Posted on 08/21/2003 12:27:25 PM PDT by Happy2BMe
| I. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. III. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain. IV. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. V. Honour thy father and thy mother. |
VI. Thou shalt not kill. VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery. VIII. Thou shalt not steal. IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. X. Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's. |
Are the Ten Commandments still relevant?
In American Society, who most would desire to see them eradicated from public view?
#1: The U.S.S.C.
#2: Every State Supreme Court.
#3: Every public polititian.
#4: The Democratic Party.
#5: All othe major political parties.
#6: Murderers.
#7: Thieves, extortionists, Labor Union Chiefs, every CEO of the Fortune 500.
#8: The NEA, NAACP, AFLCIO
#9: Homosexuals, lesbians, pedophiles, pornographers, web hosts, Hollywood, National Foundation of The Arts.
Add a few more . . .
As I suspected, you pointed out the Commandments that prohibit the violation of the rights of others.
These are not laws because the Commandments say so, they are laws because no one has the right to initiate force or fraud against another.
What of the 1st four Commandments? Are you going to pick and choose among the Commandments, and ignore the 1st four? Why would you do that? They are Commmandments after all, do we get to pick among them a la carte?
Even if that were a precise definition of so-called indirect democracy (and it's not) it doesn't describe the USA at all. My representative's decisions are absolute? Really? Rep. Scott Garrett from NJ has absolute power? I better call him and let him know. I wonder how he will handle it when he finds out Sens. Lautenberg and Corzine also have absolute power. And since their decisions are absolute, I'd better shoot off an email to the SCOTUS and tell them they are no longer needed. And same goes for the President. I'd better tell him his veto is not going to be needed (although with this President, why bother?)
You see how your descriptions don't match reality? By the way, if you look up the meaning of "republic" circa the time of the Founders, you know what it means? It means a) no monarch, b) the people "own" the government and c) representation by elected officials. In other words, to the founders, representative democracy, which they called republicanism, so as to be more precise. When they spoke of democracy, they meant direct democracy, which we clearly don't have. (Although some states do.)
I assert that the majority has no right to impose religion on me. I stand by that assertion.
If you are insulted - it is a good thing. A very good thing.
More hatred. Be careful, hatred corrodes the vessel that contains it.
ROTFLOL!
Truly, is there an ABSOLUTE POWER?
I dare say freee has not encountered such a thing.
Anti.Christian.Liberal.Union
YOu are asking the wrong person, but I feel safe in saying that it ISN'T my congressman! LOL
Yes, that is correct except for this:
but you are galled by even the thought of someone working inside those public buildings to have such audacity to post such hogwash in public view
We've already covered the "public view" fallacy of yours.
Dear sir. I have no hatred in myself for either you or any other living creature.
On the contrary, why do you hate God so much? You don't even know Him.
He really is a great guy (my best friend in fact). He knows more about you than you know about yourself.
Nope - don't hatecha!
What Judge Moore is saying to the U.S.S.C., you, and everyone that negates the significance of the Ten Commandments, it's Author, and it's authority over this nation is that you are WRONG! You are DEAD WRONG in trying to remove God from the authority of the law over the citizens of this nation.
Nothing personal. You are just wrong!
Atheist, with a qualification.
There is what is called a 'strong' atheist position and a 'weak' atheist position.
The strong atheist beleives there is no God(s).
The weak atheist lacks belief in God(s). That is what I consider myself.
The distinction, while appearing small is very significant.
The agnostic claims to not to be able to know whether or not there is a God(s).
The ten commandments are not the law of the land.
You are getting more and more hysterical in your assertions. Are you drinking?
I will defer to a man who said it better than I can:
"Regardless of how they may have come to be there, human beings exist in an objectively real world. Reason (regardless of how it may have been acquired) is man's only means of discerning that reality. In fact, man's survival is contingent upon his recognition of reality in objective and absolute terms, and his willingness to act in accordance with the dictates of reality, by choice. Failure to recognize reality and failure to choose one's actions accordingly, will ultimately end in death. Hence all sane human beings evaluate their world, and form values upon which their choices are predicated.
