posted on May 30, 2005 12:13:26 PMI think that's a GREAT idea, profe. Might just teach the left a thing or two about family values.
Why not ask Tom Delay about values. I thought all Republicans have such high moral values.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on May 30, 2005 12:14:57 PM
Great, Linda, go ask him. While we're on the subject, which version would YOU like to see in your nearest courthouse? They're not all the same. Be sure to read them before you choose.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
[ edited by profe51 on May 30, 2005 12:15 PM ]
posted on May 30, 2005 12:19:41 PM
oh poor logan - just can't keep up....BECAUSE the profe didn't mention DeLay...but he DID mention Dr. Dobson...that's why.
See....it's really simple to figure out all by your lonesome.
------------
meanwhile...back at the ranch...
I think a good question to ask the left who fight to have the 10 commandments removed....just why they think this wasn't a problem to see them hung in court rooms all across America for all the years they have. Why suddenly this need to remove them all. What HARM have they created? Imo, none. But you'd sure think they had.
Because the voice from a very tiny group want God removed from everything....because THEY don't like it....because it offends this small group...shouldn't take away, over-ride what millions of citizens have enjoyed for 227 years. But that darn ol' ACLU...and Newdow....they're still going to be sure that ANYTHING that upsets them....especially anything good...like God...will be removed if they die trying.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 30, 2005 12:24:06 PM
To answer your question, profe...
first of all I have only read about it being the godless/atheists that have made a stink about the 10 commandments being removed....NOT other groups whose own 10 commandments are different. But I'm willing to read about their supposed complains if you post them.
Then....if that even were to be the case, which I doubt, I'm sure a compromise could be reached. The differing groups could come together for agreement on a list that represent all their different versions. Some people do have the ability to compromise....maybe not too many here...but it IS possible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 30, 2005 12:30:49 PMfirst of all I have only read about it being the godless/atheists that have made a stink about the 10 commandments being removed
I'd like them removed Linda, and I am neither godless nor an atheist.
I asked you a really simple question, the same one I asked Ron. Which version of the 10 Commandments would YOU like to see in courthouses.You won't answer it, why not?
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on May 30, 2005 12:57:13 PM
And I didn't say you were, profe.
Point is it's only a tiny number of people who start the lawsuits to change all that has, imo, been good for our country. Sure...then many others, like yourself join in and support them. That doesn't mean the 'followers' who also agree with the ACLU and the Newdow's would have started making such a fuss themselves. That was my point.
Your average Christian isn't offended by it...and their 76% - 86% of our population. So some appear to me to believe if 1% don't like something...then this change should be forced on the rest of the citizens.
And I don't agree with that. Just opens more lawsuits up for everything good for society...because some small minority doesn't agree with it. We have NEVER functioned on the bases that everyone has to be in TOTAL agreement with everyone else in order for thing to be allowed.
You [collectively] don't like it fine....just don't look at the 10 commandments. Turn you eyes away as you [c] suggest we do to porn...someone's painting our President, who is our Nations representative/figure-head getting scre@ed by some Muslim. That's what you [c] tell us to do...no different at all, in my eyes. Just something we find objectionable vs something different you find objectionable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 30, 2005 01:06:49 PM
This is for Replay, sorry...I made the point earlier that they are different enough that various religions dictate which version their adherents should accept. I'd like to know the exact wording people who support the commandments in public buildings would prefer to have. That's why I asked Ron, and now Linda.
I'm sure all I'm going to get is "they're all the same", "it doesn't matter to me, why should it matter to you", and other similar dodges.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
[ edited by profe51 on May 30, 2005 01:07 PM ]
posted on May 30, 2005 01:15:47 PM
Except, Linda, none of that porn and other offensive stuff is being posted in courthouses, school rooms and other government buildings. You see, it's not the same, not at all. People have a choice not to go to concerts, art exhibits, movies etc. Usually, when conducting business in a government building, they are there due to some sort of requirement. Certainly that is true in classrooms. After I'm required to post them, what's next? Will I be required to have an oral reading of them? Right after the pledge of allegiance would be a good time, just before the moment of silence, and yes, I do both of those things. Then my students can reflect on the first commandment, during the moment of silence:
I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other Gods before me.
