Republicans and the 10 Commandments

[Canun]

Originally posted by: dmw16
I shouldnt have used the phrase "true christian" as that implies too many things. I probably should I made said something to the effect of a person who follows the rules as established in the bible.

So those who don't believe in a religion are not subject to the same moral question? Doesn't really matter, since IIRC, something like 70% or more of the U.S. believes in some organized religion. So with that stated, most Democrats in Congress voted for the war. So should your topic should read "Political Parties and the 10 Commandments"?

 

[imported_redlotus]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Meanwhile 167 Democrats in the house voted against preventing the Federal courts from ruling the phrase "under God" is unconstitutional.

Please take a look at what you just wrote. Any legislation (aside from a constitutional amendment) that would try to prevent the courts from ruling anything unconstitutional would, itself, be unconstitutional. Get a clue before you bring your strawman arguments in here.

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Well as a "true Christian" you can
a. vote for Republican who support war
or
b. vote for Democrats who support abortion

Either way it looks like you are screwed huh?

I think most would rather vote for a war in defense of their beliefs and freedom over abortion.

Don't forget this war is against people who would take away their right to practice their Christian beliefs.

I'd just like to point out that there's a significant difference between supporting a woman's right to choose to have and abortion and being pro abortion. I don't really believe in abortions, but I'll defend a woman's right to control her own body. I'm also in support of the right to die. However you may also note that the people that you like to say are pro abortion are also the ones who are in support of teaching comprehensive sexual education so that the abortion isn't even going to become an issue except in extreme cases.

Also when tens or possibly even hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians are killed as a result of a war, there is no defense in that, and that is the killing that the commandment was saying thou shalt not do.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

IMHO, relatively few people that call themselves 'true' Christians are anything of the sort.

The ministry of Jesus Christ (if you believe that's what he was doing) is quite radical regardless of context (Judaism, pagan, nonbeliever) . . . obviously there is NO Christian context b/c the religion didn't exist.

Those that feel a calling to live their lives as they believe Jesus would advocate . . . would be inclined to listen to a guy like this. But I can guarantee you that FAR more 'Christians' are listening to turds like this or this.

Someone mentioned the alleged Hebrew translation but technically that's irrelevant. Jesus brought a new Covenant; which in it's modern translation would go something like ' . . . love everybody even when somebody in particular is being an arsehole.' Under those circumstanes, it's pretty easy to stay within the confines of the preceding Covenant.

Naturally, someone will inquire (OK, they will rant and scream with bulging eyeballs), "so we just let the turrurrists take over the world?!" Certainly not but anyone that would tell you the ONLY solution is a $600B war-making bill . . . is about as close to Christian as Timothy McVeigh.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn


Don't forget this war is against people who would take away their right to practice their Christian beliefs.

The hell are you talking about.

So its okay to wage war against non Christians is your line of reasoning? That about lines up with Bin Laden right there.
I don't see how Iraq itself was pitted to take away the Christian belief system...that seems to be more in line with Saudi Ara, oh wait our "ally". Then again none of those countries ever forced anything on us.

Christians in Iraq had it very well under Saddam with the exception that they could not prostelyze. Anyone know Tariq Azizz? Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq ~ virtually the defacto leader of Iraq abroad...and a Christian.

If anything Christians are getting screwed right now with the Gunman running around the country~ and their dwindling numbers as they run to neighboring syria and Jordan are proof of that. Because of the war you support - you indirectly support the death of Iraq's Christian Heritage

Not to mention countless Muslims.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Why even try.. Christians supported slavery that led to the deaths of millions of african americans

Hmm... What I've read indicated they didn't support it, rather they were afraid to address it through the church fearing the possible reapercusions. I.e., they stayed silent similar to Catholic Church and the Holocost.

Fern

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: redlotus

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Meanwhile 167 Democrats in the house voted against preventing the Federal courts from ruling the phrase "under God" is unconstitutional.

