The cat is out of the bag now. If any of you really thought we had a national news media that was concerned with presenting all sides of an argument and allowing us to think for ourselves, then think again.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/new-york-times-editorial-page-editor-resignation-alex-berenson

You might not like the decisions of the corporation, but what does that have to do with one thinking for themselves unless that's your only source of the truth. Don't like it don't buy it.

The NYT is not just another newspaper. It's the largest paper in the country. It has plainly gone left-wing only and that's not a good thing. For me, thank goodness for Fox News so yeah, I do have another source.

Here's some depressing reading. 24 killed in one weekend in Chicago. Doesn't fit a political narrative so the lefties don't care, but the families of the 24 sure do. We all should.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/platform/amp/2020/6/1/21275944/chicago-weekend-shootings-most-violent-weekend-2020-may-29-june-1?fbclid=IwAR1Msnhx3rc7-n1y-Pb3UligeyOxFul-YSWGVwCruOvkbVrBqjz9MhtXcvY

The NYT is not just another newspaper. It's the largest paper in the country. It has plainly gone left-wing only and that's not a good thing. For me, thank goodness for Fox News so yeah, I do have another source.

Like Fox News is an unbiased media source in the first place and I suspect competitive snipping has a lot to do with that flavor of said article.


Here's some depressing reading. 24 killed in one weekend in Chicago. Doesn't fit a political narrative so the lefties don't care, but the families of the 24 sure do. We all should.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/platform/amp/2020/6/1/21275944/chicago-weekend-shootings-most-violent-weekend-2020-may-29-june-1?fbclid=IwAR1Msnhx3rc7-n1y-Pb3UligeyOxFul-YSWGVwCruOvkbVrBqjz9MhtXcvY

Lots of gang violence fueling the Chicago deaths. Always has been a huge problem in those areas.

Like Fox News is an unbiased media source in the first place and I suspect competitive snipping has a lot to do with that flavor of said article.Find the evidence of bias at Fox. Be specific.


Lots of gang violence fueling the Chicago deaths. Always has been a huge problem in those areas.If it was in your neighborhood, you'd really, really want something done about it.

https://patriot.imgix.net/df76377eb1ef6df1d345c89395c6a8bc95183e11569c8ceb4e 32a94d4834c793.jpg?w=720&auto=format

Find the evidence of bias at Fox. Be specific.

If it was in your neighborhood, you'd really, really want something done about it.

1. It's self evident, so I seldom watch it. Except Chris Wallace and Brent Baer sometimes.

2. Been there done that. Grew up and raised kids in the inner city as well as lived there until I moved to Texas almost 20 years ago. Yes I am experienced.


https://patriot.imgix.net/df76377eb1ef6df1d345c89395c6a8bc95183e11569c8ceb4e 32a94d4834c793.jpg?w=720&auto=format

Nice deceptive LIE! Disobeying a lockdown order, state or local was not really prosecuted to my knowledge but should in no way be conflated or compared to the activity antics of criminals.

It's self evident, so I seldom watch itAs I figured. Crickets.


Nice deceptive LIE! Disobeying a lockdown order, state or local was not really prosecuted to my knowledge You must be asleep. There is one listed below. In my own state we had a looney dem mayor have the police writing tickets to church members who were having an outside service in their cars. Wake up!!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/abbott-issues-executive-order-eliminating-jail-as-punishment-for-violating-coronavirus-restrictions

Just like your partial quote of my words JL, your outrage is over things that have been CORRECTED as your link attests! Telling half the story is akin to lying by omission, or biased at best. That's not crickets my friend, but a futile attempt to change the narrative.

https://www.magnoliastatelive.com/2020/04/13/mississippi-town-says-it-wont-enforce-500-tickets-issued-to-drive-in-churchgoers/


The mayor said the officer who issued the tickets was doing so after receiving multiple complaint calls about the gathering and was thus not targeting the church.
“This whole incident has been taken out of context,” Simmons said. “It’s a misrepresentation of the officers, this council and this mayor.”


Google is your friend if you use it to do your own homework to add HONESTY to the discussion. FACTS, over just FEELINGS.

Yeah. I'm sure people were calling in left and right to complain about people sitting in their cars in a church parking lot.

The "crickets" reference was in regard to you coming up completely empty on your silly charge of bias against Fox News. Nothing. Nada. Rien. Nichts.

Yeah. I'm sure people were calling in left and right to complain about people sitting in their cars in a church parking lot.

The "crickets" reference was in regard to you coming up completely empty on your silly charge of bias against Fox News. Nothing. Nada. Rien. Nichts.

I chose to ignore such a silly ploy about a silly network reporting policy. Such a discussion is irrelevant to me, so I'll take those crickets as a badge of honor that the subject is being dismissed. That's the way you should take it too, as your opinion about the church goers complaints. DISMISSED as irrelevant!


Yeah. I'm sure people were calling in left and right to complain about people sitting in their cars in a church parking lot.

The "crickets" reference was in regard to you coming up completely empty on your silly charge of bias against Fox News. Nothing. Nada. Rien. Nichts.

I chose to ignore such a silly ploy about a silly network reporting policy. Such a discussion is irrelevant to me, so I'll take those crickets as a badge of honor that the subject is being dismissed. That's the way you should take it too, as your opinion about the church goers complaints. DISMISSED as irrelevant!

I chose to ignore such a silly ploy about a silly network reporting policy. Such a discussion is irrelevant to me, so I'll take those crickets as a badge of honor that the subject is being dismissed. That's the way you should take it too, as your opinion about the church goers complaints. DISMISSED as irrelevant!Nah. You just had no clue as to what the answer would be. I hear this silliness all the time. "The NYT is biased?? Oh yeah, well so is Fox News!" Except they don't seem to be able to find examples of bias, just like you can't either.

>SIGH<

I've done my homework...do your own. Or be willing to pay for services rendered...CASH in advance, since you still owe the outstanding debt for building the nation you enjoy by my elders and ancestors.

No more credit or free work. Pay up, or shut up! Or do it your darn self!

Said with love not hate. 8D

so is Fox News!" Except they don't seem to be able to find examples of bias, just like you can't either.

Fox News owned by Rupert Murdoch and once run by Roger Ailes - now gone because of sexual harassment - is easily the worst of any major media utterly failing journalistic principles by rarely straight reporting, almost always spinning sharply to the right-wing and the only source read by 40-50% of conservatives and Trump supporters. That's a major reason most Trump supporters are so ignorant re current events.

With a lineup like Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham, no one expects the truth.

You want examples of bias? Here's a tiny selection.



John Bolton “fundamentally was a man of the left.” (https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2019/sep/13/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlson-falsely-claims-john-bolton-was-man-/) – PANTS ON FIRE

“The president said he’s going to bring in 250,000 (Syrian and Iraqi) refugees into this country.” (https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/26/sean-hannity/250000-syrian-refugees-us-fact-check-trump-hannity/) – PANTS ON FIRE

“Far more children died last year drowning in their bathtubs than were killed accidentally by guns.” (https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/15/tucker-carlson/carlson-guns-dont-kill-people-bathtubs-do/) – PANTS ON FIRE

“NASA scientists fudged the numbers to make 1998 the hottest year to overstate the extent of global warming.” (https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/25/steve-doocy/foxs-doocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-warmi/) – PANTS ON FIRE

Obamacare is “one big fat VA system.” (https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/may/22/kimberly-guilfoyle/guilfoyle-obamacare-one-big-fat-va/) – PANTS ON FIRE

Says Marie Yovanovitch was “dishonest” when she claimed under oath that she never personally responded to an email from a Democratic staffer. But “in fact, it turns out that she did respond.” (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/nov/15/tucker-carlson/fact-checking-tucker-carlsons-false-claim-about-te/) – False

by rarely straight reporting, almost always spinning sharply to the right-wingAlmost always??? Silliness.

As to your links, you can usually find instances of poor fact checking from most opinion journalists. But when you find a situation like now exists at the Times where conservative opinion cannot be allowed, even to the firing of the editor, then you will have a legit gripe. Or when you can find an instance of Fox helping one participant in a debate to the detriment of the other such as happened with CNN, then you have a real complaint.

Here's a little more from CNN to chew on.

https://newspunch.com/fake-news-stories-cnn/

As to your links, you can usually find instances of poor fact checking

You asked for examples of bias. You got examples of bias.

Then you went ahead and changed the subject. And you wonder why anybody ever bothers to answer your questions!

No one has asked you to participate. Stop replying by all means. You will do all of us a favor.

The topic was news bias. I have not changed the subject, but I did provide examples that made you uncomfortable.

This bears repeating. "But when you find a situation like now exists at the Times where conservative opinion cannot be allowed, even to the firing of the editor, then you will have a legit gripe. Or when you can find an instance of Fox helping one participant in a debate to the detriment of the other such as happened with CNN, then you have a real complaint."

Or the media actively working to get Biden nominated at the expense of Sanders and Warren.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/11/corporate-media-bernie-sanders-bias-msnbc-warren-biden

it's very simple . FOX commentators clearly have biases . I don't see it in their news staff .

That's pretty much it. If you watch Fox (rarely for me), you know what you are getting with Hannity, Tucker, etc. It's the hard news that should concern us.

Sanders and Warren suspended their campaigns months ago and have endorsed Biden already. Last years news has been replaced by current events and the voters. Bernie is still collecting delegates to influence the dem platform.

Understandable a socialist magazine would be for the Bern though.

Last years news has been replaced by current events and the voters.Did you notice that ALL of the links for Athos were prior to this year?? Did you bring that up?

Did you notice that ALL of the links for Athos were prior to this year?? Did you bring that up?


You want examples of bias? Here's a tiny selection.

So now you are grading someone else's homework, or nitpicking? Athos said it was a TINY selection.

So now you are grading someone else's homework, or nitpicking?Actually, I was just following your example. "Last years news has been replaced by current events and the voters." But you were able to dodge the question.

There was no time restriction on your question of bias in the media, so you must have been nitpicking, to lower Athos's grade.

There was no time restriction on your question of bias in the mediaThen why did you put one in? You do realize that you were the initial nitpicker???

No one has asked you to participate. Stop replying by all means. You will do all of us a favor.

Aha! Got to you, didn't I? If you don't have an answer, silence the opposition. You must be a terror in your little social circle.

How far up the dufus' arse do you need to be to determine who posts on these pages? If you want to play that game, then here's news about how you are seen here.

You are the most despicable and unwlecome moron to ever disgrace these pages with your lies, evasions, and idiocies. Your racism which is now coming to the fore is especially disgraceful as the country is trying to come to terms with it by truly attempting to understand the black experience. Your stuck-in-the-past notions tell us all we need to know about you.

When you insult me or others, it is a sure tell we are getting to you. Your attempt at shutting up those who see through you is a transparent attempt to make up for your deficiencies.

From your strange positions on abortion and hell, taxes, and race you contribute nothing to this website.

Head, dufus, arse perfectly describes you.

Insult you, little man with big mouth?(Wow. I like that. I've got to find the Choctaw name for that. I'll work on it.) Nah. Not worth it. Just really pity you. You were caught lying about Aquinas, and you've never gotten over it. That's where the poison is coming from, so I don't take it personally. Your ego just can't handle it, and you're running from God as fast as you can go. That's regrettable.

I do hope to use your post above for my Christian youth group presentation, though I'll have to edit out some of your vulgar words. Like I said earlier, you're just a never ending fountain of material. Thanks!

I do hope to use your post above for my Christian youth group presentation, though I'll have to edit out some of your vulgar words. Like I said earlier, you're just a never ending fountain of material. Thanks!

