show immaturity of thought by comparing the Ten Commandments to a Greek statue, and by complaining about sarcasm, which has been a debating technique since Greek times.

When was the last Christian suicide bombing?

Who says it has to be a suicide bombing? Is normal bombing not bad enough for you?

You show immaturity of thought by comparing the Ten Commandments to a Greek statue, and by complaining about sarcasm, which has been a debating technique since Greek times.No I don't. Art is in the eye of the beholder. Some people see the Virgin mary covered in elephant dung as art. It's their right to percieve it that way.

You miss my point.

No I don't. Art is in the eye of the beholder. Some people see the Virgin mary covered in elephant dung as art. It's their right to percieve it that way.
Whether or not it's art is debatable. But there shouldn't be anything on government property, even if it is art, that happens to have major religious significance.

I believe that sarcasm inevitably leads to flaming, and flaming leads to thread-locking.

As for his statement about the Supreme Court, I disagree with him about the justices being right wing. I think that they're very moderate. Anyway, he didn't prove me wrong about anything, because the whole point of this thread is that the Democratic party is alienating a demographic by pursuing things like that. Was it the Supreme Court who brought up the issue? No. It was the Democratic party.

Sometimes, an issue is more important than gaining a voting demographic. The Dems lost alot of people during the Civil Rights movement, you know.
Anyhow, to be non-sarcastic, as requested by my most gracious host (relax), I would like to quote from Justice O'Connor, who said "The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition...[by] endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community." So, I must ask, how would you feel, as a Christian (forgive me if I have presumed too much), walking into a court and finding a Big Tablet with Zoroastrian Law in the dias by the front doors? Even if it was really 'artsy?'
You might feel like this court is not going to give you a fair shake because of your beliefs, that justice may not be served because you do not ascribe to the tenets on the door. Would you feel like an outsider? Especially if going up against a prominent local Zoroastrian? Courts are suppossed to be blind to all of those factors, yet I think you would have the impression that Lady J is peeking from under that blindfold. I certainly would!

I first read the topic title as "Democrats Alienating Christmas".

The biggest difference between a statue of Zeus and a statue of Jesus is no one worships Zeus anymore, and he is now considered a piece of Greek history, while people will blow each other up "In the name of Jesus".

What are you talking about? No, Chirstians don't do that. Islamic terrorists blow themselves up in the Allah ( Sorry if I offended any non-terrorist Muslims).

People do worship Zeus. People also worship Thor, Satan, and Aliens to. People drink their own blood in rituals. Shall I go on?

What are you talking about? No, Chirstians don't do that. Islamic terrorists blow themselves up in the Allah ( Sorry if I offended any non-terrorist Muslims).

People do worship Zeus. People also worship Thor, Satan, and Aliens to. People drink their own blood in rituals. Shall I go on?

Islamic terrorists blow themselves up in the Allah? What? Dude, your terminology needs work! :) Good for a laugh, though!

Sometimes, an issue is more important that gaining a voting demographic. The Dems lost alot of people during the Civil Rights movement, you know.
[Snipped for compactability]
Courts are suppossed to be blind to all of those factors, yet I think you would have the impression that Lady J is peeking from under that blindfold. I certainly would!
Beautifully said.

The Democratic part is just alienating itself from the Christians of this country by attacking things like the Ten Commandments in a court house. It's driving the Christians to the Republicans. I understand trying to keep seperation of church and state, but it takes it too far. Having the Ten Commandments artwork in the court house is no different from having a statue of some Greek mythological figure, yet the Democratic party decided to make a big deal out of it. If it would simply be a little more Christian friendly, we'd probably have a Democrat in office right now. Instead, it lets the Republicans dominate a major voting demographic.

Yes the democratic party is alienating itself from Christians and any thing that supports traditional American values. It is by design. The people running the democratic party are not democrats. The party was successfully taken over by socialists and a few marxists that hide under the democrat / liberal label. For reference see Congressional Progressive Caucus. They are hosted by Bernie Sanders who is an avowed Socialist and runs under the guise of Independent. Previously to this the site was hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America, however once they were found out by non-network media they quickly changed their location. They are still associate in whole and share the same logos and symbols such as the communist fist with the rose. They are still affiliated with socialist international which also shares the same logo and they are still affiliated with the communist party.
There is an extensive database that now tracks these people, their financing, front groups and supporting individuals that will give you a complete picture of their operation.
Let it suffice that anything you value in life these people are against. Their sole purpose is to disrupt and discredit America in any way possible. For proof, simple watch some main stream media and you will see they offer nothing of value they simply try to obstruct and tear down everything they come across. It is their sole mission and in that, you see the reason they are becoming increasingly insignificant in this country. Also, do not associate these folks with liberals in Canada, UK, Australia, NZ and other places. It is a totally different animal here.

hey, Liverbreath Overland Park! I am from Lawrence!

In response, I have to say uh-huh, suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.
As Al Frankin likes to put it in his book "Lies and the Lying Liars that tell them", and I paraphrase here, "Conservatives love America in the way that a four year-old loves mommy. Anyone that says anything bad about Mommy, true or not, is a Bad, bad person. Liberals love America like adults love each other, they take the good with the bad and work with what they've got." Or something to that effect. Anyway, not the greatest guy, but as far as making politics funny, he gets a B, B+.

