Ask Me Help Desk - Trump Self-Medicating on Hydroxychloroquine

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Nobody else does.

How could you possibly know that?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

Quote:

No, it doesn't!

Of the ten, which ones would you say do not.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

punitive
[ˈpyo͞onədiv]
ADJECTIVE

inflicting or intended as punishment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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/A...mandments.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..."

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Except for Judaism and its daughter religion, Christianity.

You left out Islam. Talk about religious prejudice. Good grief. 8D

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

There is already a law against gay marriage

Which one is that?

Trump had a birthday yesterday. Why no celebration?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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/su...?ocid=msedgntp

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

Quote:

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

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 .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

Quote:

Have you actually read the 10 Commandments?

Dozens of times.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

Quote:

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."

Quote:

One day a week? Try seven days a week,

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

“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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

Quote:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jlisenbe https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images...post-right.png
There is something about knowing that the commandment comes from God that makes it
more effective.

So sayeth a very ancient man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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 ?