Christian youth group presentation? I sincerely hope thay don't let you anywhere near youth, Christian or otherwise

I do hope to use your post above for my Christian youth group presentation, though I'll have to edit out some of your vulgar words. Like I said earlier, you're just a never ending fountain of material. Thanks!

You're pretty much a one-note moron, repeating over and over the same nonsense.

Your Christian youth organization presentation is priceless. Be sure and tell them how you are so confounded with your bizarre nonsense that most of those fetuses you cry crocodile tears over for being aborted wind up in a hell for all eternity being tortured. Not a very nice picture, is it? Yet it is your firm belief, stated here several times. Be sure and tell them that, ok?

Now, continue with your nastiness. It has become your trademark.

If you watch Fox (rarely for me)

Hahahahaha - another lie, but a funny one! You lie so much, your Christianity is suspect. As noted previously, you are a CINO (Christian In Name Only). Now THAT'S funny!

Athos, take your meds and go to bed. You've gone off the rails.

I do hope to use your post above for my Christian youth group presentation
As a PK and long-time Sunday school and adult Bible class teacher, I cannot begin to imagine how you would weave Athos' response into a Christian youth group presentation without sounding like a crybaby.

I cannot begin to imagine how you would weave Athos' response into a Christian youth group presentation without sounding like a crybaby.Yes, I'm sure you can't.

Athos, take your meds and go to bed. You've gone off the rails.

Hahahaha - Thank you for revealing your nastiness again. It's reassuring.


Yes, I'm sure you can't.

Running off with tail between legs?

Running off with tail between legs?Actually, I was agreeing with her. I'm sure she cannot imagine how to use such a resource. After all, she said she couldn't. It is priceless material. Please keep the spring flowing!!

Actually, I was agreeing with her. I'm sure she cannot imagine how to use such a resource. After all, she said she couldn't. It is priceless material. Please keep the spring flowing!!
And you can't read and comprehend. What I don't understand is how YOU could weave Athos' response into a Christian youth presentation without sounding like a crybaby. "Wah, wah, that mean man was bullying me again last night on a discussion board." I'm sure those youth have a lot more on the ball than you give them credit for. They'll still be snickering as they leave that presentation.

What I don't understand is how YOU could weave Athos' response into a Christian youth presentation without sounding like a crybaby. Can't you see that I'm agreeing with you? You don't understand, but I do, so relax. Material like that is priceless.

Yes indeed. You don't understand. But I do, so relax. Material like that is priceless.
Reading comprehension is a learned skill. Please work on it.

So are thinking and using imagination. Work on them.

Material like that is priceless.

If you really want priceless material, try picking up a Bible and reading the Gospels. You might learn something, which you can present to your youth group.

Thank you for the advice. I'm going through the NT for about the fiftieth time right now. I'll soon be to Matthew 25, the passage you do not believe.

And your advice above is more priceless material. You who don't accept the Bible as authoritative is advising someone to read it. Keep it up!!

You who don't accept the Bible as authoritative...
What does that mean to you, accepting the Bible as authoritative?

It means it takes precedence over other opinions;

Is there a God, the Bible says there is
Does Jesus exist, the Bible says he does
Is man flawed and in need of redemption, the Bible insists this is so
Is redemption available through belief in Jesus, the Bible says it is

These and many other answers are found in the authoritative text of the Bible

Very good answer.

I think it's perfectly fine for true believers to consider their religious books as authoritative. It's just as fine if they do not as well.

You can't have it both ways Tal

These and many other answers are found in the authoritative text of the Bible

What exactly is the "authoritative text"?

You can't have it both ways Tal

Why not? Who decides which way and to what degree they decide how authoritative their religious book is?

Or how one practices their faith in general?

Why not? Who decides which way and to what degree they decide how authoritative their religious book is?

Or how one practices their faith in general?

All excellent questions. I'm interested in what is the authoritative text. You mentioned it, too. I'm sure for paraclete it's the Bible, but I'm interested in which edition/version/language etc., etc. etc.

Why not? Who decides which way and to what degree they decide how authoritative their religious book is?

Or how one practices their faith in general?

Here is the one authoritative text you should take notice of; Jesus said "noone comes to the father but through me", that means all the other books don't have the same authority

All excellent questions. I'm interested in what is the authoritative text. You mentioned it, too. I'm sure for paraclete it's the Bible, but I'm interested in which edition/version/language etc., etc. etc.

Athos, There are some paraphrases, but I use the NIV and the ESV and because there is only one language I understand, an english text. I don't use the KJV although many verses that come to mind can be found there, but the language is archaic and therefore not clear to me. I once ran a Christian bookshop so I am well aware of the differences in the various texts but if you use a parallel Bible you will find the differences are few

I wonder if the same applies for India, Asia, Africa, and other non English countries around the world, given both ancient and modern dialects and language additions and advances over time.

The imperfection of man would seem to allow for imperfect translation and close is good enough?

The imperfection of man would seem to allow for imperfect translation and close is good enough?The accurate transmission of the NT over the centuries was amazingly good. Estimates of the correct wording of the text ranges from 95% up to 98%, and even at that the relatively small portion in question is generally not doctrinally critical. There is, for instance, the latter half of the 16th chapter of Mark. Lose that, and it effects our understanding of the truth of the Gospel message scarcely at all. Same thing is true of the story of the woman caught in adultery. Might add that there has been no effort to conceal any of this. The NASB, for instance, highlights any of those areas of concern for all to see.

Back to the economy, job growth in May was the best ever. Even CNBC had to praise this recovery. "Employment stunningly rose by 2.5 million in May and the jobless rate declined to 13.3%, according to data Friday from the Labor Department that was far better than economists had been expecting and indicated that an economic turnaround could be close at hand.Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had been expecting payrolls to drop by 8.33 million and the unemployment rate to rise to 19.5% from April’s 14.7%. If Wall Street expectations had been accurate, it would have been the worst figure since the Great Depression.


As it turned out, May’s numbers showed the U.S. may well be on the road to recovery after its fastest plunge in history."

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/05/jobs-report-may-2020.html

Athos, There are some paraphrases, but I use the NIV and the ESV and because there is only one language I understand, an english text.

Thanks for reply. By "authoritative text" I thought you meant a particular version. But, if I understand you, you are saying there are two "authoritative texts"? Did you initially mean to say two?

In any case, your answer creates further questions. (This is NOT a challenge to your belief - just trying to figure out your meaning). Would the English text of NIV or ESV be more authoritative than other English versions? You mentioned you only read English, so does that mean Bibles in other languages that you can't read are therefore less authoritative - or are you simply saying authoritative for you, not everybody?

Would your preferred versions be more authoritative than Bibles closer in time and language to the original versions?


I don't use the KJV although many verses that come to mind can be found there, but the language is archaic and therefore not clear to me. I once ran a Christian bookshop so I am well aware of the differences in the various texts but if you use a parallel Bible you will find the differences are few

Actually, the differences from the originals and ancient copies due to so many copyists over the centuries are many, but I agree they they are mostly insignificant for purposes of faith. But that's not the issue here. I'm trying to find out if there is a single authoritative text accepted by the majority of Christians regardless of language.

PS - Please see #211 on Manifestation thread as reply to you on different but related subject. I assume you missed it.

Do you mean an English text, or NT Greek?

As it turned out, May’s numbers showed the U.S. may well be on the road to recovery after its fastest plunge in history."

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/05/jobs...-may-2020.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/05/jobs-report-may-2020.html)

When it comes to the money, good news is good news, but on our way may take a few more of these good news announcements before we really can celebrate. LOL, we should have something good going after pumping trillions into peoples pockets!

but on our way may take a few more of these good news announcements before we really can celebrate. That is certainly true. Still, it was a stunning and unexpected development.


LOL, we should have something good going after pumping trillions into peoples pockets!For most people, it was a total waste of borrowed money that will burden our grandchildren til the day they die. We should all, dems and repubs, hang our heads in shame. It was little more than an attempt to get votes.

That is certainly true. Still, it was a stunning and unexpected development.

For most people, it was a total waste of borrowed money that will burden our grandchildren til the day they die. We should all, dems and repubs, hang our heads in shame. It was little more than an attempt to get votes.

A bi partisan attempt for sure, but that amount of money had to help the numbers somehow, at least in the short term.

Could be. We'll see, but check with your grandkids in thirty or forty years and see how they view it.

Glad you think I'll be around for that. 8D

Could be! I don't know, though. My dear father lived to 101, but the final couple of years were kind of tough, and the final few months were really difficult. I miss him a lot, but I don't regret his passing. It was time. I know where he is.

How much of the debt is being paid by us now?

None. We are only paying the interest. We are borrowing more and more, not repaying.

Then logically the generation holding the ball this generation has made will be the one cussing our incompetence. Print more money, and save the future people from doing it, and they can make their own debts if they didn't learn from our mistakes!

Print more money = jack up inflation.

So what, something or somebody has to eventually get jacked.

Or we could learn to do the responsible thing and pay for what we want.

HOW? CUT WHAT? Pay with what money? How much? How LONG? What are you willing to give up?

HOW? CUT WHAT? Pay with what money? How much? How LONG? What are you willing to give up?You do realize it's coming sooner or later. When the economy falls apart due to an excessive debt load, then the choices we face now will seem tame.

What to cut? Everything. Start with 15% across the board.

What to cut? Everything. Start with 15% across the board.


If you cut 50% you might be ahead after 10 years, meanwhile, the nation would fall apart around you, you are addicted to pork and welfare. You have fallen for the debt trap, human nature to want what you don't have. Where would you cut 15%, the military? medicare? welfare? foreign aid? economics says instant recession

50% is ridiculous. 15% is do-able. Wouldn't be fun, and it would need to be done over two or three years, but we really have no other choices. We can have unpleasant surgery now, or face death later. I think it would boost our economy when business leaders see that we are now being run by grown-ups.

"Across the board" means everything. We cannot continue to borrow hundreds of billions every year. At some point sources will dry up, and then what? I'm not willing to put off the unpleasant and end up some day down the road in disaster.

The military would be a good place to start, and it will necessitate telling countries like Australia that we can no longer defend the entire world, so other nations (like yours) will have to start doing what they should have been doing 30 years ago and spend enough to be able to defend themselves. We spend 3.4% of GDP on defense. You guys spend less than 2% which is also true of the European nations. It would cheer my heart to see other nations have to man up and pick up the slack.

The military would be a good place to start, and it will necessitate telling countries like Australia that we can no longer defend the entire world, so other nations (like yours) will have to start doing what they should have been doing 30 years ago and spend enough to be able to defend themselves. We spend 3.4% of GDP on defense. You guys spend less than 2% which is also true of the European nations. It would cheer my heart to see other nations have to man up and pick up the slack.

What you spend on "defence" is ridiculous and fuels an arms race from which you profit, You say we should spend more but spending is 2% with expensive acquisition programs for aircraft, ships, submarines and we have no enemies, and we host american bases which you need to defend because we don't need to. You are very one eyed, but we are not Europe, we don't have Russians on our doorstep, so how about you spend 2% like the rest of us, but that sort of reduction is only a few billion, you need many more cuts and you can't afford them. Whole industries would collapse. By the way, we have a mutual defence treaty with the US and so far it has cost us much more than it has cost you with our participation in every US war so, as we say here, up your nose with a rubber hose

Having trouble distinguishing between our friend here from the dufus sometimes Clete? Me too.

