The Ten Commandments for the New Amerika

I see your point, wannabe, but the federal court order was unconstitutional, and because it was such, I don't believe Moore was obligated to acknowledge it.

I think had he done it any other way, the outcome would have been the same, only it would have been done in the quiet of a judge's chambers. The way he did it, the anti-American agenda had to do their deed in the light of the day.

Thomas Crowne,

Sorry it took a while to respond, haven't had time to look on ATS in a while. What Moore did violated the establishment clause of the First Amendmant. The Establishment clause prohibits the government from promoting a religion.

Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state.

Here's the website I found the quote on: www.law.cornell.edu...

What Moore did was to post the ten commandments in a state building therefore violating the first amendment.

Forget the amendment, for goodness sake they could care less about Gods law he gave to us for our own good, they do not even have a clue that without him their amendment does not exist nor this peice of mud we call the usa.



peace.

Ummmmm....I believe there was a great number of our Founding Fathers who were deist. I believe out of the X number of authors to the Constitution, four of them were deist. To say that our Founding Fathers intended this place to be a Judeo-Christian world is questionable with the number of Fathers who weren't Jewish or Christian.

Why do people think that others could not rule themselves without some kind of government based on the ten commandments?

Originally posted by Magickman
I heard all that...if people want to see for themselves what a country is like that is ran by religion,they should take a look at Iraq,or Iran.The last thing we need is a minister running America.Mandatory prayers every day at noon.Yeah....

whats the difference if u pray every day or if u work everyday, it's all just as useless

I didn't mean to offend you with my comment about the ten commandments Thomas Super Moderator. I was really thinking of a time when the breaking of some of those laws meant death and still does, in some countries I believe. Thank God man has got past that, or God, whoever wrote the law. As much as it has changed since then it kind of makes you wonder doesn't it? I would have grown up with no parents, as would a lot of children if the weight of breaking those laws still carried today. In those times all the homosexuals would have been put to death along with countless others. Surely the world is heading in a better direction.

If every single person lived 100% by those rules could you imagine what a dull , boring place it would be. Thousands of people would be out of Jobs. We wouldn't need police, the top story in the news if there was any, would be the girl next door giving birth to a 12 pound baby boy. They could fire all the worlds military , there goes a bunch of jobs for all those researchers, plane builders and ship builders. If there is any good in bad, its that it provides thousands of jobs if not millions. Which is why I think we die in the first place. So someone will have that job in the hospital when people are on thier death bed. And the guy down at the funeral home gets to eat too, better than I do, as a matter of fact. And someone will get payed to dig that grave. And someone will get payed for the flowers that go on that grave. And it never seems to end, this cirlce of life.

Isn't it hypocritical that the same individuals who revile at a public display of the Ten Commandments don't mind lining their pockets & bank accounts with those precious items that include the words, "In God We Trust".

Perhaps our coinage & currency will be thier next target, followed by our churches being offensive sites.

I find this list of the Ten Commandments for the New Amerika to be another piece of Christian Propaganda. Sorry, not everything is Satanic, and believe it or not, there are belief structures other than Christianity in which Satan DOES NOT EXIST. I think it's nice satire, but I don't know how others will react. Just my 2 cents.

This is the 10 commandments for the rest of the world outside the US presently.

Now they want to impose it on the US.

The end is near.

The time of the anti-christ is near,

choose your side now and prepare for the final conflict.

I still say what he did was wrong. He snuck this monument into the rotunda in the middle of the night obviously wanting a conflict. He refused to move it to another place(that's all they really wanted) even after 3 different courts told him to. He refused a federal court order, and we, the tax payers, had to pay his fines(thanks Bob Riley). Then we had to pay to have it removed. I'm glad he lost his job, and I hope he has to repay the costs of the fines and removal costs.

Whether the Federal judge shouldn't have gotten involved is a moot point. He did, and you have to follow a federal court order, even if you are a judge. All that can be sorted out later in court. The states can't decide everything for themselves you know. There is a federal minimum wage law, a federal child labor law, and not long ago there was a federal speed limit. The states can't change their laws to conflict with a federal law or ruling. Eventually this will, in one way or another, be decided by the US supreme court. Until they decide they want to discuss it, you have to go by what this federal judge ruled.

Oxmank, I've already taken care of that allegation and disproved it as misinformation. It has been done many times, but a search of my posts for the last three weeks will show a recap.

Bowser, where does the word "promote" get used in the Establishment clause?

As I've asked before, where does the constitution mention "wall of separation"? I'm still waiting. Thanks for the internet link, but I need no link. I've studied this subject for years (the constitution, not just this part of it) the old fashoined way - books.

After you show me where that phrase is, I'll give you a recap of what has been explained many times here. I've got to bookmark those threads as it'd save me alot of time!