Liverbreath']Yes the democratic party is alienating itself from Christians and any thing that supports traditional American values. It is by design. The people running the democratic party are not democrats. The party was successfully taken over by socialists and a few marxists that hide under the democrat / liberal label. For reference see Congressional Progressive Caucus. They are hosted by Bernie Sanders who is an avowed Socialist and runs under the guise of Independent. Previously to this the site was hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America, however once they were found out by non-network media they quickly changed their location. They are still associate in whole and share the same logos and symbols such as the communist fist with the rose. They are still affiliated with socialist international which also shares the same logo and they are still affiliated with the communist party.
There is an extensive database that now tracks these people, their financing, front groups and supporting individuals that will give you a complete picture of their operation.
Let it suffice that anything you value in life these people are against. Their sole purpose is to disrupt and discredit America in any way possible. For proof, simple watch some main stream media and you will see they offer nothing of value they simply try to obstruct and tear down everything they come across. It is their sole mission and in that, you see the reason they are becoming increasingly insignificant in this country. Also, do not associate these folks with liberals in Canada, UK, Australia, NZ and other places. It is a totally different animal here.

Can I get your instructions for a tin foil hat? Obviously the one I'm wearing isn't working.

But my main point is still this: the Democratic party alienates a major demographic.

The thing is, the "Ten Commandments" are religious doctrine. Active religious doctrine subscribed to by instituted religion. And thus, are restricted in their applicability to those institutions in the name of legal equality of all.

While I may sympathize with those who follow the Ten Commandments; in no way should the be presented as a matter of law in the General Government; or even illuded to. The General Government's laws, and actions should exist in illusions to principles and ideals of reason and liberty; and not instituted religion.

In manners of General Government I side with Unitarian Deism on the issue of such.... Reason should be our foundation; not instituted doctrines... even in illusion to such...

Can I get your instructions for a tin foil hat? Obviously the one I'm wearing isn't working.

So witty and origional too!

"What is right is not always popular; what is popular is not always right."

Even if they're alienating Christians -- and I've seen little evidence of that, most of the furor is from Christians who weren't Democrats in the first place -- it doesn't mean they're not doing the right thing.

Arakaria=angry teen venting on the internet. I think if you'll review my other threads, such as the one in which I condemned "Republichristianism," you'll find that I'm far from being evangelical.
Erm... I'm actually over 20... I don't know you so it's true that I misjudged you. No reason to "strike back", because words can do be weapons... Nevertheless sorry for my hot-tempered reaction but not everything is as shallow as it may seem...

Sometimes, an issue is more important than gaining a voting demographic. <Snip>
Courts are suppossed to be blind to all of those factors, yet I think you would have the impression that Lady J is peeking from under that blindfold. I certainly would!
You just managed to sway my opinion on this.
I never understood why anyone would want to remove the 10 commandments, because to me it was just a meaningless peice of art. I saw it as celebrating man's evolving laws. As part of the past that our current societies are build upon.
Of course, religion is quite alien to me, so it honestly never occured to me anyone would see it differently. Since I've heard atheists blamed for the removal, I have actually been slightly pissed abouty this whole thing, because I failed to see how removing all referrence to a major part of our cultures is any different than fundies wanting to teach religion in biology classes.

So thank you for opening my eyes. In hindsight, I can hardly believe I didn't get it. Naturally someone from a different religion would assume justice would be out of reach in such a court. It's a no-brainer. Hell, even I would probably doubt the justice system, if I were in the US and the ruling had been different. Incredible really, how skewered one's own perspective can be, just because one cannot relate to a different culture.

Anyway, Democrats scaring away Christians? I was under the impression that the vast majority of Democrats are Christians. Am I wrong?
And as mentioned in the massacrated quote above, sometimes doing the right thing will alienate some people. That's no reason to stop doing the right thing though.

Incredible really, how skewered one's own perspective can be, just because one cannot relate to a different culture.



Yeah, it's too bad we all can't do that on a broader scale. Then again, it would be too much effort.

You just managed to sway my opinion on this.
I never understood why anyone would want to remove the 10 commandments, because to me it was just a meaningless peice of art. I saw it as celebrating man's evolving laws. As part of the past that our current societies are build upon.

Interestingly, this is why some such monuments have been deemed Constitutional, and others have not. It is the intent of the monument. If a reference to the 10 Commandments is referred to in a historical context - as a form of law - it is generally deemed admissable. However, if the intent of the display is overtly religious, it is deemed unconstitutional. There seems to be a rather thin line there that people have to follow.

The Democratic part is just alienating itself from the Christians of this country by attacking things like the Ten Commandments in a court house. It's driving the Christians to the Republicans. I understand trying to keep seperation of church and state, but it takes it too far. Having the Ten Commandments artwork in the court house is no different from having a statue of some Greek mythological figure, yet the Democratic party decided to make a big deal out of it.what can I say... some tophats calling the shots at the Democratic party are idiots...

Curious..

In the US, when you going to give evidence in a trial, do you have to swear on the bible still? If so, how does that work if you not christian?

All i know is that as a quaker we are not made to swear on or off the bible but "give our assurance of the truth"

So, by trying to adhere to the constitution Democrats are alienating christians? Maybe if those christians don't want to follow the constitution they should go somewhere else and live?
That's ridiculous. People shouldn't have to move just because they disagree with their homeland's politics. Really, this rationale was used to deport communists in the Red Scares.

That's ridiculous. People shouldn't have to move just because they disagree with their homeland's politics. Really, this rationale was used to deport communists in the Red Scares.
Agreed. However, it might be worth considering for some people. If they resent the US constitution, they'll never be happy in the US. 'Cos face it, it's not like that constitution's gonna change in their lifetime, unless WWIII breaks out.

Interestingly, this is why some such monuments have been deemed Constitutional, and others have not. It is the intent of the monument. If a reference to the 10 Commandments is referred to in a historical context - as a form of law - it is generally deemed admissable. However, if the intent of the display is overtly religious, it is deemed unconstitutional. There seems to be a rather thin line there that people have to follow.

Yup. Such as how the SC begins its sessions with "God save this Honorable Court."
Odd, and I do not entirely agree with thier justifications on the subject.