That won't be establishing religion, nosiree. And I can just tell my non-religious students to ignore it, or don't listen to it. Right.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on May 30, 2005 01:18:43 PM
Well..profe, why don't you answer MY question...which was
just why they think this wasn't a problem to see them hung in court rooms all across America for all the years they have. Why suddenly this need to remove them all. What HARM have they created?
You appear to want to dwell on other versions of the 10 commandments. Might I also be told which groups have publically been, in print, stating that they EVEN WANT THEIR own version included?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 30, 2005 01:20:08 PM
Now linduh won't read this post because she's afraid of me and the truth but for others:
In this country a minority, whether it's racial, sexual, business, political, whatever, has rights that we protect.
The Right seeks to trample over anyone who gets in it's path...to hell with anyone who disagrees!
Now linduh isn't very bright and can't tell the difference between PUBLIC property and private property so she wants to shove her religious views into everybody else's face. She herself is not religious and really quite evil but if she keeps yelling enough about her high standrads and morals someday somebody besides us may hear her and actually believe it.
Meanwhile, maybe we should keep a copy of the ten commandments for christians to view...I hear they're at the court house quite a bit
posted on May 30, 2005 01:31:38 PMCertainly that is true in classrooms. After I'm required to post them, what's next? Will I be required to have an oral reading of them? Right after the pledge of allegiance would be a good time, just before the moment of silence, and yes, I do both of those things.
What I am saying is that these HAVE BEEN ALLOWED FOR YEARS AND YEARS....in our court rooms in our classes...and then were ordered to be taken down. You're speaking to the 'aftermath' of them having been removed. I've ask why they needed to be in the first place.
***Especially*** in the schools and courthouses where no one has even raised ANY objections to their being there.
The ACLU has sent form letters to many school districts warning them they will file suit if they find out about them still being there. If just ONE person complaines...they'll sue the school district.
Believe it or not, especially in the Bible belt many live their lives by those commandments...and don't appreciate having their 'freedom of religion' imposed upon when no one is objection EXCEPT a few who wish to CENSOR them like they claim others do with books they want to burn.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 30, 2005 01:40:01 PM
Now linduh isn't very bright and can't tell the difference between PUBLIC property and private property so she wants to shove her religious views into everybody else's face.
posted on May 30, 2005 02:09:04 PM
I'll answer your question linda, in exchange for a straight answer from you to mine.
They need to be taken down because they never should have been put up in the first place. The 10 commandments are not some nice-nicey nice chicken soup for the soul generic acceptable to everybody advice on how to live, they are a religious document which the faithful accept as the spoken word of the God of the Jews, Christians and Muslims. As I've said, the first commandment is an establishment of religion when it is used in an official context by government. This isn't a generic god we're talking about, some acceptable to everybody creative force, it's the Judeo-Christian god, the God of Moses, and Christ and Mohammed, plain and simple. It has no place being forced onto the unwilling by the government.
Now, quid pro quo, which version do you want to be re-placed back into the classrooms of America?
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
[ edited by profe51 on May 30, 2005 02:11 PM ]
posted on May 30, 2005 02:11:49 PM
Thank you KD.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on May 30, 2005 02:14:33 PM
Sorry, KD, I couldn't disagree more. It's not the Christians that are demanding anyother faith's symbols be removed...taken down...
They're not the one's objecting when say Jewish or Muslim religious artifacts are being INCLUDED along with there....
...this is an ever increasing anti-Christian fight - from the ultra-liberal left to remove any public reference to "God". And they use all sorts of arguements to support their side. But the FACTS are these things have always been a part of our Government....and now they're being removed.
No one is forcing anyone to pray in school....but students are being told they can't. No one is forcing the teachers to read the 10 commandments but there are school administrators who object to teachers handing out fliers that are copies of our Bill of Rights...BECAUSE it mentions God. The list goes on and on....as they ultra-left works to take away our religious freedoms.....and they have NO support for doing so. Proof is some was allowed since our government began. IF, as they say, it was against our Constitution or the Bill of Rights....then why was it allowed for each state to start their own state preemble out with "Almight God" etc.
I'll answer because it wasn't...that's why.