This discussion will probably go on forever, which is probably why it is good for the Supreme Court to decide I guess. The sepearation of church and state probably came as a saying from the Establishment Clause it doesn't seem like it was written in the Bill of Rights like that. But it does still stand to reason that the idea is the same. I'll use the same quote:

The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another

"preferring one religion over another"

Think of it this way. If Moore had put a statue of Buddha or a 5200lb statue of the Kuran than there would be a lot of pissed off Christrians right? They'd be touting the first amendmant all over the place. I don't doubt your study of the topic but I think that this is a problem because there a two interpretations of the first amendmant and that is why it is up to the Supreme Court.

Originally posted by Bowser
This discussion will probably go on forever, which is probably why it is good for the Supreme Court to decide I guess. The sepearation of church and state probably came as a saying from the Establishment Clause it doesn't seem like it was written in the Bill of Rights like that. But it does still stand to reason that the idea is the same. I'll use the same quote:

The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another

"preferring one religion over another"

Think of it this way. If Moore had put a statue of Buddha or a 5200lb statue of the Kuran than there would be a lot of pissed off Christrians right? They'd be touting the first amendmant all over the place. I don't doubt your study of the topic but I think that this is a problem because there a two interpretations of the first amendmant and that is why it is up to the Supreme Court.

Bowser, I'm going to shoot straight with you so that you may understand what you do not understand. You have been told bits and pieces, just enough to believe a lie, and you have not an idea where any of it came from, or what in the everlovin' world any of the Founding Fathers meant when they said anything. Follow me on this and learn. I know. I have made it a point to farkin' learn as this is my country and so damned many of my countryment have not a clue I figured at lest one should know!

The little phrase came from a letter, written by Thomas J., to a friend in Dansbury. The friend was a Baptist who did not want some sect (denomination) to be the predominant sect. It was not meant that Chrsitianity was to be separate and apart from the government and that Chrsitianity and Christians had no play in this country. It meant exactly what the 1st amendment's "Establishment Clause" (the first part of the 1st amendment, which dealt with this issue) meant. At no time was it meant to be interpreted that the Judeo-Christian belief was to be separate from the government. As a matter of fact, we were warned not to have non-believers as politicians (But you know us, we never listen to anyone!), we were warned that the only way we would succeed was Judeo-Christian ethics and principles, and the Founders were not afraid to mention, nor were they ridiculed for invoking the name of "God".
No, this is, or was, a Christian nation. Statue of Buddha, or any other God, is immaterial, as this was never meant to be a Buddhist nation, or any other nation other than a Judeo-Christian nation. Do not let the last 50 years of liberal, anti-American, anti-Christian history revisionism lead you astray. Like it or not, agree with it or not, this is the way it is (or, was).

I don't tell you this as a Christian, although I am one, I tell you this as someone who has made it a point to learn, not just about the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, but of alot more to the founding documentation of this nation. The reason? There are too many things that I was told as I grew up, being indoctrinated by the public education system, and too many things that contradicted the constitution in the world of law enforcement. My curiosity was piqued, and I had to find out why things seemed to be as screwed up as a football-bat.
You say this argument can go on and on? I don't choose to argue with those who haven't a clue about what they do not know. All I can tell you is get a copy of the constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Articles of Confederation, a few old history books, the Federalist Papers, the anti-Federalist Papers, and then after you study that material, go and get more.

But, as far as Christianity in this nation, ask yourself a question. Why is it politically correct to attack only Christianity? Why is everything else sacred except that which is moral, traditional, or Christian? And, why is it that courts are becoming extremely left-wing activist, even ruling against sound constitutional judgement, in order to destroy all mention of the One who the Founding Fathers gave us our rights, which are merely protected by law by our documentation.

Another thing to consider. If God gave you your rights, why did government create "Civil Rights"? I'll give you the answer to that one. The rights God gave you, they cannot take away, but they can take away the ones they gave you. If you forget your individual rights are given by God, but they take away the civil ones that give the appearance of being the same, will you remember you still have the original ones? When Bill Clinton said we have to be willing to give up some civil rights to maintain our security, did it occur to you that, whooppee, you still have the rights given to you by your Creator, so Clinton can have those stinkin' artificial ones?

But Thomas, it may have been a Christian nation but it is not anymore. We have very diverse people living here. I really wouldn't like it if during a speech, a president started talking about Jesus or started praying.

The idea that this country was founded upon the principles of Christianity is not true. The original authors of the Constitution intentionally avoided making a declaration of religion, because they didn't want the US to repeat the mistakes from which they were fleeing. They wanted a government formed objectively, without the influence of religion. The only mentions of religion or God in the Constitution, are in Article VI and the 1st Amendment:

Article VI. - The United States
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.

Amendment I - Ratified 12/15/1791
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

In neither case, is anything implied other than their desire for Americans to have religious freedom. In the Declaration of Independence we find the only other reference to God or religion:
"....to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Again, neither statement implies a belief in Christianity, only a belief in a Creator or Supreme Being. It is true that 4 of the primary authors of the Constitution had quite a distaste for Christianity. Here is a quote from each of them on the subject:

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." - James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." - John Adams, letter to John Taylor

"It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentence toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it.
Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore him to the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, the roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and the first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus." - Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, 1820

"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it." - Benjamin Franklin from "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", Nov. 20, 1728

Even though many of the founding fathers did share a Judeo-Christian faith, they did not include their personal faith in the Constitution. They were well aware that religion could only destroy the impartiality necessary to create a free society. While they personally may have subscribed to the ideals of the 10 commandments, they were aware that not everyone else did. They were wise enough realize that if they made any declaration of faith in a particular God, it would end up being used against anyone who didn't believe in that God.