All i know is that as a quaker we are not made to swear on or off the bible but "give our assurance of the truth"

Some courts do it, some do not. Some ask you to swear to tell the truth. Some ask you to 'swear the truth, so help me God.' It all depends on the town, county, state, etc, and wether anyone has ever challenged it. If no one challenges it, it doesn't change.

Some courts do it, some do not. Some ask you to swear to tell the truth. Some ask you to 'swear the truth, so help me God.' It all depends on the town, county, state, etc, and wether anyone has ever challenged it. If no one challenges it, it doesn't change.

Actually, rules are quite clear on this. If you are not a Christian and wish to swear on your own holy book, one must be provided. You can also swear on a copy of the Constitution. If your religion states that you cannot swear at all, you simply must provide an affirmation that you intend to tell the truth.

Most still use the Bible and the "so help me God" as defaults - but a witness cannot be required to go through them.

The Democratic part is just alienating itself from the Christians of this country by attacking things like the Ten Commandments in a court house. It's driving the Christians to the Republicans. I understand trying to keep seperation of church and state, but it takes it too far. Having the Ten Commandments artwork in the court house is no different from having a statue of some Greek mythological figure, yet the Democratic party decided to make a big deal out of it. If it would simply be a little more Christian friendly, we'd probably have a Democrat in office right now. Instead, it lets the Republicans dominate a major voting demographic.

Just goes to prove the Democratic Party is the best friend the Republicans have. :D

I first read the topic title as "Democrats Alienating Christmas".

The biggest difference between a statue of Zeus and a statue of Jesus is no one worships Zeus anymore,...

Are you sure about that?

That's ridiculous. People shouldn't have to move just because they disagree with their homeland's politics. Really, this rationale was used to deport communists in the Red Scares.

I guess you never heard of a place called America, or the Pilgrim Fathers.

The Democratic part is just alienating itself from the Christians of this country by attacking things like the Ten Commandments in a court house. It's driving the Christians to the Republicans. I understand trying to keep seperation of church and state, but it takes it too far. Having the Ten Commandments artwork in the court house is no different from having a statue of some Greek mythological figure, yet the Democratic party decided to make a big deal out of it. If it would simply be a little more Christian friendly, we'd probably have a Democrat in office right now. Instead, it lets the Republicans dominate a major voting demographic.

As stated earlier by others far more eloquently than I could put it, it doesn't really matter if they are driving away Christian voters, because it is nevertheless the just and Constitutional thing to do.

However, I would also go farther and say that the people they are driving away are not really very good Christians either, because they don't seem to be terribly familiar with their Bible. I say this for two reasons: one, there are multiple versions of the Ten Commandments even within a single translation of the same Bible, so claiming one as the inerrant world of God is just wrongheaded. I've cut an pasted an article that covers a lot of the pertinent information here:


July 11 issue - You may think that the Supreme Court ruled last week that the state of Texas could continue to display a Ten Commandments monolith on its capitol grounds in Austin. But you'd be wrong. Look at the monolith—you can find it at tspb.state.tx.us/spb/gallery/monulist/10.htm—and you'll notice that it doesn't contain 10 commandments. It has 11. And if you count "I am the Lord thy God" as a commandment, which Jews do but Christians don't, the Supreme Court has approved a Twelve Commandments monolith, rather than the traditional Decalogue.

This monolith, sponsored by the Fraternal Order of Eagles, was part of a PR campaign for "The Ten Commandments," Cecil B. DeMille's 1956 Biblical epic starring Charlton Heston. Yes, the Supreme Court was ruling on the legality of a Hollywood promotion. The Eagles' grand secretary, Bob Wahls, explained to me last week that the text is a compromise drawn up by Jewish and Christian clergy to respect everyone's beliefs. So rather than bearing Ten Commandments that are the Word of God, the monolith bears 11 or 12 commandments that are the Word of a Committee.

This may all sound like hairsplitting and mockery, but it's not. Regardless of whether you believe in the literal truth of the Bible (or, as most call it, the Old Testament), the Ten Commandments are a vital underpinning of Judeo-Christian culture. But while it's one thing to be in favor of ethics and morality in public life, it's a whole different thing to think—as I suspect most Americans do—that there is one single Decalogue. The complex textual history of the Commandments suggests that the more you study the Bible, the less certain you become of your ability to divine the precise Word of God. That's a useful lesson in this divided time.

Most public displays of the Ten Commandments, including the ones in Texas and Kentucky that the Supreme Court dealt with, are based on Exodus 20, verses 2-14, where God speaks directly to the Israelites. But if you grew up as I did, studying the Bible in its original Hebrew, you know that there's a second, equally valid version in Deuteronomy 5:6-18. And the two versions differ. In Exodus, God says to remember the Sabbath because he created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. In Deuteronomy, Moses recounts that God told the Israelites to observe the Sabbath because the Lord liberated them from Egyptian bondage. So which is it? The traditional Jewish answer is that God uttered both versions simultaneously, but fallible human ears heard it two separate ways. So how can you post one version or the other and declare it the Ineffable Word of God? You can't.

Then there's the numbering problem—which is how the Eagles ended up with more than 10 commandments. During the Monica Lewinsky uproar, Bill Clinton said he hadn't violated the Sixth Commandment. But whose Sixth Commandment? To Roman Catholics and Lutherans, it's the no-adultery commandment. But to Jews and members of Orthodox and Reformed churches, Clinton was saying he hadn't murdered or killed, respectively.

The rules of the game require all religions to end up with 10 commandments (or "utterances," to use the literal Hebrew translation) because that's the Bible's number. (See Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 4:13 and 10:4.) Jews count "I am the Lord thy God" as the First Commandment, while Christians consider it part of "You shall have no other gods before me," which Jews count as No. 2. Some Christians split "don't covet" into two commandments; others split up the prohibitions on having other gods and making graven images. We won't even get into translations: whether God is speaking against murder and swearing false oaths (the Jewish version) or killing and taking the Lord's name in vain (the Christian one).

