Westmoreland co-sponsors bill on the Ten Commandments and can't even name them
- Thread starter DreamerTheresa
- Start date
These are exactly the points I was trying to bring up. The ten commandments are only sacred in the world of christianity. The rest of the religions practiced in the US could care less. Most do, however, believe in a higher power so the whole argument about the "In God we Trust" thing is pretty much a moot point. Besides christianity is one of the newest religions out there. The Kemetic religion, Hinduism, Voodooism (a religion with many different names, such as Paganism, Witchcraft, Fetishism, Black Magic, Obyah, and Oledamare), Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, and Buddhism all came before Christianity or even practicing Islam occured. If I were to practice any of those others, you can bet your bottom dollar that you putting the ten commandments in a court of law would bother me. Just like supracentral and I stated earlier, there is a separation of church and state for a reason. Stuff like this is simply unconstitutional, hell I wish I had a count of all the people that have been discriminated against because of christianity. I want no part of it becoming one with the law, hell the bible is partly why people are protesting against gays at a funeral, the bible is why the KKK think they are justified when it comes to how they treat blacks, and hell Hitler used the bible as proof that all judiast should be murdered.Supracentral said:
The bible was written by people? Have you even read the bible guys? In the same section of the bible where it is banning gays from getting together it also states things such as, if a man has sex with an animal then both the man and that animal shall be put to death. What the hell did the animal do? It also says that any man who lies with a woman during her menstrual cycle shall be put to death, oh and lets not forget any child who curses their parents, shall be put to death. Sounds a bit absurd to me, hell over half of us on SM would be dead by now. It kills me how people act like they are devout christians, but want to pick and choose which parts of the bible they accept and which parts they dont. Most reasonable people with a good education can see the many flaws that christianity posseses. But its always those bible thumpers threatening them with eternal damnation that is stunting higher thinking. Some of us are just lucky enough to be able to see through it. No I dont read books like SC does, Im pretty much a cable head (lol, I do work for TWC), but Im definitely well educated, plus I have an IQ of 152. It is quite the trait to be able to be a free thinker and not rely on the constraints placed upon you by your forebearers.
Maybe if christianity was the oldest religion out there, rather than one of the youngest, and the bible was written by some diety, rather than a bunch of people (people lie, cheat, and steal what makes you so sure that these people werent part of that group), then maybe I would agree with it. That wasnt how it happened, so my belief in the christian faith is limited at best. That is my opinion though, and you, of course, have your own
I think I'm done with the God/rights/church and state threads, but here are a few final thoughts before I go back to the reason I joined the forum (my Supra) and some entertaining threads:
Lets start with DreamerT and the “anti-christ” thing. First there’s the tag, then a picture of (presumably) you in front of a Supra sporting “Damien” license plates, and bizarre postings in inappropriate threads that state, “I am the Anti-Christ”. Now, if I used a “I’m a Crackhead” tag, posted a pic with of me with a lit crack pipe, and kept posting lines like “I smoke crack!” in random threads, what exactly might somebody think, and would it really be laughable? DT, if you don't want to be labeled a Satanist, then you shouldn’t go making weird statements to the fact. What I now suspect is that you and SC have concocted a complicated little plan using an inside joke to try and "prove" to yourselves how stupid the Christians are. I suppose it’s easy to prove when nobody else is in on the joke. Finally, go back to my original post and answer the questions I asked about why all of the liberal stupidity goes unchallenged. I certainly did stay on topic.
For SupraCentral: You push the idea that everything only boils down to your own personal rights and to some extent personal responsibility, both of which I value by the way. While those things are important, that thinking falls short. What about moral responsibility? Is exercising a "right" always the right thing to do? Obviously not. Here's another example: We have a moral responsibility to provide a healty environment for our children, and while parents bear most of that responsibility, doesn't society have any? Certainly we all do, but your position states that society owns no responsibility at all.
You complain that Christians push their "religion", but do you understand that Christianity is a faith, not a religion? You have a faith, and in fact your "religion" preaches (wrongly) that YOU are your own god. Your arguments are based on that faith in a manner no different than Christians. This is hypocrisy at its purest. We all base our opinions of policy setting on our faith, but you deliver a double standard, and I only ask that you hold yourself to the same standards that you hold Christians to.