Cutting 15% across the board means cutting PEOPLE who provide the goods and services those cuts represent, so it's not just a matter of money, which won't yield that balanced budget or tackle the debt in a few years. Especially not in the midst of a budget busting pandemic, where health and financial security of it's citizens is severely threatened already. I mean 15% of the folks are already unemployed so adding to that number doesn't solve the problem, just makes it worse both short term and long term.

We need investment to grow our way out of this crisis while half the country languishes in poverty not contributing to the well being of the country, so say conservatives, as we enrich the rich, and keep the poor poorer, and watch sickness and death rise even further.

I think we do better voting JL and the dufus out and get better managers to begin with. Keeping half the country on the bench during the big game and blaming the water boy for being down at halftime, is not the makings of a good coach. Fire the coach!

Tal, complain all you want, but we either have to increase taxes ENORMOUSLY, decrease spending considerably, do some combination of those two, or keep driving towards the edge of the cliff at an ever faster speed. Take your pick.

Clete, I would close our bases in Australia. I would reduce our number of foreign commitments and make it very clear who our true allies are. One wonderful effect of this would be the nations who treat us with disdain would have to start paying their own way.


so how about you spend 2% like the rest of us, but that sort of reduction is only a few billion,Not very good at math, are you? If we went to 2%, it would be a reduction of about 40%, or more than 200 billion dollars.

I would close our bases in Australia. I would reduce our number of foreign commitments and make it very clear who our true allies are.

Does that consider the 80,000+ Australians who supported the US forces by fighting along side them from Korea to Afghanistan with 5,000 casualties and 1,000 killed?

Tal, complain all you want, but we either have to increase taxes ENORMOUSLY, decrease spending considerably, do some combination of those two, or keep driving towards the edge of the cliff at an ever faster speed. Take your pick.

I still like my idea better and that starts with voting out you and the dufus and your tired old ideas of divide and conquer, and invest in some home improvements that unites the country, and restructures the debts to palatable levels, and doesn't make more enemies from our friends, because you want to dictate, dominate and assimilate, rather than negotiate, cooperate, and execute a plan that works for all, like it says in the founding documents.

I would go along with your raising taxes enormously, since it would be amusing to watch the ones that could afford such a strategy to go along with it. Or the jobs lost from cutting spending that adds to the poor folks. The dufus has already insulted and disdained our allies and smoozed our enemies, so yeah let me know how withdrawing troops and closing bases works for you after all them soldiers get redeployed to the soup lines.

I think I may well have the votes to get what I want dude, and you can finally get some fresh air from your current position shoulder deep, and can finally let your nose go, AFTER you vote for Biden!

Then we can have an honest discussion about REAL solutions to the problems and issues that are growing steadily. Or should I just grab your conservative ankles and drag you into this century!

Take your pick!*

*Nothing personal so don't get your drawers in a bunch 8D

I still like my idea better and that starts with voting out you and the dufus and your tired old ideas of divide and conquer, and invest in some home improvements that unites the country, and restructures the debts to palatable levels, and doesn't make more enemies from our friends, because you want to dictate, dominate and assimilate, rather than negotiate, cooperate, and execute a plan that works for all, like it says in the founding documents.

I would go along with your raising taxes enormously, since it would be amusing to watch the ones that could afford such a strategy to go along with it.

Your plan. 1. Elect big spending democrats which will increase the debt even more. 2. Raise taxes a lot on people not named Tal. 3. Ignore reality at all costs. 4. Live in a fantasy world as long as possible until in crumbles and reality floods in with in a nasty manner.

Does that consider the 80,000+ Australians who supported the US forces by fighting along side them from Korea to Afghanistan with 5,000 casualties and 1,000 killed?
He doesn't consider that at all or the thousands who were killed in Vietnam and Korea, because he has a narrow selfish view of history and what he says is America should withdraw from the world and sit on their blessed assurance as they did before WWII. If they are going to do this they should stop antagonising Russia and China

He doesn't consider that at all or the thousands who were killed in Vietnam and Korea, because he has a narrow selfish view of history and what he says is America should withdraw from the world and sit on their blessed assurance as they did before WWII. If they are going to do this they should stop antagonising Russia and China.You said you have no enemies. Why should we have bases there? At any rate, my concern is for our country first. We cannot continue spending money like it grows on trees. Cuts are coming, one way or the other.

You said you have no enemies. Why should we have bases there? At any rate, my concern is for our country first. We cannot continue spending money like it grows on trees. Cuts are coming, one way or the other.

Your bases here are putting your country first by allowing you to have bases closer to Asia and listening posts. You don't know how vast the pacific is and you occupy a few islands, a legacy of WWII as are all your overseas bases excepting the ones here. You reconquered the Philippines and they kicked you out, should tell you something about faithfull allies. This is the one place you didn't conquer and yet you would throw us aside like a used doormat in the name of America first, but when has America ever been second in your thinking

Got to balance the budget. You say you have no enemies, so I take your word for it. Doesn't sound like we are needed.

Listening posts? I think Okinawa is a lot closer to what we would need to listen to. Perhaps you could go from 2% of GDP to 2.5% of GDP and do some listening yourselves.

Got to balance the budget. You say you have no enemies, so I take your word for it. Doesn't sound like we are needed.

Listening posts? I think Okinawa is a lot closer to what we would need to listen to. Perhaps you could go from 2% of GDP to 2.5% of GDP and do some listening yourselves.

No, you are not needed here. We do enough listening ourselves and what we hear we don't like. Our priorities are not yours and yours are not ours. We have to put up with the stupid backwash of your black lives matter protests. We have balanced budgets so won't unbalance them for your objectives, only our own, which is looking after our people. We don't need to shout to the world that our people come first, and as we don't have an empire to shackle we don't need to spend more. We can have universal health care and a 2% military budget, why don't you try it? your might like it. Oh I forget, you have to balance your budget first, so maybe never

If we are not needed there, then what are you complaining about? See ya later.

Like the dufus you seems so self absorbed you cannot respect the bonds built from shared experiences that worked out well for us and our allies.

To want to have a balanced budget is "self absorbed"??? And, of course, it has to be "Like Trump." Have you no ability to process information that does not involve expressing your hatred of Trump? I've never come across someone so incapable of making a simple comment without having to throw in, "I hate Trump" just about every fourth word. "We need to reduce spending." "Oh yeah, well I hate Trump."
"We should cut military spending." "Oh yeah, well I hate Trump."
"I'm going to the store to buy some groceries." "Oh yeah, well I hate Trump."
"I have an idea about cutting spending." "Oh yeah, well Trump is an idiot and so are you."

It really gets old. Everything is not intensely personal. Everything does not center around Trump. Many ideas are independent of him, so perhaps we could discuss how to cut spending non-politically. It is coming. You can be assured of that.

Might add that we don't owe Australia anything. They'd be speaking Japanese today if we hadn't bailed them out in WW2. I'm not prepared for us to go bankrupt to keep a military force in a country that only spends 2% of GDP on its own defense.

Why are you mad at me for pointing out you sound like the dufus? More and more everyday. That's not my fault or problem. Case in point...


Might add that we don't owe Australia anything. They'd be speaking Japanese today if we hadn't bailed them out in WW2. I'm not prepared for us to go bankrupt to keep a military force in a country that only spends 2% of GDP on its own defense.

If we are not needed there, then what are you complaining about? See ya later.

Because you don't go away, you keep coming and making demands like freedom of navigation demands, we have never had any trouble navigating the south china sea, maybe because we send freighters not warships. You don't realise that what you do makes it more difficult for everyone while you sit back and pontificated from the WH

Why are you complaining? I'm suggesting we leave. Like I said, "See ya later".


Why are you mad at me for pointing out you sound like the dufus?Thank you for proving my point.

Thank you for proving my point.

It was a question and whatever your point was is lost in your over exaggerations which the dufus does all the time. He always feels attacked (Most times he is correct!) when others disagree with him so he lashes out with nonsense...like you do so why are you mad at me for pointing that out? That was the question.

1. Show me my exaggerations. I'd love to see them.
2. I never mentioned Trump. You just had to involve him just so everyone can see how much you hate him. Well OK.
3. This was your original STATEMENT. "Like the dufus you seems so self absorbed you cannot respect the bonds built from shared experiences that worked out well for us and our allies." Just shows once again how much of your mind is occupied by Trump. It's like a love affair except it's based on hatred.

I love that Australia is our allies . Despite the rhetoric they always put up when it counts . If I have not made my position clear ;there should be an alliance of all former Brit colonies in a common interest alliance .No other freedom loving peoples quite share our values . btw . The Brits have a statue of Cromwell that no one dare think of taking down even though he was responsible for the impaling of Catholics . You do NOT destroy your history like the Taliban,ISIS and the left would have .

I'm fine with doing what you suggest. The bigger question is, how do we get to a balanced budget?

I think that our alliances both military, intelligence, trade and many other areas are important enough not to make public pronouncements against them, and the dufus doesn't quite get that. Partners don't threaten each other do they? I can do without such tactics myself.

So how are we going to balance the budget?

a robust economy is a starter . then if you are going to make cuts in foreign policy start with the money that goes to enemies. As far as the Aussies go ;they don't get free passes ;far from it . The only reason Aussie treasure and blood went to Afghanistan was because of provisions of ANZUS . Yes we have bases there . But the Aussies also have 580 defense personnel in 31 states embedded into the US military . The Aussies conduct joint defense exercises like 'Talisman Saber ' with the US forces and other alliance forces . This exercise occurs in Aussie's territory every couple years, and would not be possible without the support and cooperation of the locals . The Aussies have been our only ally which has had our back in every conflict we have been in since WWII .

The Aussies spend 2% of GDP on defense. The European "allies" spend a similar amount. We spend almost 3.5%. That has to change.

You can only change what we spend.

The Aussies spend 2% of GDP on defense. The European "allies" spend a similar amount. We spend almost 3.5%. That has to change.

Here we go, the imperialists telling us how we should behave, if we need a standing army of a million men we would quickly get one as we did in WWII, the only reason our expenditure is at the level it is is we don't keep a million men standing around, instead our standing army are hard core special forces who I seem to recall spearheaded your incursion into Iraq. Our expenditure is appropriate and has been increased from the days of socialist government. Yes your military expenditure has to change, you have too many aircraft carrier groups wandering the world

I don't care what you do, but I have no plans on bankrupting our country to defend countries that don't want to adequately defend themselves.

I don't care what you do, but I have no plans on bankrupting our country to defend countries that don't want to adequately defend themselves.

Is this the latest Trump talking/tweeting point, you want to reduce your bases in Europe, go ahead, it doesn't worry me, you want to reduce your bases in Asia, go ahead, it doesn't worry me. A little less argy, bargy in the world is a good thing and afterall you need the troops on the street to control all those black people

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/trump-furious-as-seattle-protesters-take-over-copfree-autonomous-zone/news-story/3189dc48b40adc24d8fc569108902449

tell me is taking Hydoxychloroquine a prelude to madness?

we need to move our troops in Europe to Poland and stop occupying German beer halls ..

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-...fc569108902449 (https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/trump-furious-as-seattle-protesters-take-over-copfree-autonomous-zone/news-story/3189dc48b40adc24d8fc569108902449)

tell me is taking Hydoxychloroquine a prelude to madness? as Napoleon said ;a whiff of grape would take care of that autonomous zone

We need to balance the budget. Simple concept.

as Napoleon said ;a whiff of grape would take care of that autonomous zone

which autonomous zone do you speak of? Germany. Poland, I agree that you should vacate German beer halls, but invade Poland, no many have tried that route and it always leads to disaster

I think he was referring to Seattle.

https://scontent.fmem1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/103736476_10157585537152297_6174032005267217240_n. jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_ohc=MbyuPEfYWi8AX-snTnO&_nc_ht=scontent.fmem1-2.fna&oh=68b097496bafb8dae934204d70ec1b64&oe=5F09CB57

Won't need cannons . The CHAZians are eating their own inside the autonomous zone . The guy with the AK is calling himself a warlord . The residents inside the zone(it is a residential neighborhood) have had all their liberties taken away and the moron mayor is calling it a block party . This cannot last .