Please take a look at what you just wrote. Any legislation (aside from a constitutional amendment) that would try to prevent the courts from ruling anything unconstitutional would, itself, be unconstitutional. Get a clue before you bring your strawman arguments in here.

QFT. Furthermore, one of the most important aspects of the Constitution is to provide protection of the minority from tyranny by the majority.

Personally, I believe Man needs a god like a fish needs a pogo stick. I'll leave it to anyone who wants to chase down the links to relevant discussions by those who wrote the Constitution to make their points one way or another, but as an atheist, I believe the phrase, "under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegience for two reasons:

1. The history of the Pledge of Allegiance shows that the phrase clearly refer to the Judeao-Christian deity.

The last change in the Pledge of Allegiance occurred on June 14 (Flag Day), 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved adding the words "under God". As he authorized this change he said:

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

This was at the height of fear of the "godless" Soviet communists, and the addition was clearly pandering to that fear. It's just as clear that it's in direct contravention to the concept of the separation of church and state.

2. If you have any sense of musicality or poetry, count out the metrics of the verse. The addition of the two syllables, "under god" screw up the timing of an otherwise decent piece of verse. If you don't have any sense of rhythm, it probably won't bother you, but to my ears, including the extra phrase makes the timing a poetic trainweck.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: dmw16

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: dmw16
I just want to know how you reconcile this.

With some common sense.

Most Christians didn't think it was a sin for the police to shoot (& kill) the shooters at Columbine.

Whereas, it was a sin for the shooters to murder innocent students.

Like said above, it's about murder, not killing.

Your car could hydro plane on a wet highway, causing to you to careen into oncoming traffic. Someone could be killed in the accident. But most wouldn't see that as a "sin" etc.

Fern

So I guess it is easy if you think the war is justifiable? And that we made the right choice in invading Iraq?

At this point, what will result in less harm? Pulling out and leaving Iraq in chaos controlled by thugs, or staying and trying to achieve stability & safety for the average Iraqi citizen?

If one thinks staying and trying to achieve stability/safety is supporting war, well so be it. However, I'm guessing those people don't think of it that way.

You could just as well position the debate as either supporting safety/stability (instead of "pro war"), or supporting chaos & mayhem (instead of "anti war").

E.g., is it "pro choice" or "pro abortion", and "anti abortion" or "pro life"?

Fern

 

[judasmachine]

love thy neighbor as you love thy self
turn the other cheek

and all that BS are just lies told on sunday to make people feel all mushy before they go back to work on monday and begin slaving or slave driving and driving their tree killing suburbans and shouting WAR, and hording their money.

religion just as with politics is just a show. the only real god is a green piece of paper.

these rules worked well for the first century church who was actually being oppressed by the romans, but now that we are the romans, not so much.

 

[oldman420]

Wow just wow

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: ProfJohn


Don't forget this war is against people who would take away their right to practice their Christian beliefs.

The hell are you talking about.

So its okay to wage war against non Christians is your line of reasoning? That about lines up with Bin Laden right there.
I don't see how Iraq itself was pitted to take away the Christian belief system...that seems to be more in line with Saudi Ara, oh wait our "ally". Then again none of those countries ever forced anything on us.

Christians in Iraq had it very well under Saddam with the exception that they could not prostelyze. Anyone know Tariq Azizz? Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq ~ virtually the defacto leader of Iraq abroad...and a Christian.

If anything Christians are getting screwed right now with the Gunman running around the country~ and their dwindling numbers as they run to neighboring syria and Jordan are proof of that. Because of the war you support - you indirectly support the death of Iraq's Christian Heritage

Not to mention countless Muslims.

:thumbsup:

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: redlotus

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Meanwhile 167 Democrats in the house voted against preventing the Federal courts from ruling the phrase "under God" is unconstitutional.

Please take a look at what you just wrote. Any legislation (aside from a constitutional amendment) that would try to prevent the courts from ruling anything unconstitutional would, itself, be unconstitutional. Get a clue before you bring your strawman arguments in here.