So rather than fighting about the Ten Commandments, perhaps we should turn to Micah 6:8. The Lord, says the prophet, requires us "only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." To which all of us can say, amen.

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.


Secondly, Christ makes clear in his Sermon on the Mount that when you worship, you should do so privately (Matthew 6:1-2). Why? Because people have the tendency to try to outdo one another when it comes to the whole "I'm in touch with God" kind of thing, and when worship starts going down that road, it isn't about God any more; it's about looking Holier than Thou to your fellow man. As such, Jesus says that the hypocrites who follow such a pattern of worship have already recieved their reward.

In many ways, I see the fight over the Ten Commandments in exactly the same way. God isn't going to care whether we have a statue of Athena in our courthouses or a statue of the Ten Commandments. He is going to care whether we upheld the principles that those statues were supposed to represent: justice to our fellow men, and loving God. As such, I see those who see God's work as something as stupid as erecting a statue as already recieving their reward.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Can anyone explain to me how having the ten commandments in or on a courthouse has anything with Congress making a law respecting etc?

The Democratic part is just alienating itself from the Christians of this country by attacking things like the Ten Commandments in a court house. It's driving the Christians to the Republicans. I understand trying to keep seperation of church and state, but it takes it too far. Having the Ten Commandments artwork in the court house is no different from having a statue of some Greek mythological figure, yet the Democratic party decided to make a big deal out of it. If it would simply be a little more Christian friendly, we'd probably have a Democrat in office right now. Instead, it lets the Republicans dominate a major voting demographic.

Christians in America feel unduly put upon by just about anything that doesn't immediately validate their views. To hear it from the Jesus-is-God crowd, you'd think Christians were being routinely thrown to lions in Madison Square Gardens.

Maybe if the Christians were a little more societally friendly, maybe they'd stop electing Republican tightwads, demagogues, and worse while deluding themselves into thinking that this is what the Creator of the entirety of SpaceTime specifically wants of the American people.

Can anyone explain to me how having the ten commandments in or on a courthouse has anything with Congress making a law respecting etc?

As interpreted through the 14th Amendment, all other amendments apply to state and local governments, as well as federal, so Congress refers to the government in general.

Meanwhile, a religious display of any kind in a government building suggests that said religion is supported by the government - establishing that religion.

As interpreted through the 14th Amendment, all other amendments apply to state and local governments, as well as federal, so Congress refers to the government in general.

Meanwhile, a religious display of any kind in a government building suggests that said religion is supported by the government - establishing that religion.

Thank you.

As interpreted through the 14th Amendment, all other amendments apply to state and local governments, as well as federal, so Congress refers to the government in general.

Meanwhile, a religious display of any kind in a government building suggests that said religion is supported by the government - establishing that religion.

I don't see what the 14th amendment has to do with it. Please explain a little more. Thanks in advance.

Liverbreath']Yes the democratic party is alienating itself from Christians and any thing that supports traditional American values. It is by design. The people running the democratic party are not democrats. The party was successfully taken over by socialists and a few marxists that hide under the democrat / liberal label. For reference see Congressional Progressive Caucus. They are hosted by Bernie Sanders who is an avowed Socialist and runs under the guise of Independent. Previously to this the site was hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America, however once they were found out by non-network media they quickly changed their location. They are still associate in whole and share the same logos and symbols such as the communist fist with the rose. They are still affiliated with socialist international which also shares the same logo and they are still affiliated with the communist party.

There is an extensive database that now tracks these people, their financing, front groups and supporting individuals that will give you a complete picture of their operation.

Let it suffice that anything you value in life these people are against. Their sole purpose is to disrupt and discredit America in any way possible. For proof, simple watch some main stream media and you will see they offer nothing of value they simply try to obstruct and tear down everything they come across. It is their sole mission and in that, you see the reason they are becoming increasingly insignificant in this country.

Also, do not associate these folks with liberals in Canada, UK, Australia, NZ and other places. It is a totally different animal here.
You are a McCarthyist, that is an enemy of free political thought. It's obvious that you think that left-wing political organisation should be de facto, or outright illegal.

PS how is it a totally different animal? The Left is international. The only difference is that you seem to regard the American left as monstrously evil. When in reality they are only trying to improve their country in the way they believe is right. Which is the same as what conservatives, libertarians, liberals and everyone else is doing.

I don't see what the 14th amendment has to do with it. Please explain a little more. Thanks in advance.
I think you should reread the thread. It's faster.

Anyway, it's about state endorsed religion.

I don't see what the 14th amendment has to do with it. Please explain a little more. Thanks in advance.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



The privileges and immunities of US citizens, as well as the rights to life, liberty, and property, are laid out in the US Constitution and ammendments. This makes it clear that the restrictions placed on the federal government in the treatment of citizens apply to the state governments as well.

The Democratic part is just alienating itself from the Christians of this country by attacking things like the Ten Commandments in a court house. It's driving the Christians to the Republicans. I understand trying to keep seperation of church and state, but it takes it too far. Having the Ten Commandments artwork in the court house is no different from having a statue of some Greek mythological figure, yet the Democratic party decided to make a big deal out of it. If it would simply be a little more Christian friendly, we'd probably have a Democrat in office right now. Instead, it lets the Republicans dominate a major voting demographic.

It all comes down to the question between what's right and what's easy. It would be easy to throw up our hands and agree to allow christianity to keep its laws in supposedly secular courts. It's right to continue to keep a buffer between religion and state. Not only is it one of the principals that many of the American founders who are used as a reason to keep the commandmants founded this nation upon, it is a matter of protecting the majority from the minority.