@JL, whose holding you or anyone else responsible for the past? What's does that have to do with acknowledging the cruelty and atrocities and making redress for it?


Won't need cannons . The CHAZians are eating their own inside the autonomous zone . The guy with the AK is calling himself a warlord . The residents inside the zone(it is a residential neighborhood) have had all their liberties taken away and the moron mayor is calling it a block party . This cannot last .

It won't and negotiations are at the early stage of a peaceful solution.

What's to negotiate ? They are illegally occupying a police station ,a public park ,and a residential neighborhood holding taxpaying residents hostage . Get out now. I told you about what happened to the bonus army for a reason. Businesses in the surrounding blocks are hiring private security firms because of the risk on the occupation expanding into their neighborhoods and knowing the police have been emasculated .

I know what their demands are .... abolish the police ;free health care and free education. Typical progressive pabulum. Since they are autonomous they should just declare that the law in their occupied territory and provide it themselves. And speaking of contradictions ;the very first thing they did was to set up border walls to control who enters their territory . and now a quick message from Raz the warlord of CHAZ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clZ5pdrc_X8

Art resembling life? When you can't get Batman, you let the locals handle the mess.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-06-12/q-a-whats-next-for-seattle-protesters-autonomous-zone

This is a bigger scandal brewing in my opinion.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mnuchin-secrecy-on-bailout-sparks-rift-with-congress/ar-BB15ptE7?ocid=msedgntp

the very first thing they did was to set up border walls to control who enters their territory
They were copying Trump with his black fence around the WH.

@JL, whose holding you or anyone else responsible for the past? What's does that have to do with acknowledging the cruelty and atrocities and making redress for it?You do realize that your second point negates your first point?

You do realize that your second point negates your first point?

Only if you take it personally or fail to acknowledge the past and accept that's what happened. Let me chain, shackle, and beat you, for a few hundred years while destroying your language and culture, selling your kids and raping your women, and lynching and castrating the men and adding segregation and discriminitory patterns and practices and see how you turn out after 400 years of abuse, cruelty, and atrocities.

Art resembling life? or life resembling art . In this case Bane promising the city will survive while his secret agenda is to blow the whole thing up is very fitting .

As far as the bailout goes . Tossing billions of dollars here there and everywhere ;your bound to see inefficiencies ,fraud and corruption . Congress hastily passed a secret funding bill that no one got a chance to read ,that no one wanted the read . All they really wanted to say is 'we did something ' and waive a bunch of monopoly money around . (there is art to imitate in this one too) . Then they act surprised when some of the money ends up in hands they did not intend it to go . duh

Here is the art ;also from a Batman movie .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqey_c0SulI

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom/vgo/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by tomder55 https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom/vgo/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?p=3854137#post3854137)
the very first thing they did was to set up border walls to control who enters their territory



They were copying Trump with his black fence around the WH.

perhaps ;but their actions is a complete contradiction of their desire for open borders .

Only if you take it personally or fail to acknowledge the past and accept that's what happened. Let me chain, shackle, and beat you, for a few hundred years while destroying your language and culture, selling your kids and raping your women, and lynching and castrating the men and adding segregation and discriminitory patterns and practices and see how you turn out after 400 years of abuse, cruelty, and atrocities.And then set up a welfare program for fifty years that enslaves the descendants of those people to government handouts to the tune of several trillion dollars over the years, and accomplished what two centuries of slavery could not do: the destruction of the black family.

And then set up a welfare program for fifty years that enslaves the descendants of those people to government handouts to the tune of several trillion dollars over the years, and accomplished what two centuries of slavery could not do: the destruction of the black family.
So what should have been done instead?


perhaps ;but their actions is a complete contradiction of their desire for open borders .
How well is that fence working for Trump, that is, how willing are people to vote for someone who hides when the going gets tough?

or life resembling art . In this case Bane promising the city will survive while his secret agenda is to blow the whole thing up is very fitting .

As far as the bailout goes . Tossing billions of dollars here there and everywhere ;your bound to see inefficiencies ,fraud and corruption . Congress hastily passed a secret funding bill that no one got a chance to read ,that no one wanted the read . All they really wanted to say is 'we did something ' and waive a bunch of monopoly money around . (there is art to imitate in this one too) . Then they act surprised when some of the money ends up in hands they did not intend it to go . duh

Here is the art ;also from a Batman movie .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqey_c0SulI

I actually agree but substitute bane with the dufus MAGA cry, and no excuse for Mnuchin keeping the money list secret, or the disaster in Georgia voting day.


And then set up a welfare program for fifty years that enslaves the descendants of those people to government handouts to the tune of several trillion dollars over the years, and accomplished what two centuries of slavery could not do: the destruction of the black family.

More fake news exaggerated for ideological affect. You know nothing of the black family or how it has survived through cruelty and atrocities that you seek to ignore.

You know nothing of the black family or how it has survived through cruelty and atrocities that you seek to ignore.Know nothing?

1. The out of wedlock birth rate is 74% for black Americans.
2. A black American is six times more likely to be murdered than a white American, and nearly always by another black American. In nearly half of those murders, no suspect is ever identified.
3. Black students score considerably lower on standardized tests than do white students. That has been true for decades.
4. Black men, primarily young black men, commit nearly half of the murders in our country.
5. Among college students, the six-year graduation rate for black male students attending public colleges and universities was 35 percent, compared with 46 percent for Latino and 59 percent for white male students.

No, my friend. I know more than you think. The difference is that I'm not willing to just blow it off and say, "Who cares?" I do care, and I think we should do something about it.


So what should have been done instead?We should have made great efforts to have color-blind laws and opportunities. We should have given no money at all to people who are mentally and physically healthy. We should make heroes of people who overcome difficulty. We should honor family and education. We should have kept the Ten Commandments on the walls of every public school and talked about them frequently with reverence.

We should have made great efforts to have color-blind laws and opportunities. We should have given no money at all to people who are mentally and physically healthy. We should make heroes of people who overcome difficulty. We should honor family and education.
So let's start now. Certainly Trump will agree. *gag*

We should have kept the Ten Commandments on the walls of every public school and talked about them frequently with reverence.
Absolutely not!

I actually agree but substitute bane with the dufus MAGA cry, and no excuse for Mnuchin keeping the money list secret, or the disaster in Georgia voting day.
Pennsylvania is still counting those silly mail in ballots more than 2 weeks after the primary ballot where the outcome was already decided. Georgia Dems and national Dems are howling about voter suppression in their primary . Both could be key swing states in November .It is critical that both states have a clear outcome on election night . If recent elections is any indicator it will be lawsuit after lawsuit, charge after charge (whether any basis in fact exists), all whipped up by the media to get a show going, and the right candidate to win. The last few weeks may well have been a dress rehearsal .

How well is that fence working for Trump, that is, how willing are people to vote for someone who hides when the going gets tough? Biden has been in his basement for weeks ;only seen when they can wind him up ,strictly control his script ,and only until the meds they give him are working . Trump will be in Tulsa in a week . Already there are ticket requests for over 300,000 . As far Trump going to the WH bunker ;I believe the secret service gave him no choice .

So let's start now. Well, I am surprised that you would agree to not giving money to those who are mentally and physically healthy. That's progress!!

Well, I am surprised that you would agree to not giving money to those who are mentally and physically healthy. That's progress!!
There are other, better ways to help them.

There are other, better ways to help them.We agree again. Just transferring money from one American to another who does nothing to earn it is a pretty bad idea.

We agree again. Just transferring money from one American to another who does nothing to earn it is a pretty bad idea.
And they can't drive on the roads my taxes have paid for. Ooops, they probably don't have cars. Okay, they can't take public transportation and ride on the streets my taxes have paid for. Ha!

If they have a car, they pay gas taxes. If they live somewhere, they pay, either directly or indirectly, property taxes. That's what is primarily used for highways and bridges. Ha! But even if that was not the case, it is not a direct transfer of money. Lots and lots of difference.

Differences without distinctions I might add. The whole notion of what you would or wouldn't do is moot since the law requires meeting certain criteria for most services, benefits, or assistance. Your state and local governments are authorized to administer those programs. not some group with no legal authority.

Looks like you got outvoted in your state or location. You could organize a protest...against welfare, abortion, or black on black crime.

We should have kept the Ten Commandments on the walls of every public school and talked about them frequently with reverence.
Absolutely not!

what is your objection to displaying the ten commandments, do you have some silly idea that the words of God have no place in daily life?

against welfare, abortion, or black on black crime.I'll have to. You don't seem to have the stomach for it.

what is your objection to displaying the ten commandments, do you have some silly idea that the words of God have no place in daily life?
They don't belong on the wall of a public building. Then, by that token, sharia law and plural marriage should be permitted.

Plus, Jesus replaced the ten commandments with two greater ones.

They don't belong on the wall of a public building. Then, by that token, sharia law and plural marriage should be permitted.The posting of the Ten Commandments was done to illustrate God's moral law. It applies to Jews, Moslems, and Christians alike. It was a terrible mistake to take them down.


Plus, Jesus replaced the ten commandments with two greater ones.No, he didn't. He summarized the ten into two, but at no time did he say he was replacing them.

As for polygamy, now that we have cheapened marriage with gay marriage, how much longer do you think it will be before polygamy is allowed?

The posting of the Ten Commandments was done to illustrate God's moral law. It applies to Jews, Moslems, and Christians alike. It was a terrible mistake to take them down.
This isn't a Christian nation. No commandments on public walls. Check the Constitution.

This isn't a Christian nation. No commandments on public walls. Check the Constitution.

Yes it is a nation that has lost it's soul and the commandments it follows are those of men, not God. When they formed that constitution they placed man above God and today you see the result

I'll have to. You don't seem to have the stomach for it.

Your approach is not mine, nor are your priorities and positions to my liking, and I'm sure you don't have the stomach for some of my positions, approaches, and issues either.

Should I eat your donuts and drink your coffee too? Nothing wrong with my stomach.


what is your objection to displaying the ten commandments, do you have some silly idea that the words of God have no place in daily life?

Public schools are not the place for religious displays unless you allow every other religion that same option. Even Christians object to religious displays in public schools. There are religious schools to send your kids too if that's what you want. Public schools and government building should have no bias for any religion. They already accommodate private and group prayer, but you want to make them an extension of a church, mosque, or synagogues?

There is nothing in the Constitution to prohibit the posting of the Ten Commandments. SCOTUS blew it on that one. By their logic, we would have to do away with teaching the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Well, we certainly can't have all that religious talk about being "created" and having a "Creator". Those men realized early on that you cannot have equality or inalienable rights without God.

There is nothing in the Constitution to prohibit the posting of the Ten Commandments. SCOTUS blew it on that one. By their logic, we would have to do away with teaching the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Well, we certainly can't have all that religious talk about being "created" and having a "Creator". Those men realized early on that you cannot have equality or inalienable rights without God.

it seems to have been forgotten jl

You should read more, as the Establishment clause of the first amendment expressly prohibits the promotion of any religion. Public schools are a government function.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

Separation of church and state and if you can have the 10 commandments then would you be okay with Sharia rules, or Hindi rules next to them?