You argue that all faiths and religions should be equally represented, but balk at anything "Christian". Fact is, this country was based on Christian values, however no specific RELIGION. Not atheist values, not shinto values, and not hindu or any other values. By all means, freely believe and practice any of these ideals, but don't try to change the history or traditions of our country. There are many countries thoughout the world that were founded on these principles, and that's fine but the United States were not. Do not quote that one line to suggest I am intolerant of any other faith - I am not. To finish off that discussion, nobody has ever suggested that the US adopt a national religion - Christian or not. Realize that Christian religions include Baptist, Epispocal, Methodist, Catholic, Lutheran, etc, etc, etc. Which one of these RELIGIONS do you think has ever been suggested to become the official relgion of the state? Answer: None. You have brought a knife to a gun fight.
You are so cliche in picking on Catholics for "idol worship", but I wonder what reading you've ever done in understanding the religion. Isn't that the same kind of ignorance Hitler got all worked up on over in his persecution of the Jews? Be consistent.
You are obviously very well read, intelligent, and incredibly well spoken. You say that incorporation of religion into government, when what you mean is certain Christian values, is the most dangerous situation that could exist. The reality is that a nation void of God is far more dangerous. You talk about reading and being an intellectual. We should all spend our time learning and contributing to the world through deeper thought, I agree. But while you say it's dangerous to believe everything you read - especially the bible - I say it's far more dangerous to believe everything you think. Afterall, you're not God anymore than I am.
What's funny is that we solidly agree on some points, consumption tax among them, and I am sure I will never know my car the way you do. For those things you've earned a lot of my respect - for whatever it's worth. However, on these discussions, I think I've had enough being baited and played with, so I will leave your jokes and baiting for somebody else to deal with.
Now if you want to spend some time taking down the socialist liberals, I think we have something else we can take on together.
Lets start with DreamerT and the “anti-christ” thing. First there’s the tag, then a picture of (presumably) you in front of a Supra sporting “Damien” license plates, and bizarre postings in inappropriate threads that state, “I am the Anti-Christ”. Now, if I used a “I’m a Crackhead” tag, posted a pic with of me with a lit crack pipe, and kept posting lines like “I smoke crack!” in random threads, what exactly might somebody think, and would it really be laughable? DT, if you don't want to be labeled a Satanist, then you shouldn’t go making weird statements to the fact. What I now suspect is that you and SC have concocted a complicated little plan using an inside joke to try and "prove" to yourselves how stupid the Christians are. I suppose it’s easy to prove when nobody else is in on the joke. Finally, go back to my original post and answer the questions I asked about why all of the liberal stupidity goes unchallenged. I certainly did stay on topic.
For SupraCentral: You push the idea that everything only boils down to your own personal rights and to some extent personal responsibility, both of which I value by the way. While those things are important, that thinking falls short. What about moral responsibility? Is exercising a "right" always the right thing to do? Obviously not. Here's another example: We have a moral responsibility to provide a healty environment for our children, and while parents bear most of that responsibility, doesn't society have any? Certainly we all do, but your position states that society owns no responsibility at all.
You complain that Christians push their "religion", but do you understand that Christianity is a faith, not a religion? You have a faith, and in fact your "religion" preaches (wrongly) that YOU are your own god. Your arguments are based on that faith in a manner no different than Christians. This is hypocrisy at its purest. We all base our opinions of policy setting on our faith, but you deliver a double standard, and I only ask that you hold yourself to the same standards that you hold Christians to.
You argue that all faiths and religions should be equally represented, but balk at anything "Christian". Fact is, this country was based on Christian values, however no specific RELIGION. Not atheist values, not shinto values, and not hindu or any other values. By all means, freely believe and practice any of these ideals, but don't try to change the history or traditions of our country. There are many countries thoughout the world that were founded on these principles, and that's fine but the United States were not. Do not quote that one line to suggest I am intolerant of any other faith - I am not. To finish off that discussion, nobody has ever suggested that the US adopt a national religion - Christian or not. Realize that Christian religions include Baptist, Epispocal, Methodist, Catholic, Lutheran, etc, etc, etc. Which one of these RELIGIONS do you think has ever been suggested to become the official relgion of the state? Answer: None. You have brought a knife to a gun fight.
You are so cliche in picking on Catholics for "idol worship", but I wonder what reading you've ever done in understanding the religion. Isn't that the same kind of ignorance Hitler got all worked up on over in his persecution of the Jews? Be consistent.