Think of it this way: If one removes the wall between church and state, not only can religion insert itself into the government, but government can insert itself into religion. Not so fun when you think of churches being taken over by the government, or church-policy being influenced by the government. Is it?

While many people see the Ten Commandmants as a silly little thing, they see it as such because they are not the ones who are directly influenced by their presence. How safe can I, an agnostic, feel receiving a ruling from the court when it posts on it's walls a set of laws that can be construed as an attack on my religious beleif?

What really bugs me is the fundamentalist persecution complex. Why should christianity receive rights that other religions do not have? Why is it suddenly "attacking" christianity, when it is asked to relinquish rights exclusive to it. Christianity is not being persecuted, it is being aske to live like the rest of us, and not set itself upon a pedestal, which is, among many things insulting all other religious beleif or disbeleif.

Agreed. However, it might be worth considering for some people. If they resent the US constitution, they'll never be happy in the US. 'Cos face it, it's not like that constitution's gonna change in their lifetime, unless WWIII breaks out.
It's not impossible to suspend or throw out altogether the Constitution. Not going to happen soon, but it could happen in the future. It's not an insurmountable obstacle placed there by God or anything like that.

It's not impossible to suspend or throw out altogether the Constitution. Not going to happen soon, but it could happen in the future. It's not an insurmountable obstacle placed there by God or anything like that.
Heh, I know mate. But like I said, short of WWIII or some other near total devatation of the Americans, it's bloody unlikely the majority will want to change or abilish the constitution.
Regardless of the fundies, most Americans I've ever met or heard of treat their constitution like the holy grail. So the only reasonable thing to do, is to go somewhere else, where the fundies can affect the sort of change they want. I mean, it's pretty hopeless to try to change the constitution.
If I hated living where I do, and I didn't have any real chance of changing my country, I'd go somewhere more to my liking.
- It's the sensible thing to do.

Edit: No I'm not saying they should just fuck off. I'm just pointing out their current crusade is somewhat futile, and a bit daft.

What really bugs me is the fundamentalist persecution complex. Why should christianity receive rights that other religions do not have? Why is it suddenly "attacking" christianity, when it is asked to relinquish rights exclusive to it. Christianity is not being persecuted, it is being aske to live like the rest of us, and not set itself upon a pedestal, which is, among many things insulting all other religious beleif or disbeleif.

Fundamnetalists and Dominionist do so via "revisionist" tactics. They rewrite US History in their heads; and setup the United States as some theocratic extension of the "Christian Churches"; and assume "religious liberty" only extends as far as those who "acknowledge Christ" and no further.

It's basically the "Kind Theocracy" theory.... Whereby Christianity is the established "Church"; and everyone else is "granted" the benefit of worship of their own choosing. And it is then perpetuated by instructing others in this "false" view of US History..... But still making all subject to the JudeoChristian commandments...

I'd as soon deny Christ, as a Christian, as I would support Fundamentalists or Dominionists in their falacious assertions...

Christianity deserves no special place in the general government; any more than any other religion... And will not get it... Where it does; it will be torn down... My religion, and my Christ, does not hinge upon the decisions and operations of the General Government (Federal, state or local)....

Merely because the United States has been historically unable to live up to its own principles (slavery, government instituted religion, etc.) in no way means that it is an attack upon religion, to ensure that the US government maintain seperation between he General Government (Federal, State, and Local) and the Ecclesiastical Government (those governments representing the local, regional, or national churches)..... If I am to be tried by the Ten Commandments, and in rebellion to any other such core doctrines of religion; then the Session can present charges against me, and subscribe discipline (within me congregation, in accordance with our beliefs as an institution); It is not the place of the general government to enforce such religious discipline... And I expect them to follow the general and secular precepts of law; and not religious law... Not even in illusion to it...

But putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse (for example) isn't going to inspire anyone to go suicide bomb a mosque.

No. Just a Planned Parenthood clinic.

Please, the sarcasm doesn't belong here. I've been very mature in this thread, and I'd appreciate it if others would do the same.

And implieing the Democratic party anti-Christian and then recanting that statement when proven wrong is mature, how?

Can anyone explain to me how having the ten commandments in or on a courthouse has anything with Congress making a law respecting etc?

The courthouse is government property. To display anything there requires that the government put it there. Otherwise it is, in the strictest sense of the word, garbage. Something that someone just dropped there and never picked up.

For the government to do pretty much anything is an act of law. For the legislature to allocate funds for a commandments statue is to do something that is in respect to a church, or collection of them.

The only Christians that the Democrats are anlienating en masse are just flat out insane anyway. Most Christians agree with the seperation of church and state, it's just a matter of who thinks that the state needs to be protected from the church and who thinks that the church needs to be protected from the state (personally, I think it's both. Political power will do nothing but corrupt any religion).

Just like a small minority of extremly vocal Pat Robertson and Billy Graham type conservative "Christians" actually supported the war in Iraq, only a small minority of those same Christians are trying to mingle church and state.

The only Christians that the Democrats are anlienating en masse are just flat out insane anyway. Most Christians agree with the seperation of church and state, it's just a matter of who thinks that the state needs to be protected from the church and who thinks that the church needs to be protected from the state (personally, I think it's both. Political power will do nothing but corrupt any religion).

Just like a small minority of extremly vocal Pat Robertson and Billy Graham type conservative "Christians" actually supported the war in Iraq, only a small minority of those same Christians are trying to mingle church and state.

Indeed, the closest thing to "support" my church (Presbyterian) did, was pray for soldiers....

The "Moral Majority", "Christian Coalition" and other Fundamentalist movements; even limiting it to Christians alone, are nothing more than a vocal minority...