The establishment clause forbids the Federal government from having a state religion ...period . Jefferson’s belief that the First Amendment erected a wall between church and state (his opinion that is not found anywhere in the text of the 1st amendment )did not reflect the popular sentiment at the time the framers drafted the First Amendment. The framers did not contemplate real separation of church and state when they drafted the establishment clause they only wanted to forbid an established national church.


The courts are no help . In the same 2005 session the Court upheld the removal of a Kentucky display and then allowed a Texas display . (McCreary County v. ACLU and Van Orden v. Perry).

In fact the courts have mixed decisions in all types of establishment clause cases . As an example ; some jerk objected to the display at the 9-11 museum of the 9-11 cross that the firefighters at the WTC had created out of beams from the towers . The 2nd Circuit Court in NYC said it was permissible . Was the hanging of that cross in a Federal Museum a violation of the establishment clause ? NO ! And yet that cross represents a religion.

Clarence Thomas in 2011 tried to get SCOTUS to agree on establishing a clear standard for judging religious displays on government property. He said disjointed SCOTUS“jurisprudence has confounded the lower courts and rendered the constitutionality of displays of religious imagery on government property anyone’s guess.” He criticized the courts failure to implement “a clear, workable standard” for establishment clause cases. He explained that the lack of a clear standard has resulted in arbitrary decisions and “wildly divergent outcomes.”

There is nothing in the Constitution to prohibit the posting of the Ten Commandments. SCOTUS blew it on that one. By their logic, we would have to do away with teaching the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Well, we certainly can't have all that religious talk about being "created" and having a "Creator". Those men realized early on that you cannot have equality or inalienable rights without God.
The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Tal said it so well that it bears repeating: "Separation of church and state and if you can have the 10 commandments then would you be okay with Sharia rules, or Hindi rules next to them?"

The Founding Fathers were mostly Deists (NOT Christian). They believed in A creator and that all men (hmm...) had been given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In a letter dated January 1, 1802, [Deist] Thomas Jefferson wrote: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions...."

I think we can all find this interesting.

https://abuaminaelias.com/ten-commandments-in-islam/


These commandments are among the core teachings of Judaism and Christianity that are taught to children at an early age, and all of them are included within the teachings of Islam. Some believe these commands go back as far as the seven laws of Noah, peace and blessings be upon him...As we can see, the Ten Commandments are entirely compatible with Islam and they are, in reality, the essence of all divine revelations. They can be the best point of departure for sharing Islam with Jews and Christians, and working together in fulfillment of our ethical obligations...

We are more alike than different even with the AGE difference.

The posting of the Ten Commandments was done to illustrate God's moral law.


The Famous Ten Commandments are famous enough, but not much of a moral code.



Number 1 - I am God. All other gods are fake. (Not a lot of morality in that one)

Number 2 - Don't make images of anything, for I am a jealous God. (God the art critic)

Number 3 - No cursing. (Hmmmm)

Number 4 -Worship me every Sunday. (Morality?)

Number 5 -Honor your parents. (A nice one)

Numbers 6 thru 10 - The shalt nots – Don't kill, commit adultery, steal, lie and don't try to keep up with the Joneses)

They must have had a lot of killing, fooling around, stealing, lying, and envy – else why include those? Sounds more like a code of law than morality.

This is tongue-in-cheek but I hope the point was made.


It applies to Jews, Moslems, and Christians alike. It was a terrible mistake to take them down.

Hardly terrible. I doubt it made a bit of difference. If you want your children to know them, home is a far, far better place for them to learn about the Ten Commandments.

Apparently, you don't think they apply to other religions. As others have asked, what about them? Do you just leave them out, or do they get to post their religious material?

In a letter dated January 1, 1802, [Deist] Thomas Jefferson wrote: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions...." 1802 was 15 years after the establishment of the Constitution . The framers had the good sense to send Jefferson the Francophile to France on a diplomatic assignment so that he wouldn't be around during the debate and ratification. It does not matter what beliefs the framers had. They represented a Christian people who's ancestors in many cases left Europe because state oppression of religious liberty . The establishment clause prevented a state church like the Church of England.

It does not matter what beliefs the framers had. They represented a Christian people

WHOA!!! That first sentence doesn't exactly work with that second sentence.


The establishment clause prevented a state church like the Church of England.

The clause makes no mention of a "State Church".

right it prohibits the STATE from the establishment of a religion . Thanks for the technicality correction. It also technically applies to a to a congressional act . But yeah it's all been muddied by the passing of the 14th

You should read more, as the Establishment clause of the first amendment expressly prohibits the promotion of any religion.No, it doesn't. It prohibits the establishment of a national religion. Not the same thing.

I understand that the issue can be a difficult one. I view the Ten Commandments as a sort of national agreement that we consider these issues to be important moral values. We acknowledged the existence of God in the Declaration of Independence, so to further make that acknowledgement would not seem to be an issue with me. Don't commit adultery. Could we use that now? Don't steal. Kind of important. Don't commit murder. BLM likes that one. Don't covet your neighbor's possessions. That would solve many problems. Honor your parents. Well, that's needed big time. Don't bear false witness. Pretty important I'd say. So yeah, those are foundational moral principles.

Jefferson was speaking more of protecting the church from state interference than from prohibiting the feds from being favorable towards the practice of religion.

If government powers cannot reach so far as opinions, then why do we have hate crime legislation?

Jefferson was speaking more of protecting the church from state interference than from prohibiting the feds from being favorable towards the practice of religion. correct which is covered under the free exercise clause.

No, it doesn't. It prohibits the establishment of a national religion. Not the same thing.
That is why this is not a Christian nation.


We acknowledged the existence of God in the Declaration of Independence, so to further make that acknowledgement would not seem to be an issue with me.
Many religions, AND Deists, acknowledge the existence of God or a Higher Power.

Jefferson was speaking more of protecting the church from state interference than from prohibiting the feds from being favorable towards the practice of religion.
No! Just the opposite is true. Jefferson was a Deist. His concern was to protect the state from religion.

No, it doesn't. It prohibits the establishment of a national religion. Not the same thing.

Yes, it does. It prohibits the establishment of religion. Period. A national religion would be an established religion. Prohibited.


I view the Ten Commandments as a sort of national agreement

Nobody else does.


We acknowledged the existence of God in the Declaration of Independence

We acknowledge the "CREATOR" in the Declaration. Jefferson couldn't have made his deliberate non-use of the Christian God more obvious.


Don't commit adultery. Could we use that now? Don't steal. Kind of important. Don't commit murder. BLM likes that one. Don't covet your neighbor's possessions. That would solve many problems. Honor your parents. Well, that's needed big time. Don't bear false witness. Pretty important I'd say. So yeah, those are foundational moral principles.

No they're not. They do not appear in the Constitution so they are not "foundational". They are codes of behavior (moral, if you will) that are found in every civilization ever found on the planet. You are not even using them here as moral - you are using them as political ammo for your purposes - a kind of blasphemy.


Jefferson was speaking more of protecting the church from state interference than from prohibiting the feds from being favorable towards the practice of religion.

Wow, you sure got it wrong with this one. Jefferson, a man of the 1700s, was acutely aware of the damage a powerful religion could do to a nation. The religious wars in Europe were a part of his intellectual background. He wanted to avoid that at all costs so he made sure religion would have no favored or established place in government.


If government powers cannot reach so far as opinions, then why do we have hate crime legislation?

For the same reason we have murder as a crime - it's bad for society.

Yes, it does. It prohibits the establishment of religion. Period. A national religion would be an established religion. Prohibited.Pay attention. The dispute was over the term "promotion" of religion, not "establishment". They do not mean the same thing.


Nobody else does.How could you possibly know that?


We acknowledge the "CREATOR" in the Declaration. Jefferson couldn't have made his deliberate non-use of the Christian God more obvious.I didn't say he was referring to the Christian God. Pay attention!! The "Creator" is plainly a reference to God.


No they're not. They do not appear in the Constitution so they are not "foundational". They are codes of behavior (moral, if you will) that are found in every civilization ever found on the planet. You are not even using them here as moral - you are using them as political ammo for your purposes - a kind of blasphemy.There is very little in the Constitution regarding specific crimes. They are referred to frequently in both federal and state codes.


Wow, you sure got it wrong with this one. Jefferson, a man of the 1700s, was acutely aware of the damage a powerful religion could do to a nation. The religious wars in Europe were a part of his intellectual background. He wanted to avoid that at all costs so he made sure religion would have no favored or established place in government.

And yet he clearly attributed both equality and inalienable rights to the existence of a Creator?? Strange, isn't it? No God..no equality. No God..no rights.


For the same reason we have murder as a crime - it's bad for society.You completely missed the point. If the government should not be about opinions, and hate is an opinion, then crimes should not be categorized by hate.

crimes should not be categorized by hate.

A hate crime is a crime motivated by prejudice against a group.

Which is an opinion. "In my opinion, group X are all nutty." If government is not supposed to be about opinions, then why would we consider a person's prejudices?

I didn't say he was referring to the Christian God. Pay attention!! The "Creator" is plainly a reference to God.
So that means Allah, Yahweh, Brahma, the Great Spirit, Krishna, Ahura Mazda, and Jah also qualify.

Not in American culture. I think it's a very fair statement to say that the Ten Commandments represent the religious tradition of our country. To post them on a school wall is far removed from establishing a national religion. I think our children need to know that some things are wrong, not because an adult says so, but because God says so.

Jefferson and the founders would have laughed at your suggestion.

I think it's a very fair statement to say that the Ten Commandments represent the religious tradition of our country.
No, it doesn't! If the Ten Commandments are to be posted anywhere, it should be in each person's HOME. And not only posted, but discussed frequently by the family as to what they mean.

Your punative verbal meanderings are representative of why young people have left so many Christian churches.

No, it doesn't!Of the ten, which ones would you say do not.


If the Ten Commandments are to be posted anywhere, it should be in each person's HOME. And not only posted, but discussed frequently by the family as to what they mean.I would go along with that.


Your punative verbal meanderings are representative of why young people have left so many Christian churches.I think they have left because far too many of our churches are cold, lifeless, mausoleums with no passion for God. Might add that young people raised on a steady diet of being told how wonderful they are and how they can do anything they want find the restrictions of the truth of the Bible to be distasteful, but when they begin to get a vision of the glory and majesty of Jesus, they will come willingly.

"punative" ??? Did you mean punitive, or perhaps putative?

Of the ten, which ones would you say do not.
Our country is made up of many different non-Christian religions, some even home-grown. The Ten Commandments aren't a commonality or part of the tradition of our country.

I think they have left because far too many of our churches are cold, lifeless, mausoleums with no passion for God. Might add that young people raised on a steady diet of being told how wonderful they are and how they can do anything they want find the restrictions of the truth of the Bible to be distasteful, but when they begin to get a vision of the glory and majesty of Jesus, they will come willingly.
I totally disagree. I have known many people who've left the church. There are myriads of reasons, all reasonable. Unfortunately, too many of the faithful believe the church is a building.

"punative" ??? Did you mean punitive, or perhaps putative?
punitive
[ˈpyo͞onədiv]
ADJECTIVE


inflicting or intended as punishment.

So that means Allah, Yahweh, Brahma, the Great Spirit, Krishna, Ahura Mazda, and Jah also qualify.