You are obviously very well read, intelligent, and incredibly well spoken. You say that incorporation of religion into government, when what you mean is certain Christian values, is the most dangerous situation that could exist. The reality is that a nation void of God is far more dangerous. You talk about reading and being an intellectual. We should all spend our time learning and contributing to the world through deeper thought, I agree. But while you say it's dangerous to believe everything you read - especially the bible - I say it's far more dangerous to believe everything you think. Afterall, you're not God anymore than I am.
What's funny is that we solidly agree on some points, consumption tax among them, and I am sure I will never know my car the way you do. For those things you've earned a lot of my respect - for whatever it's worth. However, on these discussions, I think I've had enough being baited and played with, so I will leave your jokes and baiting for somebody else to deal with.
Now if you want to spend some time taking down the socialist liberals, I think we have something else we can take on together.
Last edited:
LouKY said:
Never said I was a Satanist. It was a JOKE. Y'know. Funny, ha ha, sort of thing as a retort to one of those 666 threads.
My MR2's named Damien, as someone once told me it was good luck to name your car. I happen to like the name Damien, all Omen references aside.
I'm a recovering Catholic. I believe in some semblance of a god (not necessarily the definition most Christians carry of God), and I may or may not still consider myself "Christian." I have varying views on the whole Jesus deal. But that's not the point here.
Believe me, you Bible humpers do it on your own.
Ten Commandments aside, I just thought it mildly hilarious that one of our elected mighty would co-sponsor a bill and be a bit uneducated on it.
SupraCentral had nothing to do with me finding the link, nor posting it.
So you're a Bible humper AND a conspiracy theorist. Man, is this going to be fun.
No. That's what parents are for. Don't pawn your children off on me to raise.
Wrongly? By whose definition?
Because, for the most part, Christians of some sort do most of the pushing. It gets old and offensive.
Of this thread in particular, there was no "baiting" meant, except to poke fun at Wesmoreland. We see what a fine job I've done at assuming you people have a sense of humor.
It is close to 15 anyway.
Yes, that is a great movie. I haven't seen a bad Mel Brooks comedy yet.
The "10 Commandments" are not Christian, it is Judaism. Many of the Chrisitian faith follow it for obvious reasons. The US constitution clearly states there will not be a national religion. Which Jesus started when he walked the planet. Your faith in him "fullfills the law" and is your ticket into the pearly gates. But that does not mean that we live in a society of anarchy, where one mans morality is the determining factor. So laws between man are established based upon the original law.
Yes, that is a great movie. I haven't seen a bad Mel Brooks comedy yet.
The "10 Commandments" are not Christian, it is Judaism. Many of the Chrisitian faith follow it for obvious reasons. The US constitution clearly states there will not be a national religion. Which Jesus started when he walked the planet. Your faith in him "fullfills the law" and is your ticket into the pearly gates. But that does not mean that we live in a society of anarchy, where one mans morality is the determining factor. So laws between man are established based upon the original law.
And as SupraCentral pointed out, don't define what others say about God. He just went on a small and correct tangent about misrepresenting other peoples position in a debate.
I am really surprised how this thread has evolved from how it was intended to go.
See, I know what it is like because I once made a thread where the humor somehow just went over everyone's head (or at least the ones that posted the most).
Since I had a similar experience, maybe I should be back to give my $0.02
I remember back when Dan Quayle told this one student to correct his spelling for the word potato. The student spelled it right the first time, but Dan Quayle told him to spell it potatoe with an 'e' at the end.
I guess he thought it should be spelled like the toes on the feet.
Anyways, that was a glitch or mistake that some commented on.
Sort of how I see the purpose of this thread - just made to point out a mistake on the part of someone.
If you are going to do a presentation, you should be well prepared to be able to back up what you are saying (as in knowing the commandments). Turns out that the guy could not name what he is/was an advocate for.
So he fumbled, just like when Dan Quayle fumbled. That is all. Purpose of the thread was to make light of that situation. No hidden purpose other than just that (pointing out a fumble).
Here is the case with Dan Quayle and his fumble in that misspelling for comparative reference:
http://www.slipups.com/items/69.html
Now some ideas have been thrown around and some valid points too, but since the thread was intended on being a rather giggly thread rather than one so drab, I can see how and why it is obviously a disappointment for some.
I personally like some arguments myself (whether I am participating or just as an onlooker). There are some people that I love to make look stupid, but at the same time, I also try to engage in those debates with people who like to debate, rather than jump on someone that may not be so interested in debating.