Can I get your instructions for a tin foil hat? Obviously the one I'm wearing isn't working.

The hat itself is insufficient.

You need to reinforce the rim with a ring of steel wire with a length of copper wire coiled around it. Another two lengths of copper wire must connect the hat to your shoes (probably by a chain so as not to dislodge the hat from your head). The wire should reach the bottom of the sole of each of your shoes. Many Bush supporters make the mistake of only using one wire attached to one shoe. This leaves them intermitently succeptible to the influences of the left wing media while walking because at any given time one shoe will not be on the ground.

The hat itself is insufficient.

You need to reinforce the rim with a ring of steel wire with a length of copper wire coiled around it. Another two lengths of copper wire must connect the hat to your shoes (probably by a chain so as not to dislodge the hat from your head). The wire should reach the bottom of the sole of each of your shoes. Many Bush supporters make the mistake of only using one wire attached to one shoe. This leaves them intermitently succeptible to the influences of the left wing media while walking because at any given time one shoe will not be on the ground.


However, the best mindray-prevention technique remains the tasty lead paint-chip snack. The evil liberal media just wants you to think they are unhealthy.

{This Quote is Rated "S" for Stupid.
Srong Right-wing propoganda.
Acusing all of the Democratic party
of being Communists and socialists}

Liverbreath']Yes the democratic party is alienating itself from Christians and any thing that supports traditional American values. It is by design. The people running the democratic party are not democrats. The party was successfully taken over by socialists and a few marxists that hide under the democrat / liberal label. For reference see Congressional Progressive Caucus. They are hosted by Bernie Sanders who is an avowed Socialist and runs under the guise of Independent. Previously to this the site was hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America, however once they were found out by non-network media they quickly changed their location. They are still associate in whole and share the same logos and symbols such as the communist fist with the rose. They are still affiliated with socialist international which also shares the same logo and they are still affiliated with the communist party.
There is an extensive database that now tracks these people, their financing, front groups and supporting individuals that will give you a complete picture of their operation.
Let it suffice that anything you value in life these people are against. Their sole purpose is to disrupt and discredit America in any way possible. For proof, simple watch some main stream media and you will see they offer nothing of value they simply try to obstruct and tear down everything they come across. It is their sole mission and in that, you see the reason they are becoming increasingly insignificant in this country. Also, do not associate these folks with liberals in Canada, UK, Australia, NZ and other places. It is a totally different animal here.

....

Propoganda!!!!!!!

So, if our Democratic party is run by socialists, how come we only have the leftiests running. And don't say "Well, all Democrats are leftiest." Because you'd be misinformed. Leftiests are moderatly liberal, some Democrats are fully liberal, moderate conservatives, socialists, not communists(they have they're own party), utilitarians(thnik how that's spelled), etc.

In other words, people who are catalysts for neccesary change.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



The privileges and immunities of US citizens, as well as the rights to life, liberty, and property, are laid out in the US Constitution and ammendments. This makes it clear that the restrictions placed on the federal government in the treatment of citizens apply to the state governments as well.

Again, thanks.

I respect politicians who realize that religion is far too important to be politicized, if a portion of right wingers want to disassociate themselves from those politicians, then so be it.

Whenever I hear politics and religion I always re-read John Leland. Too bad few people know that name anymore. The following was said in 1802.

....Be always jealous of your liberty, your rights. Nip the first bud of intrusion on your constitution. Be not devoted to men; let measures be your object, and estimate men according to the measures they pursue. Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. It converts religion into a principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise. Heaven forbids the bans of marriage between church and state; their embraces therefore, must be unlawful. Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. Let honesty, talents and quick dispatch, characterize the men of your choice. Such men will have a sympathy with their constituents, and will be willing to come to the light, that their deeds may be examined.

Whenever I hear politics and religion I always re-read John Leland. Too bad few people know that name anymore. The following was said in 1802.

....Be always jealous of your liberty, your rights. Nip the first bud of intrusion on your constitution. Be not devoted to men; let measures be your object, and estimate men according to the measures they pursue. Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. It converts religion into a principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise. Heaven forbids the bans of marriage between church and state; their embraces therefore, must be unlawful. Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. Let honesty, talents and quick dispatch, characterize the men of your choice. Such men will have a sympathy with their constituents, and will be willing to come to the light, that their deeds may be examined.


Kiiiiick ass

Ever think that the fundies aren't alienating everyone elce? Stop this and we will talk.

I've got a deal to make with the Right that is so actively trying to push its religion into the public arena.

You get to put the Ten Commandments in courts, schools, whatever you want. You can teach creationism in public schools. You can make me swear on a Bible. This can all be government-mandated.

IF

I get to nail the Constitution to Jesus' chest on church crucifixes. I get to give a guest-sermon explaining and teaching Darwinian evolution in your church immediately after your minister preaches Genesis. I get to make you swear on Dawkins, Sagan, and Nietzche in your church when you take an oath. This would all be government-mandated.


See? The wall of separation between church and state doesn't just keep your religious church out of everyone's secular state, it keeps everyone's secular state out of your religious church.

The Democratic part is just alienating itself from the Christians of this country by attacking things like the Ten Commandments in a court house. It's driving the Christians to the Republicans. I understand trying to keep seperation of church and state, but it takes it too far. Having the Ten Commandments artwork in the court house is no different from having a statue of some Greek mythological figure, yet the Democratic party decided to make a big deal out of it. If it would simply be a little more Christian friendly, we'd probably have a Democrat in office right now. Instead, it lets the Republicans dominate a major voting demographic.

How is it that you view the attempt to REDUCE discrimination, as a FORM OF discrimination?

So - by simply NOT favouring one religion above all others, Democrats are somehow being mean to Christians?

Is this the martyr complex I've heard so much about?