No, the only God is Yahweh, Yahweh is the author of the ten commandments

Look at the church around the world where growth is taking place. Look at places like China and Africa, or in South America. They don't grow because they are trying to be culturally relevant, or because they have decided that homosexuality and having a live-in girlfriend are now OK. They are growing because they preach a living Christ who is glorious and worthy of our love and devotion.

Our country is made up of many different non-Christian religions, some even home-grown.The mainstream religious affiliation in the U.S. has historically been Christianity. Islam is a recent addition. Judaism has always been here, but those two are very much minority. The others you mentioned are the religious equivalents of the Green Party.

Now that's just great, but here ALL are free to observe there own religion regardless of size and popularity or any other manner within the structure of law. Good luck making a law against gay marriages, and living with another person, or even shunning or humiliating people to follow that direction. We may well be a mostly Christian nation, and not all Christians agree with your particular Christian sect.

I acknowledge your freedom to holler about it, just as I am free to disagree. Simple enough concept, which is why the VOTE is the most important thing we do here.

There is already a law against gay marriage and live-ins. It's called God's law. That's the one we should be proclaiming in the churches.

I'd still love to know which one of the Ten Commandments you guys find to be offensive.

There is already a law against gay marriage and live-ins. It's called God's law. That's the one we should be proclaiming in the churches.

I'd still love to know which one of the Ten Commandments you guys find to be offensive.

it is probably those against coveting and adultery

I find none of them offensive at all, and that's not even the point. I just feel that religious teaching is in the home, and not in the schools, or as a part of government. I thought that's what churches are for. You never answered the question I asked about if you can post your religious values in a school, why can't any religion do the same?

That's a good question. I don't view it as ME posting MY religious values in our schools. It is more of a nationally recognized moral code. It is very similar to Jefferson stating in the D of I that we have inalienable rights and equality because of a "Creator". We have historically agreed that the values put forward in the Ten Commandments form a moral code that we can teach our children. It can certainly be done without promoting any specific religion.

We have historically agreed that the values put forward in the Ten Commandments form a moral code that we can teach our children.

Who's "We"? You got a mouse in your pocket?


It can certainly be done without promoting any specific religion.

Except for Judaism and its daughter religion, Christianity.

I can agree since major religions do embrace the 10 commandments as moral law, making it's mainstream acceptance fairly easy, and one could argue principles codified in law, so the secular importance is clearly demonstrated, but does that discriminate or disqualify the smaller religions like Hindis or Sikhs from the same opportunities of moral or religious expression.

It's been my experience that Christian citizens are the loudest voices against Christian symbols, language and customs being in the public schools as it is.

that discriminate or disqualify the smaller religions like Hindis or Sikhs from the same opportunities of moral or religious expression.Which of the Ten Commandments would they have a major disagreement with?

At any rate, in a recent Texas case, Gallup found this to be true. "76% of Americans say the display should be allowed, compared with 21% who say it should not."

http://media.gallup.com/GPTB/religValue/20050412b_1.gif
https://news.gallup.com/poll/15817/Americans-Thou-Shalt-Remove-Ten-Commandments.aspx


And as far as the D of I goes, this is interesting.

The Founding Fathers went out of their way to acknowledge God no less than four times in the Declaration:


"[T]he Laws of Nature and of Nature's God..."
"[A]ll Men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
"[A]ppealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions...
"[W]ith a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence..."



Who's "We"? You got a mouse in your pocket?No, but I do have a brain in my head that I use. Note the poll above.


Except for Judaism and its daughter religion, Christianity.You left out Islam. Talk about religious prejudice. Good grief. 8D

There is already a law against gay marriage
Which one is that?

Trump had a birthday yesterday. Why no celebration?

Which one is that?The one that states what marriage IS, and right from the mouth of Jesus. "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." It is excluded by reason of definition.

The one that states what marriage IS, and right from the mouth of Jesus. "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." It is excluded by reason of definition.
Which means what?

From the mouth of Jesus? My Bible says it's from the quill of St. Paul.

P.S. That isn't a commandment nor a command.

Gay marriage is not acceptable. Kind of simple, isn't it? It's similar to the Constitution saying the pres must be a natural born citizen. That excludes, by reason of definition, everyone who is NOT a natural born citizen, even though it never actually states that. So when Jesus states that a MAN and his WIFE will become one flesh, then two men or two women are excluded. Or at least it's true for those who accept what Jesus said. I realize that might leave you out.

Are NON-Christians/NON-Muslims/or NON-Jews bound by the laws of religion? By the way SCOTUS just affirmed you cannot fire a gay person or transgender based sexual identity.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-rules-existing-civil-rights-law-protects-lgbtq-workers/ar-BB15vgF6?ocid=msedgntp

Not only can gay people get married but hold a job too.

Gay marriage is not acceptable.
Not true. Stop being so legalistic! Love one another as you love yourself.

I have friends and even a few extended family members who are in the LGBTQ community. I have never met more loving and giving people. They were raised Christian and have found church homes where cis members welcome them with open arms.

Are NON-Christians/NON-Muslims/or NON-Jews bound by the laws of religion? By the way SCOTUS just affirmed you cannot fire a gay person or transgender based sexual identity.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/su...?ocid=msedgntp (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-rules-existing-civil-rights-law-protects-lgbtq-workers/ar-BB15vgF6?ocid=msedgntp)

Not only can gay people get married but hold a job too.

Remember when the concern was that SCOTUS was becoming too conservative ? The vote was 6-3 with Roberts and Gorsuch joining the majority AND Gorsuch WROTE the majority opinion .

Remember when the concern was that SCOTUS was becoming too conservative ? The vote was 6-3 with Roberts and Gorsuch joining the majority AND Gorsuch WROTE the majority opinion .

Gorsuch is a textualist. My only knock was the dirty deal that got him appointed. The 3 dissenters weren't happy, accusing the others of writing legislation.

I have not had time to read the opinions in the case yet . From what I gather ,Gorsuch was showing fealty to the written law which in itself is allegedly based on 14th Amendment rights . If he was truly being a textualist he would not adhere to the very broad interpretation of the 14th . Not only that ;it is a fact that not all law as written is constitutional . To say ,as I think he did ;that he is interpreting the law as written ,then he is not understanding his role in SCOTUS . It is not good enough to say that his decision is based on the law as written . He has to also determine if the law as written is itself constitutional . To me what he has decided is that the 14th supersedes the 1st amendment free exercise clause (which in many cases has been tossed into the trash heap by the judiciary ) .

He made his ruling on the civil rights law of 1964 which is about discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color or sex from my understanding of the reporting.

Are NON-Christians/NON-Muslims/or NON-Jews bound by the laws of religion? By the way SCOTUS just affirmed you cannot fire a gay person or transgender based sexual identity.We are talking about God's laws. Is everyone bound by God's laws? You better believe it. God will judge everyone by His laws. Are they bound by God's laws by the federal government? No.

But what do you think about what Jesus said? I assume you reject it?

the values put forward in the Ten Commandments form a moral code that we can teach our children. It can certainly be done without promoting any specific religion.

Have you actually read the 10 Commandments?

Where is the morality for a Hindu who is told the Hebrew God is real and the Hindu god is false? For a Christian who is told the Hebrew god is real and Christ as God is false? For Islam, who is told the Hebrew God is real and Allah is false? And so on for all the other Gods believed in by various religions.

Where is the morality in a God who is so jealous (which he admits) that he forbids images other than himself be made?

Where is the morality in a God who demands he be worshiped one day a week?

Such a god is more like Narcissus than Narcissus.

Most of the rest of the commandments are simply an injunction against crime. Hardly original, and clearly the mark of the priestly class.

We are talking about God's laws. Is everyone bound by God's laws? You better believe it. God will judge everyone by His laws. Are they bound by God's laws by the federal government? No.

But what do you think about what Jesus said? I assume you reject it?

I'll face my maker and be judged, but as I walk this Earth, no human will tell me about Gods law or how to observe it, or come between me and the God I understand and have a personal relationship with. ​

Sorry I don't put that much faith into what an ancient man says that Jesus said.

Have you actually read the 10 Commandments?Dozens of times.


Where is the morality for a Hindu who is told the Hebrew God is real and the Hindu god is false? For a Christian who is told the Hebrew god is real and Christ as God is false? For Islam, who is told the Hebrew God is real and Allah is false? And so on for all the other Gods believed in by various religions.There is reality, and since there is, then your pleas are ridiculous.


Where is the morality in a God who is so jealous (which he admits) that he forbids images other than himself be made?You need to read the Commandments. He does not allow images to be made of Himself.


Where is the morality in a God who demands he be worshiped one day a week?
One day a week? Try seven days a week, and as you will find out someday, every bit worthy of it. Besides, the Sabbath was for rest. There is no mention of worship.


Such a god is more like Narcissus than Narcissus.Except, of course, that Narcissus was legendary and certainly not the God of the entire universe. But worship Narcissus if you want to. Your choice.


Most of the rest of the commandments are simply an injunction against crime. Hardly original, and clearly the mark of the priestly class.Which is why we should post them in the schools.

There is reality, and since there is, then your pleas are ridiculous.

What pleas? I made no pleas. Oh, you mean statements of fact.

You are comparing your God to reality, implying the others are false. Which is not surprising because that's exactly what the first commandment says. But the issue is how do you think members of other religions will take to that? Not well, as you know.


You need to read the Commandments. He does not allow images to be made of Himself.

I guess you need to read them, too.

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God."


One day a week? Try seven days a week,

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." Another memory jogger for you.


Which is why we should post them in the schools.

Which is why they're completely unnecessary. Other rules and guidelines would be enormously more effective - one specific to the times. And they would not be offensive to people who do not believe the way you do who wants to force the Commandments on others against their will..

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God." Exactly. No images...period. That is why, in the OT and NT, you do not find mention made of images of God.

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." Another memory jogger for you.Keep it holy does not equate to "worship", but I do thank you for jogging my memory...in whatever fashion you think you did.


Which is why they're completely unnecessary. Other rules and guidelines would be enormously more effective - one specific to the times. And they would not be offensive to people who do not believe the way you do who wants to force the Commandments on others against their will..There is something about knowing that the commandment comes from God that makes it more effective.

There is something about knowing that the commandment comes from God that makes it more effective.

That is not the belief of the great majority of people on this planet. Ergo, the commandment is LESS effective.

The question is the beliefs of the people of the U.S., not the people on the planet. And as I showed earlier, the great majority of our people support the displaying of the 10 Commandments.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jlisenbe https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?p=3854313#post3854313)
There is something about knowing that the commandment comes from God that makes it
more effective.



So sayeth a very ancient man.


The question is the beliefs of the people of the U.S., not the people on the planet. And as I showed earlier, the great majority of our people support the displaying of the 10 Commandments.

Obviously not enough to get it done everywhere.

The question is the beliefs of the people of the U.S., not the people on the planet

True, but the point was many schoolchildren these days are the children of those who have come from areas on the planet that do not believe the way you do. I assumed that was obvious. I forgot you're a picker of nits.


And as I showed earlier, the great majority of our people support the displaying of the 10 Commandments.

"Our" people? Interesting choice of words.

Your position is questionable at best, but beside the point. The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion and displaying the 10 Commandments would violate that principle.

But - just for argument sake, (I know this has been asked before), would you allow a similar statement of "morals" from another religion to be publicly displayed?

He made his ruling on the civil rights law of 1964 which is about discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color or sex from my understanding of the reporting. which in turn has it's origin on a very broad reading of the 14th amendment . A textualist would not find the rational in the amendment to justify the law as being interpreted by the court (the ruling itself a broad interpretation of the law) What we have here really is activism masked as textualism. Think about it . I hire people . I never ask their sexual preferences . Do I now have to add it to my questionnaire to protect my company ? And if I fire someone and they suddenly declare they are of this special protected group, will the company face a law suit ?