Now...our more moderate dems...like hillary......appreciate being able to enjoy their Bible study in our Government buildings. NEVER heard anyone on the left complain about those buildings being used for religious purposes...NOR hillary being condemned for not honoring this supposed 'separation of church and state'. It's in part, a 'we hate Bush' issue and we, the smallest minority WILL take away the religious freedoms of those same Christians. And that's exactly what they're doing. AND why I don't believe it when they say things like: 'We have tolerance for others'. BS!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 30, 2005 02:18:23 PMBill of Rights...BECAUSE it mentions God.
Linda, I mentioned this before. Cut the crap. The Bill of Rights does NOT mention God.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on May 30, 2005 02:23:25 PM
Okay then profe....I thought I DID answer your question. Please restate the one you believe I didn't answer and I will answer it.
And I thank you for answering my question, but I don't agree.
Since our country's inception we've been a religious Nation. I've already post each of the 50 states preembles, from the time they entered the Union....which ALL mention God or a couple a 'higher power/creator'. I don't buy for one minute that they intended this definition that the left supports OR they wouldn't have mentioned God in so many of our public documents.
Heck when we've had these discussions before...I've pulled out many, many links to clinton's religious statements - most can be found on his own clinton library website, Carter's religious statements. etc.
The left wasn't condemning them....just now that it's a Bush issue.
So while you personally don't think they **should have ever been placed anywhere**...they were...and in many places. They did no harm...and you still haven't posted WHICH groups want THEIR version of their 10 commandments posted publically either. I'd appreciate knowing who's on this mysterious list who want equal rights.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 30, 2005 02:23:39 PM
Here you go Linda, it's wordsearch time. Find "God" or any reference to a creator, and I'll buy you a Moon Pie and an RC Cola.
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Amendment I
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.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on May 30, 2005 02:26:45 PM
I realize you meant the Declaration of Independence, but it begs the question why you would instead say the Bill of Rights two times.
The Declaration, in all it's philisophical-political-spiritual glory, is not a legal document. It mentions god or a creator.The Constitution, on the other hand, is the foundation of American law, and does NOT mention god. The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.
edited to add: No teacher has gotten into trouble for handing out copies of the Bill of Rights. You pulled that one straight out of your hat.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
[ edited by profe51 on May 30, 2005 02:32 PM ]
posted on May 30, 2005 02:32:51 PM
I didn't say that I expect the government to establish religon, you did. That is your interpretation of them being in a public place, mine is just a historical basis for law, not religon.
Any version or all versions, even the Code.
But now that we have established a common link, those of you opposed to religon, must admit that religon is a good thing and has far more benefited man than it has harmed.
posted on May 30, 2005 02:35:23 PM
How about we just put back up the three commandments out of 10 that have anything in the world to do with the U.S. Constitution?
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on May 30, 2005 02:36:27 PM
Sorry...profe, I meant to say our Declaration of Independance. It was then, in 1776, that we were breaking away from the Church of England. But we, weren't breaking away from our beliefs in God....and both God and Creator ARE mentioned in that official government document.
---
And I also want to mention, just can't remember the case that was heard and ruled on in our USSC...but it was also about what is considered religious vs what is considered to be paying tribute to America's religious and legal history.
And I personally believe that if the USSC has Moses with the CHRISTIAN 10 commandments on it's building walls....that too is acknowledging that this WAS part of our history.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 30, 2005 02:42:17 PM
On your list of 'so where's' profe....having these displayed HURTS NO ONE. Not the same at all in comparison.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 30, 2005 02:45:07 PM
The constitution is a living document, when the USSC allows the ten commandments to continue to be posted in those public places will that mean the US governement is establishing a religon? Not to me it won't.
posted on May 30, 2005 02:50:17 PM
Linda, the Supreme Court Building, in case you haven't seen it, also has Confucius, Mohammed, Hammurabi and I don't know how many more cultural symbols expressed. In addition, the Commandments are not terribly visible. Indeed, only the last 5 show at all. This is hardly a strong argument for the commandments being a special part of American legal history, any more than Confucious or anyone else was. Unless you want me to also post a copy of Confucius' "Book of Filial Piety" on my classroom walls too, the Supreme Court Building argument is specious.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
because it wasn't...that's why.