Oh... wait... isn't this the same guy who started the thread about how a girl who went drinking in a foreign town DESERVED to get raped....

How is it that you view the attempt to REDUCE discrimination, as a FORM OF discrimination?

So - by simply NOT favouring one religion above all others, Democrats are somehow being mean to Christians?

Is this the martyr complex I've heard so much about?

Oh... wait... isn't this the same guy who started the thread about how a girl who went drinking in a foreign town DESERVED to get raped....You're really good at twisting words. I am not saying that they should favor one religion over others. I am saying that they should back off on small issues like the Ten Commandments thing if they want to get elected. Or else they should also go after all other representations of religion as well, like statues of Greek gods.

And I never said she deserved to get raped. You made that up entirely. You're a liar.

You're really good at twisting words. I am not saying that they should favor one religion over others. I am saying that they should back off on small issues like the Ten Commandments thing if they want to get elected. Or else they should also go after all other representations of religion as well, like statues of Greek gods.

And I never said she deserved to get raped. You made that up entirely. You're a liar.

Small issues?

Hmmm it was a small issue when the fight for "In God We Trust" was formally added to money. Teddy fought that but gave up.

It was small issue when under God was added to the Pledge.

Now it's a small issue for the 10 commandments?

When do the small issues stop?

Or else they should also go after all other representations of religion as well, like statues of Greek gods.

If you'd said, 'go after all other representations of religion as well except statues of Greek Gods, you might've got my notice.

Everything we prize we owe to ancient Greece; we owe it to ourselves to remember the roots of Western civilization. We owe it to remember our intellectual forebears' joyous old Gods. It's not the fault of the Greek Gods that those who claim to speak on behalf of Jehovah refuse to depict him properly. And it's not the fault of the Ancient Greeks that talent enabled them to leave a rich sculptural, let alone cultural legacy for forward-thinking cultures to emulate.

Detach yourselves from your past at your own peril.

Small issues?

Hmmm it was a small issue when the fight for "In God We Trust" was formally added to money. Teddy fought that but gave up.

It was small issue when under God was added

Now it's a small issue for the 10 commandments?

When to the small issues stop?

I completely agree, with exception to one thing...

Wasnt In god we trust added under the eisenhower administration, in reply to communist(atheist) infiltration?

I completely agree, with exception to one thing...

Wasnt In god we trust added under the eisenhower administration, in reply to communist(atheist) infiltration?

He did but the official act that people often site as making it official was the act on May 18, 1908. Teddy was against it not because it conflicted with the Constitution; it was more of a case that it was an afront to mention God on something so common as money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

You're really good at twisting words. I am not saying that they should favor one religion over others. I am saying that they should back off on small issues like the Ten Commandments thing if they want to get elected. Or else they should also go after all other representations of religion as well, like statues of Greek gods.


You ARE saying that they should favour one religion... you are saying they should kowtow to the wishes of Christians.

To you, perhaps, the Ten Commandments is a small issue. To others, it is a very big issue. Perhaps you are a Christian? Maybe that's why it doesn't seem like much to you? But, the implication is already there that Christianity is condoned in our legal system... you are initially asked to swear on the Bible when you give testimony, and have to specifically 'opt-out' in order to be allowed to swear on the Koran, or give testimony on your own recognizance.

And, that means there is the implication that your testimony will be considered somehow 'weaker' or less 'truthful'... just because you chose a different holy text.

There is no place for religion in civil affairs, except in as much as agreed by ALL persons in those civil affairs... after all, you don't get tax relief just because you don't believe in the god of Jacob and Isaiah... but you DO get your money contributed to these 'faith' matters.

All of which, ultimately, comes down to the simple fact that nobody is trying to push the ascendency of classical Greek religion over others, in this country... whereas the current Christian regime seems happy to enforce an official religion... flying in the face of First Amenedment rights.


And I never said she deserved to get raped. You made that up entirely. You're a liar.

If you really want to push this, I can go back and find your posts on the matter, and provide quotes/links so that others can see the kind of thing you were saying.

I didn't make anything up... although you may like to portray what you said in some less vindictive light. That doesn't make me a liar. We just have different opinions about what you said. Personally... I think your own words would condemn you.

You ARE saying that they should favour one religion... you are saying they should kowtow to the wishes of Christians.

To you, perhaps, the Ten Commandments is a small issue. To others, it is a very big issue. Perhaps you are a Christian? Maybe that's why it doesn't seem like much to you? But, the implication is already there that Christianity is condoned in our legal system... you are initially asked to swear on the Bible when you give testimony, and have to specifically 'opt-out' in order to be allowed to swear on the Koran, or give testimony on your own recognizance.

And, that means there is the implication that your testimony will be considered somehow 'weaker' or less 'truthful'... just because you chose a different holy text.

There is no place for religion in civil affairs, except in as much as agreed by ALL persons in those civil affairs... after all, you don't get tax relief just because you don't believe in the god of Jacob and Isaiah... but you DO get your money contributed to these 'faith' matters.

All of which, ultimately, comes down to the simple fact that nobody is trying to push the ascendency of classical Greek religion over others, in this country... whereas the current Christian regime seems happy to enforce an official religion... flying in the face of First Amenedment rights.



If you really want to push this, I can go back and find your posts on the matter, and provide quotes/links so that others can see the kind of thing you were saying.

I didn't make anything up... although you may like to portray what you said in some less vindictive light. That doesn't make me a liar. We just have different opinions about what you said. Personally... I think your own words would condemn you.


I think you should. Wasn't it something along the lines of "she was a stupid whore and I have no sympahty for her?"

I think you should. Wasn't it something along the lines of "she was a stupid whore and I have no sympahty for her?"

Actually... you are almost exactly right...

Okay - I might not have delved too far into this otherwise, but I dislike being called a liar.