Nope, sorry to say but you and Harvey are wrong.
Link

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.

Congress has the right to pass laws which regulate what the courts do and don't have jurisdiction on.

The question in this case becomes not whether congress can stop the courts from reviewing this case, because they can, but how the "under god" enters the equation. Since it MAY conflict with the 1st amendment. Therefore the courts could ignore the law and declare it unconstitutional because by baring the court from ruling on the pledge congress is in effect violating the 1st amendment.
Get it?

Either way, your statement "Please take a look at what you just wrote. Any legislation (aside from a constitutional amendment) that would try to prevent the courts from ruling anything unconstitutional would, itself, be unconstitutional. Get a clue before you bring your strawman arguments in here." is wrong.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Don't forget this war is against people who would take away their right to practice their Christian beliefs.

That is why I like China.... They are doing the right thing... christains would love to spread their disease to China... I applaud anyone that can see through the BS and stop the cycle of madness.

Yeah, so let's kill all of the muslim believers and convert them with christian beliefs... Spread the cancer of American democracy!!!

Lets replace one F'ed up organized religion with another F'ed up organized religion! Jeee, does that make sense? Let's not forget that ONLY christains are gonna go to heaven, never mind if you are catholic or some other god believer you aint going only the professor is....

Sounds like a bunch of bushit to me....

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Well as a "true Christian" you can
a. vote for Republican who support war
or
b. vote for Democrats who support abortion

Either way it looks like you are screwed huh?

I think most would rather vote for a war in defense of their beliefs and freedom over abortion.

Republicans support the death penalty.
Jesus must be rolling in his grave.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Banned Member with a new ISP

Originally posted by: Harvey
And in other news, Congress passed new legislation that should save taxpayers millions of dollars. The bill saves time, space and the cost of materials in public installations of the Ten Commandments by reducing the number of commandments to be included to five...

Meanwhile 167 Democrats in the house voted against preventing the Federal courts from ruling the phrase "under God" is unconstitutional.

Despite the fact that polls show 91% of Americans want the phrase left in the Pledge of Allegiance.

During the debate Pelosi committed a cardinal sin and actually used the word God in a public setting:
?We are making an all-out assault on the Constitution of the United States which, thank God, will fail,?


Now as a Christian, who would you rather support?
The Party who supports a war?
Or
The Party that thinks children reciting the phrase ?under God? is threat to our national wellbeing?

Well given the chouice I'd take the latter because the former is is doing more damage to our country. Besides, with the latter it seems that most of the members are willing to go along with the vast majority of the population while the former thinks they now better than the vast majority of the population and is going to do as it pleases even if it means lying to the vast majority of the population to get it's way

 

[1prophet]

The religious right and its involvement in politics as we know it would not exist today if the government during the 60's and 70's, specifically the IRS left the private churches alone regardless of how misguided they were on segregation.

 

[dmw16]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: dmw16

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: dmw16
I just want to know how you reconcile this.

With some common sense.

Most Christians didn't think it was a sin for the police to shoot (& kill) the shooters at Columbine.

Whereas, it was a sin for the shooters to murder innocent students.

Like said above, it's about murder, not killing.

Your car could hydro plane on a wet highway, causing to you to careen into oncoming traffic. Someone could be killed in the accident. But most wouldn't see that as a "sin" etc.

Fern

So I guess it is easy if you think the war is justifiable? And that we made the right choice in invading Iraq?

At this point, what will result in less harm? Pulling out and leaving Iraq in chaos controlled by thugs, or staying and trying to achieve stability & safety for the average Iraqi citizen?

If one thinks staying and trying to achieve stability/safety is supporting war, well so be it. However, I'm guessing those people don't think of it that way.

You could just as well position the debate as either supporting safety/stability (instead of "pro war"), or supporting chaos & mayhem (instead of "anti war").