Supracentral,
For your response to my post:
http://www.supramania.com/forums/showpost.php?p=245677&postcount=16
I guess my Hannibal Lecter-like perceptions were accurate in detected that you have had some extra exposure to debating/logical analysis - those books that you mentioned.
Hope I did not upset anyone with my $0.02 and my perspective - 'cause I just don't have time to be back here in this thread if I did. lol
See, I know what it is like because I once made a thread where the humor somehow just went over everyone's head (or at least the ones that posted the most).
Since I had a similar experience, maybe I should be back to give my $0.02
I remember back when Dan Quayle told this one student to correct his spelling for the word potato. The student spelled it right the first time, but Dan Quayle told him to spell it potatoe with an 'e' at the end.
I guess he thought it should be spelled like the toes on the feet.
Anyways, that was a glitch or mistake that some commented on.
Sort of how I see the purpose of this thread - just made to point out a mistake on the part of someone.
If you are going to do a presentation, you should be well prepared to be able to back up what you are saying (as in knowing the commandments). Turns out that the guy could not name what he is/was an advocate for.
So he fumbled, just like when Dan Quayle fumbled. That is all. Purpose of the thread was to make light of that situation. No hidden purpose other than just that (pointing out a fumble).
Here is the case with Dan Quayle and his fumble in that misspelling for comparative reference:
http://www.slipups.com/items/69.html
Now some ideas have been thrown around and some valid points too, but since the thread was intended on being a rather giggly thread rather than one so drab, I can see how and why it is obviously a disappointment for some.
I personally like some arguments myself (whether I am participating or just as an onlooker). There are some people that I love to make look stupid, but at the same time, I also try to engage in those debates with people who like to debate, rather than jump on someone that may not be so interested in debating.
Supracentral,
For your response to my post:
http://www.supramania.com/forums/showpost.php?p=245677&postcount=16
I guess my Hannibal Lecter-like perceptions were accurate in detected that you have had some extra exposure to debating/logical analysis - those books that you mentioned.
Hope I did not upset anyone with my $0.02 and my perspective - 'cause I just don't have time to be back here in this thread if I did. lol
LouKY said:
No offense here, just a friendly debate....So what does putting the 10 commandments in the courts have to do with anything you just said. Besides that, just because some of us arent christian does not mean we dont believe in providing a healthy environment for kids. We all already have to share the burden of "taking care of those that can not help themselves," and we arent singing the praises of the bible. It may be something mandated by law, but we arent here saying that we dont agree with those practices. Just because certain ideals like that follow the word of the christian faith and we agree, doesnt mean that we agree with everything the "word" has to say.
LouKY said:
All it is is a religion. Are you saying that those that practice hinduism, islam, etc, etc have no faith? They dont believe in the same things that you do, but they definitely believe in it with all their heart. Or maybe their religions dont count since its not your religion. Even your God stated that he gave us free will and would not interfere with our lives as he did in the past. Theoretically wouldnt that make us the ones responsible for our lives and the way we live it? And if we arent christians why should we have to follow your rules? Yours is just one, of many, religions that are practiced in the US, why should I (we) have to follow christian standards like they are law if I believe something completely different and my (our) religion is older than yours?
LouKY said:
I dont think that he is balking at anything christian, its just the fact that christian beliefs are being forced on people if this is passed. Your a christian obviously, but what if the country's main religion was islam and they wanted to put the words of muhammad in courts? I bet you would be uncomfortable with it. Why? Because the people that will be judging you and sentencing you do not believe in the same things (morals, ideals) that you hold near and dear to your heart. Just like mormonism, the christians believe it is sacrilege to marry more than one woman. They dont believe that, but it is now against the law to do so. Why? Because it goes against christian norms. That is just one example of how christians "push" their religion on us.
LouKY said:
Catholics do love their rosaries, etc. I went to a catholic private school for years, so I know. Catholicism has almost nothing to do with hitler's actions. Hitler based his decisions to crucify judists off of the word of the bible and nothing more. Catholicism was based off the bible as well, but was not interpreted in near an extreme manner as what hitler got from it.
LouKY said:
You've got it wrong here, almost all religions have the same basic niceties when it comes to the treatment of others. A muslim or a judist both believe in God and dont believe in the harming of others (some are crazy as we have all seen, but we also seen christians doing harm in the name of God). We arent saying that the nation should be void of God, we are just saying that we shouldnt be forced to follow yours and the rules you've decided he set up. The original pilgrims came to America to get away from those trying to force their religion on others and here we are many moons later doing the same thing.