I agree that the whole matter of removing the plaque of the ten commandments from the wall was petty and underhanded, but since it was taken to court (which was the opponent of the plaque's legal right), the judgment of the court was correct. In a government building, there should be no appearance of bias on the part of the officials, including religious bias. Would you object to a judge hanging the Wiccan code of ethics on the wall? Would you be afraid that the judge might deal more harshly with you for being a Christian? Well, it's a two way street.

originally by WhyNot
Isn't it hypocritical that the same individuals who revile at a public display of the Ten Commandments don't mind lining their pockets & bank accounts with those precious items that include the words, "In God We Trust".

The regular use of "In God We Trust" on US coins did not begin until 1908, "In God We Trust" was not made an official motto of the United States until 1956, and the motto did not appear on paper money until 1957.

The Pledge of Allegiance was not written with the term "under God" either. In its original form, it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Between 1924 and 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance was worded:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, during the McCarthy era and communism scare, Congress passed a bill, which was signed into law, to add the words "under God." The current Pledge reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."


The founders of this country DID intend for a separation of Church and State. They did it to protect everyone, the Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Atheists, etc. You cannot expect freedom for yourself, if you are not willing to extend the exact same freedoms to everyone else, whether they agree with you or not.

Clap! Clap! Clap!Clap! Clap! Clap!Clap! Clap! Clap! That was an interesting post Jezebel. If it is really going to come down to choosing sides as the know suggested though, someones freedom is going to be stepped on I assume.

The things that is so starteling to me is, is the fact that the less Christian our nation becomes, the easier it is for the "powers that be" to persuade us into conforming to there global, New World Order agenda. The decline in moral is accepted as an "alternative lifestyle of freedom"....Coming from people whom have no concept of responsibility. Saying that since birth control is around, we no longer need to remain abstinent outside of marriage, or that "it is OK to live a life of immorality, because life would be so boring without it"....When in reality life becomes "boring" after you have sought after anything in where you can gain some sort of personal high to justify your existence as a living being.
The fact is, we have become greedy, ignorant, self centered people...worse than ever before, because our immorality is ACCEPTED as normal modes of behaviour. We have given up our faith in the Lord, and turned our attention towards personal, material and "feel good" gain. Hey, It's OK to be a whore....You have to live it up, ya know! And then we reap what we sow, disease, viruses...CHILDREN! But hey, children arent a big problem anymore, becuase we can kill 'em before they're born!
I fear for those whom do not see what is truly happening, and those whom refuse to see the TRUTH IN JESUS CHRIST, OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR. He warned us of all this. And yet we still remain ignorant, and allow ourselves to fall deeper into a pit so vile and fowl, that we are now very used to the disgusting stench in which we live in, we are even to the point where we defend our godless, disgusting behviour as moving to a new era. Wake Up...You've been decieved....I was decieved as well, but I thank the Lord for his Grace....We need to start praying, because no effort that man can put forth is going to fix the hellish world that has already begun to blind the people that inhibit it. I pray everyone wakes up, but I know only a few will.

John 8:24 "I said therefore unto you , that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."

Originally posted by TgSoe
Clap! Clap! Clap!Clap! Clap! Clap!Clap! Clap! Clap! That was an interesting post Jezebel. If it is really going to come down to choosing sides as the know suggested though, someones freedom is going to be stepped on I assume.

Thank you TgSoe.
Unfortunately, you are right. Even though we all want freedom to live our lives as we wish, many people don't want to allow that same freedom for others. In the end, everyone is either going to have to accept and respect the differences of others completely, or the powerful elite are going to completely suppress those with opposing beliefs.

The fact of the matter is that if Christians want freedom of religion, they must allow it for every other religion, including Satanism. If Heterosexuals want freedom to marry whomever they choose, they must allow homosexuals to do the same. If Republicans want to be able to express their political beliefs freely, they must allow all other political parties to do the same, including Communists. We are based on freedom for ALL, not just freedom for the majority. The government is in place to protect our freedoms, whether or not, those elected agree personally with the beliefs of those they are protecting.
The ONLY reason the government ever has for restricting the freedom of anyone, is when the person or organization being restricted, is/has infringed on the personal freedom or rights of others. If someone obstructs or removes another's rights of Life, Liberty, or Pursuit of Happiness, then they have voluntarily chosen to give up their own rights in exchange. There are no exceptions to this standard, if we want to continue living in a free country. To behave any other way, and still claim to be a "free" country, founded on the principles that ALL men are created equal, and endowed with the inherent rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, would be hypocritical