E.g., is it "pro choice" or "pro abortion", and "anti abortion" or "pro life"?

Fern

My question is, can we achieve either of those things...peace or stability? For those who don't see the similarities between the war in Iraq and the war in Vietnam I'd suggest doing some reading. I am afraid it will end just as the Vietnam war did. I'd just perfer it didn't end with 60,000 american casualities and years and protest and a somber wall with the names of the dead.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Well as a "true Christian" you can
a. vote for Republican who support war
or
b. vote for Democrats who support abortion

This is part of your problem.....not all Dems are pro-choice whereas all Repubs still support the war (just not the management of it now).

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
War in defense of your country is similar to self-defense. Is it wrong to kill someone who is threatening to kill you and has the means to do so? No. Same is true of war.

Jesus thought that it was wrong to kill in self defense. In fact, he ordered those that were going to do so in his behalf to stand down.

I think that I have some vague recollection of him in regards to Christianity....but I'm not certain. Maybe someone can help me out here?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Well as a "true Christian" you can
a. vote for Republican who support war
or
b. vote for Democrats who support abortion

This is part of your problem.....not all Dems are pro-choice whereas all Repubs still support the war (just not the management of it now).

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
War in defense of your country is similar to self-defense. Is it wrong to kill someone who is threatening to kill you and has the means to do so? No. Same is true of war.

Jesus thought that it was wrong to kill in self defense. In fact, he ordered those that were going to do so in his behalf to stand down.

I think that I have some vague recollection of him in regards to Christianity....but I'm not certain. Maybe someone can help me out here?

R's are almost all in support of the death penalty, an eye for an eye is not a tenant of the Christian faith.

Also, I'm a pro-choice person, but I don't support all abortions, I don't support anything after the first trimester unless the womans life is in danger. I think three months is long enough to decide whether or not a woman wants to have and care for a child.

Another thing about abortion, it seems to be almost universally true that anti-choice people are against the 'welfare state', well someone has to pay for these children that people can't afford to have. Sure it's all about personal responsibility, which means sex education, something that a lot are also against.

you can't have it both ways.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
War in defense of your country is similar to self-defense. Is it wrong to kill someone who is threatening to kill you and has the means to do so? No. Same is true of war.

Jesus thought that it was wrong to kill in self defense. In fact, he ordered those that were going to do so in his behalf to stand down.

I think that I have some vague recollection of him in regards to Christianity....but I'm not certain. Maybe someone can help me out here?

I don't recall Jesus saying any such thing. How can somene die of self-defense on behalf of another? No offense, but I'm not sure I understand how that works? Plus, you're forgetting one major thing there. Part of Christ reason for being here was to die. Sure, you have a choice. If someone threatens you you can either let them kill you or you can fight back. The question is whether both responses are justifiable. I see nothing that points to the idea that they are not.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Well as a "true Christian" you can
a. vote for Republican who support war
or
b. vote for Democrats who support abortion

This is part of your problem.....not all Dems are pro-choice whereas all Repubs still support the war (just not the management of it now).

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
War in defense of your country is similar to self-defense. Is it wrong to kill someone who is threatening to kill you and has the means to do so? No. Same is true of war.

Jesus thought that it was wrong to kill in self defense. In fact, he ordered those that were going to do so in his behalf to stand down.

I think that I have some vague recollection of him in regards to Christianity....but I'm not certain. Maybe someone can help me out here?

Isn't there some parable or something with a guy getting his ear cut off and Jesus saying something like "don't trying for retribution" or something?

 

[TravisT]

Everyone knows the story of David and Goliath... a classic example of self-defense. God supported self-defense on several occasions throughout the bible. However, he did not support innocent killing. I voted last election on morals... where I felt John Kerry had none.