You need to read the Commandments. He does not allow images to be made of Himself.
I guess Michelangelo in big trouble for his image of God that he painted on the Sistine Chapel ceiling.

Then there's Sallman's "Head of Christ" -- totally unrealistic in many ways.

And that has what to do with the fact that in both the OT and NT, you do not find images of God?

which in turn has it's origin on a very broad reading of the 14th amendment . A textualist would not find the rational in the amendment to justify the law as being interpreted by the court (the ruling itself a broad interpretation of the law) What we have here really is activism masked as textualism. Think about it . I hire people . I never ask their sexual preferences . Do I now have to add it to my questionnaire to protect my company ? And if I fire someone and they suddenly declare they are of this special protected group, will the company face a law suit ?

That's not what it says Tom, you cannot be fired for race, creed, color, or sex. You better find a better excuse than that, and we both know there are ways. It's not a stretch to include gay or trans in the sex category. If it weren't for widespread discrimination you wouldn't need a title 7 clause period.

And if I fire someone and they suddenly declare they are of this special protected group, will the company face a law suit ?

Sure. Then the plaintiff has to prove they were fired because of being in a specially protected group. That's how it works. How it's always worked. Nothing new.


And that has what to do with the fact that in both the OT and NT, you do not find images of God?

Have you decided yet whether you would allow moral codes of a faith other than yours to be publicly displayed? Just a reminder to keep you from your usual non-answering to questions you can't handle.

Yes. The Jewish and Islamic Ten Commandments would be perfectly fine. And btw, if you can find a question I have not answered, I'd love to see it. We have, in fact, discussed this ridiculous question to distraction. It has been answered repeatedly. The Ten Commandments represent, as a poll showed clearly, a moral standard which we Americans tend to approve of. I doubt you could find many Hindus, for instance, who would not basically approve of the Ten Commandments. It is largely atheists who resist the posting.

And that has what to do with the fact that in both the OT and NT, you do not find images of God?
Oh, paintings are okay? Ah! GRAVEN images are forbidden.

Yes. The Jewish and Islamic Ten Commandments would be perfectly fine. And btw, if you can find a question I have not answered, I'd love to see it.

Here's one -- would you allow moral codes from other religions and other than the Ten Commandments to be publicly displayed? Your evasion is real cute, just like you usually act.

To make it even easier for you - morals from Sikkism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Native Americanism - all the others not mentioned here.

Earth to Wondergirl. Michelangelo and Sallman did not paint in either the OT or NT periods of time. Those were clearly my points of reference.

Athos, look at my expanded answer. It is nothing more than a repeat of what has already been said. As I said, I doubt you can find many people in other religions who would object to the Ten Commandments. It simply represents a commonly held moral code that we Americans acknowledge as important. The primary resistance comes from atheists like I suspect you are.

My question specifically asked about Sikhs and Hindis displays of their religious tenets.

https://www.learnreligions.com/primary-sikh-beliefs-2993513#:~:text=%20Sikh's%20four%20commandments%20 include,not%20commit%20adultery%20More

http://www.english-for-students.com/10-Commandments.html

They have a commandment for every life situation. Or how about Rastafarians

https://www.africaresource.com/rasta/africa-house/the-rastafari-commandments-ras-oguejiofo-annu/#:~:text=The%2010%20Commandements%20Revealed%20To, them%20to%20do%20unto%20thee.

Starting to see a pattern emerge among the monolithic religions? If they say one God then no matter the name it has to be the same God. Customs, dogma, and traditions are man made concepts, but they have the same value system.

All yall look alike to me. Humans!

Earth to Wondergirl. Michelangelo and Sallman did not paint in either the OT or NT periods of time. Those were clearly my points of reference.
So it's okay to break that commandment now, since we aren't in the OT or NT times.

Athos, look at my expanded answer

I did. You didn't answer. What are you afraid of? Why can't you answer? You've been doing the non-answer thing since I challenged you on your belief in hell for unbelievers. Should I repeat the question? I tried to make it easy for you.


It is nothing more than a repeat of what has already been said.

Well, that much is true since you have yet to answer for the first time.


As I said, I doubt you can find many people in other religions who would object to the Ten Commandments.

That's clearly not an answer. Are you shaking with fear that your God will be angry if you answer?


It simply represents a commonly held moral code that we Americans acknowledge as important.

How many times do I have to tell you? 5? 10? 20? That is NOT an answer! Are you really that dense?


The primary resistance comes from atheists like I suspect you are.

Ah, finally - the shaming! You can't answer so you strike out with a threat.

Now you have me as an atheist. Recently, it was a Russian Communist. What's next? A Martian?

Will you EVER answer the question? Be sure and put that non-answer stuff in your little book.

It is an answer, it's simply one you don't like or want to accept.

Martian?? Yes, I have often thought of that, kind of in the same vein as you thinking of me as being in the JB Society.

Yes. The Jewish and Islamic Ten Commandments would be perfectly fine. And btw, if you can find a question I have not answered, I'd love to see it. We have, in fact, discussed this ridiculous question to distraction. It has been answered repeatedly. The Ten Commandments represent, as a poll showed clearly, a moral standard which we Americans tend to approve of. I doubt you could find many Hindus, for instance, who would not basically approve of the Ten Commandments. It is largely atheists who resist the posting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_prayer_in_the_United_States

I don't know about the atheist part, but I doubt a Hindi would accept the Christian version without a representation of the Hindi version also. I think the reaction would be the same for any non Christian version of the 10 Commandments. Every body would want EQUAL billing and of course teachers would be free to teach whatever version they were a part of and of course the dominant ones get top billing.

Teach your religion in your church and homes, and save us the controversy in the public schools. Just accommodating different religious prayers and practices is controversial enough. Or send your kids to the parochial school of your choice, on your dime.

We Christians are afflicted with abortion and gay-marriage laws, but we wouldn't want a Hindu person to have to look at the Ten Commandments?

We Christians are afflicted with abortion and gay-marriage laws, but we wouldn't want a Hindu person to have to look at the Ten Commandments?
He very likely doesn't give a hoot about them!

He very likely doesn't give a hoot about them!

afterall why should he, even christians deny them

We Christians are afflicted with abortion and gay-marriage laws, but we wouldn't want a Hindu person to have to look at the Ten Commandments?

He doesn't need yours, he has his own. I can see a lot of people thinking if they can do it why can't I.

http://mindsoap.org/bible/the-42-commandments-of-ancient-egypt/


Written at least 2,000 years before the Ten Commandments of Moses, the 42 Principles of Ma’at are one of Africa’s oldest moral and spiritual instructions. Ma’at, the Ancient Egyptian divine Principle of Truth, Justice, and Righteousness, is the foundation of natural and social order and unity. Ancient Africans developed a humane system of thought and conduct which has been recorded in volumes of African wisdom literature, such as, these declarations from the Book of Coming Forth By Day (the so-called Book of the Dead), The Teachings of Ptah-Hotep, the writings of Ani, Amenemope, Merikare, and others.

He very likely doesn't give a hoot about them!Yeah. Why would a Hindu care about murder, lying, and respecting one's parents. I'm sure they probably love to murder, lie, and disrespect parents.

Hindu moral codes are the integral part of Hinduism and they come under the big umbrella called Dharma. It is very difficult to translate the word Dharma. Some of the codes are Ahimsa (non-killing), Satya (truth), Dharma (duty), Karuna (compassion), Virya (fortitude), Dama (self-restraint), Saucha (Purity).

The moral code of Islam ranges from smallest details of domestic life to the field of national and international behaviour. It guides us at every stage in life and makes us free from exclusive dependence on other sources of knowledge, although we may, of course, use these as an aid to this primary source.

Moral Values in Jainism comprise of The Three Jewels which are, Right Faith, Right knowledge and Right Conduct. Moral Values in Jainism are directed towards the deliverance of the person.

Five Precepts of Buddhism Explained

Abstain from taking life.
Abstain from taking what is not given.
Abstain from sensuous misconduct.
Abstain from false speech.
Abstain from intoxicants as tending to cloud the mind.

In other CURENT EVENTS the Supreme Court refuse to hear the dufus case to make states help deport illegal immigrants.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-turns-aside-justice-department-won-t-hear-california-n1231060


WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it will not take up a legal battle over whether local governments can declare themselves sanctuaries (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-s-sanctuary-state-bill-protecting-immigrants-closer-approval-n801976) and refuse to help federal agents enforce immigration laws.

We Christians are afflicted with abortion and gay-marriage laws, but we wouldn't want a Hindu person to have to look at the Ten Commandments?

You keep posting but you still haven't answered the question.

Would you allow moral codes of religions other than Judaism, Christianity, or Islam to be publicly displayed on government buildings/property?

It's almost comical how you persist in avoiding questions you can't answer directly. You skate around and skate around until you're dizzy with evasion.

Here it is again:

Would you allow moral codes of religions other than Judaism, Christianity, or Islam to be publicly displayed on government buildings/property?

To help you, WG has posted several from 4 religions.

Now - we await your evasion thing.

Abortions and gay marriage are rare and isolated events and your just exaggerating them. Do the math!

Generally speaking I would say no, but then that could easily be, in most cases, a local decision, but that's not what we're discussing here. The suggestion was to put the Ten Commandments in public schools because it is an historically accepted moral code in our country. That's why it was in schools to begin with prior to the SCOTUS decision in 80. It is also why your silly objection is spurious. We're not talking about anything and everything. We're talking about a specific passage.

Generally speaking I would say no, but then that could easily be, in most cases, a local decision, but that's not what we're discussing here. The suggestion was to put the Ten Commandments in public schools because it is an historically accepted moral code in our country. That's why it was in schools to begin with prior to the SCOTUS decision in 80. It is also why your silly objection is spurious. We're not talking about anything and everything. We're talking about a specific passage.

So that one Hindi kid, or Catholic or Muslim has to go along with your commandments being in school, but he can't have his?

Abortions and gay marriage are rare and isolated events and your just exaggerating them.What? About 150,000 gay marriages and nearly a million abortions a year amounts to "rare and isolated events"? Well, if that's true, then what do you call the police shooting 10 unarmed black men every year? Good grief. What a crazy comment.

So that one Hindi kid, or Catholic or Muslim has to go along with your commandments being in school, but he can't have his?

Do not the catholics believe in the bible as do the protestants? Is not the muslim familiar with the old testament? As to the hindu he is a minority. What you are affirming is that man should be placed above God

So that one Hindi kid, or Catholic or Muslim has to go along with your commandments being in school, but he can't have his?Catholic? Moslem? Are you awake yet? At any rate, the answer is yes, in the same way that a Christian, Jewish, or Moslem kid is deprived of seeing the Commandments on the wall now. The question comes down to this. Does posting the Ten Commandments amount to establishing a national religion? The answer to me is plainly and clearly "no", so much so that it seems ludicrous to even ask the question. It is on the same level as suggesting that we should remove the references to God from the Declaration of Independence in the name of the establishment clause. It's just sheer lunacy, as is the idea that a Hindu kid walking past a plaque bearing the Ten Commandments is some sort of serious hardship.

Might add that the establishment clause would not seem to require that the feds be neutral towards religion. If that is what the founding fathers meant, then they could very easily simply have said that. "Establishment" means just that, that the feds cannot establish a national religion.