I appreciate it is off-topic, but…

Maybe it’s just my interpretation, but it looks to me like we have a serial-troll:

…Natalee Holloway and why I have no sympathy for her…

…So she probably got raped and killed as a result of her stupidity…

…It's tragic when innocent people die, but I can't make myself feel sorry for those who bring it upon themselves through sheer foolishness…

…Either way, she paid for her stupidity…

…It's like, why should I feel sorry for someone who suddenly decides to taunt a lion, then gets mauled to death…

…Alls I'm saying is that she was a stupid whore, and that I don't feel sorry for her…

…Anyway, she was stupid and brought this on herself…

I formatted the BOLD text myself, purely for emphasis of the point I made, previously - but the words are taken directly ‘as they were’.

The (off-topic) topic in question could be reviewed at:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=427409&page=1&pp=15

Pretty fucked up thing to say, isn't it?

I don't think I understand the point of even trying to seperate church and state. Are they going to take "In God We Trust" off of every greenback, too? Just recall every dollar bill in the United States? God and USA are skipping hand in hand. Whatever.

This country is run by christians. All of the major influential organizations and corporations are run by christians. Every branch of government is dominated by christians. The media is dominated by christians. It is incredibly hard to find a non-christian in any position of power, influence or prominence anywhere in the nation. Complaints about "persecution" and "marginalization" of christians are in entirety illusions created by the radical right to spur their followers into action. This ludicrous idea has somehow found its way into our national conciousness to the point that even Democrats feel bad standing in the way of theocracy and tyranny of the majority.

Well then we'd better remove all symbols of religion from anything governmental, including minor religions like the Greek pantheon. Also, the government shouldn't give any money to museums that have any religious art in them.

Well then we'd better remove all symbols of religion from anything governmental, including minor religions like the Greek pantheon. Also, the government shouldn't give any money to museums that have any religious art in them.

No, because a museum displays the religious work in a historical context, it does not do it in a manner to advocate that religion. Religion is a very important part of our past, but it has not place in the courtroom. Obviously this is not sinking in.

No, because a museum displays the religious work in a historical context, it does not do it in a manner to advocate that religion. Religion is a very important part of our past, but it has not place in the courtroom. Obviously this is not sinking in.Okay, fine, it has no place in the courtroom. That isn't the point of this thread. The Point is, the Democratic party is letting the Republican party bogart the Christians, which results in the Democrats not winning elections.

The Democratic part is just alienating itself from the Christians of this country by attacking things like the Ten Commandments in a court house. It's driving the Christians to the Republicans. I understand trying to keep seperation of church and state, but it takes it too far. Having the Ten Commandments artwork in the court house is no different from having a statue of some Greek mythological figure, yet the Democratic party decided to make a big deal out of it. If it would simply be a little more Christian friendly, we'd probably have a Democrat in office right now. Instead, it lets the Republicans dominate a major voting demographic.If you just tilt the rose-colored glass you're looking through just a tiny bit, what you'll see instead is that the Republicans only had to give up the constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state to lock up the "christian" vote and get their boy into the Oval Office.

If you just tilt the rose-colored glass you're looking through just a tiny bit, what you'll see instead is that the Republicans only had to give up the constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state to lock up the "christian" vote and get their boy into the Oval Office.To lock up the evangelist vote, yes. I'm reffering to Christian swing voters. There are many more moderate Christians than evangelists. I don't think that they should change the constitution to ban gay marriage or anything, but I am saying that it would be worth it for the Democrats to back off on small things so that they don't give off the image of being collectively anti-Christian.

Okay, fine, it has no place in the courtroom. That isn't the point of this thread. The Point is, the Democratic party is letting the Republican party bogart the Christians, which results in the Democrats not winning elections.
What exactly is it they're doing to scare off the christians?

- Assuming you're not talking about fundies...

Ryanania, something you need to understand:

It was entirely a matter of intent. Whereas most of our modern government and law system is actually based on Greek philosophy, the ten commandments issue involves a judge implying that he is going to base his decisions on the ten commandments, not the previously extant laws of our nation.

I think the democrats merely need to put more emphasis on the main idea of the party(since FDR, anyway), helping the disadvantadged. Jesus says time and time again to help thy neighbor and be kind, etc. Yet the party that is based arounde leaving people high and dry(not to mention some oppression)is the "christian" party. WTF?

I think the democrats merely need to put more emphasis on the main idea of the party(since FDR, anyway), helping the disadvantadged. Jesus says time and time again to help thy neighbor and be kind, etc. Yet the party that is based arounde leaving people high and dry(not to mention some oppression)is the "christian" party. WTF?That ties in with my theory of "Republichristianism." The Republicans have managed to convince many Christians that generosity etc is bad. The Democrats could counteract that if they really wanted to.

Okay, fine, it has no place in the courtroom. That isn't the point of this thread. The Point is, the Democratic party is letting the Republican party bogart the Christians, which results in the Democrats not winning elections.

I answered that about seven pages back. Sometimes issues are more important than winning a voting block. I am sure good Christians will leave the Republican Party when they realize how full of hypocritical liars it is, i.e. Newt Gingrich espousing family values while serving his wife with divorce papers as she comes out of a major surgery she had while dying of cancer.

I answered that about seven pages back. Sometimes issues are more important than winning a voting block. I am sure good Christians will leave the Republican Party when they realize how full of hypocritical liars it is, i.e. Newt Gingrich espousing family values while serving his wife with divorce papers as she comes out of a major surgery she had while dying of cancer.You're probably right that most of the good ones will leave the Republican party. Unfortunately, there are a lot of seriously misguided Christians out there who have been severely brainwashed by the Republican party.

What I'd really like to see is all the good Christians forming their own party, free from the corruption and vice of the two major parties.