Despite what some of you have said, I think many Republicans, including myself, are ready to get our troops out of Iraq as well. I do believe we need to revise the plan. If the Democrats can articulate a solid plan this coming election, I have no doubt that they will win in 2008. If they can't and their primary focus again is on highly controversial issues within Christianity such as same-sex marriage and abortion... then they will not get a lot of the Christian's votes... it is just the way it is.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: TravisT
Everyone knows the story of David and Goliath... a classic example of self-defense. God supported self-defense on several occasions throughout the bible. However, he did not support innocent killing. I voted last election on morals... where I felt John Kerry had none.

Despite what some of you have said, I think many Republicans, including myself, are ready to get our troops out of Iraq as well. I do believe we need to revise the plan. If the Democrats can articulate a solid plan this coming election, I have no doubt that they will win in 2008. If they can't and their primary focus again is on highly controversial issues within Christianity such as same-sex marriage and abortion... then they will not get a lot of the Christian's votes... it is just the way it is.

David and Goliath were before Christ. Your Messiah preached a different lesson.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: dmw16

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: dmw16
I just want to know how you reconcile this.

With some common sense.

Most Christians didn't think it was a sin for the police to shoot (& kill) the shooters at Columbine.

Whereas, it was a sin for the shooters to murder innocent students.

Like said above, it's about murder, not killing.

Your car could hydro plane on a wet highway, causing to you to careen into oncoming traffic. Someone could be killed in the accident. But most wouldn't see that as a "sin" etc.

Fern

So I guess it is easy if you think the war is justifiable? And that we made the right choice in invading Iraq?

At this point, what will result in less harm? Pulling out and leaving Iraq in chaos controlled by thugs, or staying and trying to achieve stability & safety for the average Iraqi citizen?

If one thinks staying and trying to achieve stability/safety is supporting war, well so be it. However, I'm guessing those people don't think of it that way.

You could just as well position the debate as either supporting safety/stability (instead of "pro war"), or supporting chaos & mayhem (instead of "anti war").

E.g., is it "pro choice" or "pro abortion", and "anti abortion" or "pro life"?

Fern

Nice false dichotomy. By the nature of the intervention, the Bush Regime intentionally CREATED chaos in Iraq. Unfortunately, neither the US nor fledgling Iraqi government is in a position to impose order in the country. The question isn't about leaving precipitously or continuing to (sort of) tread water. The question is what changes (STRATEGIC) in policy that will lead to good (not necessarily best) intermediate- and long-term outcomes. The most striking aspect is that it took Democrats to even create a discussion about Iraq. Left to their own devices, we would be hearing more and more platitudes like inhofe's miracle in Iraq.

The take home (and relevance to the OP) is that anyone that truly follows the teachings of Christ realizes this war was neither started nor executed with the interests of the Iraqi people at heart. Having wronged our fellow man (I'm not talking about deposing Saddam - that's good - I'm talking about the wanton disregard for the Iraqis) . . . the question is how to go about correcting our ways.

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: TravisT
Everyone knows the story of David and Goliath... a classic example of self-defense. God supported self-defense on several occasions throughout the bible. However, he did not support innocent killing. I voted last election on morals... where I felt John Kerry had none.

Despite what some of you have said, I think many Republicans, including myself, are ready to get our troops out of Iraq as well. I do believe we need to revise the plan. If the Democrats can articulate a solid plan this coming election, I have no doubt that they will win in 2008. If they can't and their primary focus again is on highly controversial issues within Christianity such as same-sex marriage and abortion... then they will not get a lot of the Christian's votes... it is just the way it is.

David and Goliath were before Christ. Your Messiah preached a different lesson.

My belief is that what God taught in the Old Testament wasn't "wrong". The New Testament fullfilled many of the thing prophecied in the Old Testament. This means that we do not have to follow many of the commandments made in the Old Testament. This is the reason we don't make sacrifices anymore, Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. This has very little to do with some of the moral stances that God takes on issues. He didn't support murder in the Old Testament, nor did he in the New Testament. But he did at times support self-defense, David and Goliath being one of the more prominent examples.