Catholic? Moslem? Are you awake yet? At any rate, the answer is yes, in the same way that a Christian, Jewish, or Moslem kid is deprived of seeing the Commandments on the wall now. The question comes down to this. Does posting the Ten Commandments amount to establishing a national religion? The answer to me is plainly and clearly "no", so much so that it seems ludicrous to even ask the question. It is on the same level as suggesting that we should remove the references to God from the Declaration of Independence in the name of the establishment clause. It's just sheer lunacy, as is the idea that a Hindu kid walking past a plaque bearing the Ten Commandments is some sort of serious hardship.

Why should they have to look at yours when they have their own? Why is not posting the commandments in a public school depriving anyone of anything since they have access in a church or at home, or in their bibles, which they can carry with them? No it's not on the same level as editing God from the founding documents, and that's not likely to happen.

Maybe you're drinking more than coffee this morning.

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/06/16/scott-gottlieb-on-the-fdas-decision-to-revoke-emergency-use-of-hydroxychloroquine.html


The Food and Drug Administration said it is ending its emergency use authorization for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, the anti-malaria drugs backed by President Donald Trump to combat Covid-19. Dr. Scott Gottlieb, member of the boards of Pfizer and biotech company Illumina and former FDA commissioner, joins “Squawk Box” to discuss.

Why should they have to look at yours when they have their own? Why is not posting the commandments in a public school depriving anyone of anything since they have access in a church or at home, or in their bibles, which they can carry with them? No it's not on the same level as editing God from the founding documents, and that's not likely to happen.Because they would be looking at what we accept in our country as a moral standard. You live here, then you get to look at it, or you can simply ignore it. And if we can edit any acknowledgement of God out of our schools, then why not out of the D of I? Why are they not on the same level? Why should an atheist have to see references to God in the D of I?

Because they would be looking at what we accept in our country as a moral standard.
No, we don't!

Correction. Everyone except Wondergirl accepts it. My apology.

Because they would be looking at what we accept in our country as a moral standard. You live here, then you get to look at it, or you can simply ignore it. And if we can edit any acknowledgement of God out of our schools, then why not out of the D of I? Why are they not on the same level? Why should an atheist have to see references to God in the D of I?

I don't know where you get your logic from or that cockamamy notion of taking God from the founding documents, so look, what you do in your school is your business, and what I do in mine is my business so leave it at that. You just want to promote YOUR religion, and I get that's what you do, and it's okay with me, and you can just go get the votes and the people to make that happen. That's how its done in America. Good luck to you! Count me out though, but go for it.

If I sound impatient, forgive me but I just watched a few minutes of the dufus re election campaign speech, and I need more than a cup of coffee right now.

Correction. Everyone except Wondergirl accepts it. My apology.

Wrong! Most Americans accept the First Amendment.

Back to basics - Are you ready yet to allow moral codes from other religions - see WG post where she so eloquently listed those moral codes - or are you insisting children from other religions must adhere to your beliefs?

I think we know the answer but it's good asking you and hoping you will someday see the light.

Please don't answer with some Bible verse. But you probably will.

(Trump speaks robotically when he reads a prepared statement. He seems to have little grasp of the contents).

Back to basics - Are you ready yet to allow moral codes from other religions - see WG post where she so eloquently listed those moral codes - or are you insisting children from other religions must adhere to your beliefs?If you will open you eyes and look at post 463, you will see that ridiculous question has been answered.

The supposed conflict between the first amendment and posting the Ten Commandments has already been addressed. Keep up!!


Please don't answer with some Bible verse.Yeah. No one would ever suspect you to be a closet atheist.

If you will open you eyes and look at post 463, you will see that ridiculous question has been answered.

Well, someone needs their eyes opened, but it isn't me. You certainly did not answer the question. Here it is again --- children from other religions - can they post their scriptures next to yours? (Shortened form).

The fact that you claimed 463 was an answer tells us more about you. You don't respect the truth (as witness the 463 business) and when you are called on it, you charge the questioner with lying. Who's the liar now?


The supposed conflict between the first amendment and posting the Ten Commandments has already been addressed. Keep up!!

You obviously needed to hear the truth after your insult to WG. Only in your weak mind was it resolved.


Yeah. No one would ever suspect you to be a closet atheist.

Spoken like a true fundamentalist. Some things never change.

The supposed conflict between the first amendment and posting the Ten Commandments has already been addressed. Keep up!!

So you do post the 10 commandments in your school so what are you beetching about?

Well, someone needs their eyes opened, but it isn't me. You certainly did not answer the question. Here it is again --- children from other religions - can they post their scriptures next to yours? (Shortened form).And here's the answer again. "Generally speaking I would say no, but then that could easily be, in most cases, a local decision, but that's not what we're discussing here. The suggestion was to put the Ten Commandments in public schools because it is an historically accepted moral code in our country. That's why it was in schools to begin with prior to the SCOTUS decision in 80. It is also why your silly objection is spurious. We're not talking about anything and everything. We're talking about a specific passage."


Spoken like a true fundamentalist. Some things never change.You could certainly resolve it easily enough. It's no problem for me. I am a Christian, meaning that my faith is completely in Christ for His redeeming, sanctifying, life-changing power. I have no trust in my goodness, and complete trust in His.

Your turn, if you care to take it. Otherwise, stop griping about it.


So you do post the 10 commandments in your school so what are you beetching about?I'm retired, so I don't have a school. At my last post, we did not have them posted due to our District guidelines, put in place because, as a public school, anyone who wanted to could easily sue us and have them taken down. They do have the national motto posted in each and every classroom, as does every public school in Mississippi. That's been the case for fifteen years or so.

The suggestion was to put the Ten Commandments in public schools because it is an historically accepted moral code in our country.

Not just this country but every country has commandments some a lot more than 10 and some have for centuries so nothing special or unique about having them at all. I gave you the link where the Christian commandments given to Moses was straight from Africa. But you already knew that didn't you?

And here's the answer again. "Generally speaking I would say no,

Thank you. It tells us that you discriminate against non-10 Commandment religions. What could be more un-American? I'll add theocracy to your racism, child torture for unbelievers, and general dissembling (lying).

We are getting a very full picture of you.


I am a Christian, meaning that my faith is completely in Christ for His redeeming, sanctifying, life-changing power.

And you believe that children who do not believe as you do spend all eternity being tortured in hell. Those poor Sikh kids. First you won't allow them to post their scriptures next to yours, and then you send them to hell for all eternity to be continuously tortured. Don't forget to leave that out. That's pretty important, wouldn't you say?


I have no trust in my goodness

Neither do we.


Your turn, if you care to take it.

No meaning given for this. So, no answer.


They do have the national motto posted in each and every classroom, as does every public school in Mississippi.

Ah, Mississippi. The only state to fly the confederate battle flag with it's state flag. But let's leave MS alone for now.

Your turn, if you care to take it.


No meaning given for this. So, no answer.Exactly what I expected. Guess what question you're going to see repeated for a LONG time now?


We are getting a very full picture of you.Yep. You're full of it alright.


And you believe that children who do not believe as you do spend all eternity being tortured in hell. Those poor Sikh kids. First you won't allow them to post their scriptures next to yours, and then you send them to hell for all eternity to be continuously tortured. Don't forget to leave that out. That's pretty important, wouldn't you say?I guess once a liar, then always a liar.

Exactly what I expected. Guess what question you're going to see repeated for a LONG time now?

LOL. Bring it on.


I guess once a liar, then always a liar.

I'm not aware what question this one refers to either. Could you repeat this one for a LONG time also? Thanks.

Woops - I just got it. The Sikh children going to hell. What in that statement of your belief is a lie?

That children are going to hell for unbelief. Have actually said the opposite. That was your blatant lie.

And what are your religious beliefs?

That children are going to hell for unbelief. Have actually said the opposite.
Thus, you believe unbaptized babies plus Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Jewish, et al. children will not go to hell.

Thus, you believe unbaptized babies plus Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Jewish, et al. children will not go to hell.I never said anything about baptism. As far as children go, I don't know of any Biblical teaching on that. Not saying it's not there, just that I'm not familiar with it. My understanding is that a person is not held accountable for sin until he/she is old enough to realize their own guilt. Could be wrong, but that's my understanding on it. Same thing, by the way, I have said a number of times in the past.

what was the original OP ? Oh yeah about C-19 treatments . OMG !! they are treating patients with a drug that is not approved for C-19 ;has not gone through peer reviewed double blind studies ;and nobody has their panties twisted over it ? How can that be ?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/16/health/dexamethasone-covid-drug-recovery-trial-bn/index.html

Interesting article. 33% improvement is significant.

what was the original OP ? Oh yeah about C-19 treatments . OMG !! they are treating patients with a drug that is not approved for C-19 ;has not gone through peer reviewed double blind studies ;and nobody has their panties twisted over it ? How can that be ?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/16/health/dexamethasone-covid-drug-recovery-trial-bn/index.html

noone sticks to the OP. The drug was shown to be effective in killing the virus in a patient, just someone's bright idea, but then, officialdom felt thwarted, afterall they hadn't been consulted, had no data and couldn't take the chance they would be blamed

As far as children go, I don't know of any Biblical teaching on that

Dear God!! You need a Bible teaching to tell you sending children to hell to be tortured for eternity is wrong? It's hard to comment on such a belief.


Not saying it's not there, just that I'm not familiar with it.

Oh well, THAT'S a relief!


My understanding is that a person is not held accountable for sin until he/she is old enough to realize their own guilt. Could be wrong, but that's my understanding on it. Same thing, by the way, I have said a number of times in the past.

You have NOT said that in the past - at least not in the beginning. The original debate was whether unbelievers go to hell for eternity to be tortured. That morphed over months until it became hard to tell just what you DID believe.

You kept changing, and kept refusing to put your belief in plain language, instead you kept referring to various Bible passages as though you had no ability to think for yourself. Yes, yes, Jesus' words and all that.

When you finally agreed to explain your belief, you conditioned it on my explaining my belief re hell after you explained yours. So I explained mine first, then you refused to live up to your promise claiming my position on hell was not a belief because I didn't believe in it. Just another of your constant evading an answer to a very simple question.

You know what? I don't give a damn anymore. It's enough to know you have a very sick understanding of Jesus' words. That's why I call you Judas. Like him, you have betrayed the message of Christ.

couldn't take the chance they would be blamedName of the game for pols. Don't do anything that could bring about criticism.

Name of the game for pols. Don't do anything that could bring about criticism.

Doesn't stop trump he believes that any publicity is good publicity

Trump is not a pol. That's part of his appeal.

He is also a lying cheating dufus and scam artist. That's a HUGE turn off. Why won't he and Mnuchin release who got that PPE money. We already know lawmakers got there paws in the till already.

He is also a lying cheating dufus and scam artist.
He was that way when he lived in NYC.

Trump is not a pol. That's part of his appeal.

After 3 1/2 years he is a politician

After 3 1/2 years he is a politicianNot really. He does not behave like a pol. It is both a strength and a weakness. The contrast between the professional pol (Biden) and the amateur pol (Trump) is really striking. I just think the debates will be a bigger negative for Biden than for Trump.

The bases of the dufus and my friend Joe are dug in, so the undecided middle will decide this race and lets face it, the dufus won't be able to keep lying and not pay the cost, especially if things go south with the virus, and the economy, and the feds stop propping up Wall Street.

If Biden can remember where he is, he might have a chance. Good luck with that.

Even if he can't he has a good woman to remind him.

Even if he can't he has a good woman to remind him.Vote for Biden. He can't remember anything, but at least his wife can.

Good luck with that.