Each individual rational human being is driven by his own values. Inasmuch as each man may know only the specific workings of his own mind, each individual is uniquely qualified to determine his values, and his alone. No man may claim to accurately represent the mind or the values of another. Hence each man's values may only be advanced by evaluating the world, forming rational conclusions, and acting for himself.
The free-will choice to act in accordance with one's own values is recognized by other more traditional names, the most recognizable of which is "the pursuit of happiness". Whether actions are seemingly motivated by traditional religious pursuits, or by the advancement of family, or friends, or charitable concerns, the pursuit of individual happiness (advancement of one's own values) is the true motivator. Men seek to please their Gods, or to protect their children, or to help others, because it pleases them to do so.
In order to pursue the rational advancement of their values, individuals must be free to act in accordance with the dictates of their own will. In recognition of the fact that the will of individuals may conflict in advancement of their values, a rational restrictive boundary is created at the intersection of competing wills. This boundary reconciles the potential for conflict, by defining as a right, any action in accordance with the dictates of the will of the individual actor, which does not infringe upon the ability of other individuals to do likewise.
The only means which men have at their disposal to infringe upon the rights of others are initiated force, threat of initiated force, and fraud. Recognition of this truth, provides the foundation of a moral code. Initiated force, threat of initiated force, and fraud, are immoral inasmuch as they act to infringe man's pursuit of his happiness as he defines it. All initiated force, threat of initiated force, or fraud, are immoral, whether perpetrated by an individual or by a collection of individuals sometimes known as government."
30 posted on 02/26/2003 9:04 AM PST by OWK
Our entire system of justice was based upon the rule of God's law, it is our foundation for our legal system and the moral code that allows us to live together in peace. So perfect is it, that those who choose NOT to believe in God are still equal before the rule of law.
Stripping a symbol of the basis of our rule of law from a State that even MENTIONS and REQUIRES that its judges take and oath to the same---is the legalism of the Pharisees brought home to roost. It is wrongful, denies our foundation and is representative of tyranny by the minority.
How foolish is is to drag this marvelous set of rules out of a courthouse and yet everyday exchange money that has 'In God we trust' written upon it? And how foolish is it for our congress and senate to begin EVERY SINGLE day with a prayer? And how foolish is it to have a National Day of Prayer that our President and congresscritters attend? And how foolish is it for OUR SUPREME COURT TO HAVE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS WRITTEN ABOVE THE SEAT OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN THE VERY COURT THEY HEAR CASES?????
This good Judge is a hero.
He sees the PC crap going on around him and says NO MORE! He will not be a party to BREAKING HIS OWN OATH OF OFFICE. And that he holds to that standard is remarkable.
I love this good Judge.
Besides------------why are BIBLES used in COURTROOMS as a means of taking an oath (which I understand is now optional) if the words have no meaning? And even if the Bible is NOT USED....what in the hell does an oath mean if there is NO MORAL CODE to enforce it????
Gee judge, I committed perjury cause I don't have religion, and I see nothing wrong with lying!'
Just ask billy clinton about perjury-he was justifying it by saying he didn't want to hurt his family, EVER THO HE WAS CRUSHING THE RIGHTS of an average joe like you and me.
Though they may fight among each other occasionally as to which rights of yours they are going to violate today, when enough of them conspire as they so often do, your rights will be of no significance.
Look around. They do it all the time.
I don't hate God. I don't hate Zeus either. I just don't believe in them. It's not the same thing. I posit that to hate a thing, you must believe it exists. Satanists hate God, I do not.
Nope - don't hatecha!
That's good to hear.
the Ten Commandments, it's Author, and it's authority over this nation is that you are WRONG!
The Ten Commandment's authority over this nation? Are you aware that the 1st Commandment is the exact opposite of religious liberty enumerated in the 1st Amendment?
You are your own god. You have no need for any other, nor do you desiere the assistance of any such being (should one exist).
You have no need for the Ten Commandments.
You are a law unto yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.