Nick M said:
Thats just what we are saying, many of the religions still around today are much older than any ideals of christianity. That would include Jesus and Mohammad for that matter. If I, an American citizen do not believe in Jesus, shouldnt my values be counted as well? Are you and your faith so much better than mine, that I should be forced to do as you, rather than follow the teachings of what I believe in? Thats why religion has no place in the law, they are two seperate entities, we all live in the same country so why is it OK for you to force me to follow your religion's rules and not OK for you to have to follow mine. Seems a little biased, at best, to me. Think grandiose!
Not quite. The card had the spelling on it with the "e". Where do you think he got the word? It was an acceptable alternate spelling, as many words did have. Over time they go away.
"To finish off that discussion, nobody has ever suggested that the US adopt a national religion - Christian or not."
If this country adopts a "national religion" and forces people to follow it, I can
assure you the end of the world will be quite soon after. Anyone who isn't part
of that religion will become a terrorist. People who normally stay quiet in the
face of religion (athiests, smart people, peaceful people), will get pissed off
if you push them too far.
If this country adopts a "national religion" and forces people to follow it, I can
assure you the end of the world will be quite soon after. Anyone who isn't part
of that religion will become a terrorist. People who normally stay quiet in the
face of religion (athiests, smart people, peaceful people), will get pissed off
if you push them too far.
LouKY said:
Under the system of government I describe, adults have that personal responsibilty and freedom. Children do not. Simplty put, society is not government. Can't you understand that? You don't have to legislate every little aspect of life. Why does law have to be put in place to push your religious dogma? Isn't your "truth" obvious enough that you can sell it on your own without the force of law (and violence) behind it?
LouKY said:
You are 100% off base, and I'm almost certain you are being intentionally obtuse. I've already covered this with you in another thread, and rather than retype it all, I'll give you my exact text from my last post. Please read and comprehend before making another silly statement like that:
Supracentral said:
That's it... I don't want to impose my will or my beliefs on you. I want you to be able to choose. Just like I want to be able to choose. You can yell hypocrite at me as loud as you want, but the facts are against you.
I'll make it clear:
What you are defending = Religious Tyranny
What I am defending = Liberty
Can you simply honestly say "I want to restrict your rights."? Just be honest about it? Give it a try. At least then you won't appear to be a hypocrite. You'll be exactly what your actions indicate you are.
LouKY said:
The reason for that, is "christians" are the people constantly "in my face" trying to shove their religion down my throat. If the Hindu's were as offensive as you, I'd be balking at them too, trust me. Stop making yourselves a target with your self righteous bullshit and people will stop "picking on you".
LouKY said:
Slavery was a "tradition" in our country... So was burning witches at the stake... I'm glad someone "dared" to try to change our history and traditions...
LouKY said:
Re-read that big section of my own text I quoted above. Really read it.
And as for your "dangerous to believe everything you think line" - please.
I'm certain A=A - if you aren't, I pity you.
LouKY said:
Oh, I'll be more than glad to take those folks on as well, they are just as, if not more dangerous than the fundies...
(<- yes, that is good natured sarcastic ribbing folks..)
Ladies and Gentlemen, here we are again.
I am a Christain and I am proud to live in a country where I can say that out loud( some people in this world do not have that privilege). As a Christain, I am to live my life by the example set by Jesus. He loved unconditionally. He lived and died with His arms wide open. I will witness to others by the way I live my life, by sharing the news of my Savior (if they are willing to listen), and by hopefully showing the love of Christ in my actions.
There are many things in this thread that offend me, but you have the right to your own opinion. As I told a very intelligent man not to long ago I'm just glad we live in a place where we can agree to disagree.
DT, I would like to take this opportunity to say from one southern girl to another, welcome to Supramania. It will be nice to have someone that I politely disagree with..... ...................lol
I am a Christain and I am proud to live in a country where I can say that out loud( some people in this world do not have that privilege). As a Christain, I am to live my life by the example set by Jesus. He loved unconditionally. He lived and died with His arms wide open. I will witness to others by the way I live my life, by sharing the news of my Savior (if they are willing to listen), and by hopefully showing the love of Christ in my actions.
There are many things in this thread that offend me, but you have the right to your own opinion. As I told a very intelligent man not to long ago I'm just glad we live in a place where we can agree to disagree.
DT, I would like to take this opportunity to say from one southern girl to another, welcome to Supramania. It will be nice to have someone that I politely disagree with.....
...................lol