DOJ Defunds Youth Programs that Reference God

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

The 10 Commandments that stand inside our Supreme Court Building are a Christian symbol, but hold the values common to civilized society the world over. Nowhere do they state WHICH God may be the specific God referred to, as it should be.

Just a Christian symbol but common to civilized society the world over?

How can that possibly be? These words are not just a Christian symbol. They are words, allegedly, spoken by the Christian God, directly to Moses... and they are enshrined in our highest court of law. This isn't self righteous indignation talking here, but the lore behind those words is even more reason to keep them our of government. It is outright saying that the God who spoke these words is above all others.

Why do we not have these words then if we're going to say that they are just words, applicable beyond religion... to the greater society?

"Among those We have created there is a community who, guide by the Truth and act justly according to it."

That seems more fitting for the Supreme Court doesn't it? I wonder the reaction of those who fought to defend the 10 Commandments placement in the Supreme Court. I wonder if those words would be accepted as transcending their origin in the Qu'ran.

That's a very legitimate argument in my opinion, one so far as a Nation we haven't yet had. Should we have that argument or should we agree that Church and State are better left separate?

Originally posted by xuenchen
Are these 'oaths' that include 'God' all 'laws' ?

Are they acts of government (Federal, State, Local) ?

Who decides what an 'oath' encompasses ?

Awe really now wonder why is it from the Potus himself to every congressman to someone sitting on witness stand 'swears on a bible/koran' ?

That same old tired argument of separation of church and state was a person has freedom OF religion.

I want some freedom from the DOJ and the rest of the tyrannical despots killing god to become gods.

reply to post by Kali74


God only needs 10 laws

How many is man up to now?

That the 10 commandments don't already cover?

reply to post by neo96


You well know I advocate for fewer laws. Regarding the 10 Commandments...

You shall have no other gods before me.

There goes Freedom of Religion right there.

You shall not make for yourself any 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, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

There goes any religion that uses idols, as well as certain covered free speech.

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

There goes freedom of speech all together.

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

That can't be good for the economy.

Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

What if my parent's beat or raped me?

You shall not murder.

There's a good one!

You shall not commit adultery.

It wasn't long ago that in Texas a man could still kill his wife if she were cheating on him.

You shall not steal.

2/10 woohoo!

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

3/10!

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

Someone should really tell the banks and corporations bout that one!


So the founding fathers knew what they were talking about with the 2nd, but not the 1st? They had separation of church and state all wrong?

reply to post by Kali74

You well know I advocate for fewer laws.

Not really considering another hot topic

There goes Freedom of Religion right there.

Is it?

Man created religion

Man created Government

Government and it's false prophets telling people to put it above anything else now all rights in this country come from Nature's laws, Gods laws government is a usurper of those rights.

There goes any religion that uses idols, as well as certain covered free speech.

So what about those false idols in Government who prostelyze people that also limits that 'free speech'.

There goes freedom of speech all together.

Free speech is already gone can't say this, can't say that etc.

That can't be good for the economy.

Oh dam a day of rest without Government making a law for it how bloody damn evil.

What if my parent's beat or raped me?

Emotional argument the go to 'defense' for that false idol to intervene as if with 7 billion people in the world that happens to everyone.

It wasn't long ago that in Texas a man could still kill his wife if she were cheating on him.

Government has been screwing/killing people over for over 200 years.

Someone should really tell the banks and corporations bout that one!

Now my first response will make sense

So the founding fathers knew what they were talking about with the 2nd, but not the 1st? They had separation of church and state all wrong?

The founders wrote the constitution a set LAWS their 10 commandments as in the BILL of RIGHTS and Government has systematically destroyed those rights 're interpreted' those rights to their own ends 'baring falise witness'.

Founders prolly got the idea of the bill of rights from Moses.

reply to post by Kali74

God should be removed from anything to do with the government, that includes the phrase 'so help me God'. The wall separating Church and State is crumbling and we need to not let it fall. Of all the BS that has come out of Eric Holder's DOJ, this is one I can actually agree with. The Federal government has no business supporting groups that reference any God. Our Founding Fathers intended for people to have the liberty to worship or not worship as they pleased, they intended both freedom of and freedom from religion and they were adamant that God had no place government.

you're completely right, what a well thought out statement.

actually no. "separation of church and state" doesn't ever appear in the constitution, and this isn't even overtly religious.

the founders did not want political POWER and religious POWER to coincide in ONE group. their fear was having the rulers of the land also be head of the church.

yes, they were so adamant that god not be part of government (and let's be honest, this group being defunded has no real political or religious power) that the declaration of independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

President Barack Obama expressed gratitude to the members of military families who have sacrificed to defend the "God-given rights" of Americans

cnsnews.com...
WHAT?! he mentioned god, IMPEACH HIM!!! he's becoming a god-king!

no. your immature hatred of those that believe in a god(s) is the fuel for your misconceptions.

reply to post by neo96

Not really considering another hot topic

Do tell.

Government and it's false prophets telling people to put it above anything else now all rights in this country come from Nature's laws, Gods laws government is a usurper of those rights.

You also know I'm an anarchist. If you're looking to argue about government being out of control you won't find one with me.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

"separation of church and state" doesn't ever appear in the constitution

Your point being ... ?

the founders did not want political POWER and religious POWER to coincide in ONE group. their fear was having the rulers of the land also be head of the church.

In other words, separation of church and state... they also wanted the government to be free of influence from the Church as well as immune to petitioning by the Church.

President Barack Obama expressed gratitude to the members of military families who have sacrificed to defend the "God-given rights" of Americans

cnsnews.com...
WHAT?! he mentioned god, IMPEACH HIM!!! he's becoming a god-king!

Is this supposed to either strengthen your argument or weaken mine? It does neither. What difference does it make to note that Obama said God-given rights? If my argument is that the Separation of Church and State needs to be strengthened, how does noting a politician using the word God undermine my argument?

reply to post by Kali74

Your point being ... ?

i thought it was obvious. this isn't a "separation of church and state" issue. it isn't about a religious group gaining political power.

In other words, separation of church and state... they also wanted the government to be free of influence from the Church as well as immune to petitioning by the Church.

in other words, the DOJ's actions aren't applicable. the group isn't a "church", nor are they influencing the government beyond personal morality.

What difference does it make to note that Obama said God-given rights?

because obama referenced god. the youth programs reference god. you cannot hold that one should go on the (misbegotten) principle of "separation of church and state", but the other should stay; they both equally reference god, ergo your call to end one over the other is hypocritical.

reply to post by Montana

I'm sorry and my bad on that if I had misunderstood your post. I hadn't caught the intended meaning. Really, my oops on it.

You have a good point about the 10 Commandments having a clear and singular origin. In fact, as I understand the Old Testament, they are among the only words literally and physically communicated by God himself.

To that area? I don't have issues with their display for a couple reasons. First, the knowledge of origin is a fair point but the text itself is still somewhat open and generic for that. Someone with no religious knowledge couldn't identify Faith and Discipline by reading it that I can really see? Second is Tradition. That seems a word lost for meaning these days ...and not all Tradition is a good thing, to be sure. Hazing is tradition that is nice to see go, for instance.

In this case though, Tradition is based around 10 values that aren't a bad idea in or out of Faith, right? (Well, okay, there are one or two that are pretty specific to having some monotheistic faith..lol) It's all a part of a nation which made no bones about forming on Judeo Christian values as a general base.

reply to post by Kali74


Well, it seems to me that we're crossing into changing what has existed for a couple centuries as opposed to some new change in either direction that needs careful consideration for benefit vs. disruption. If, as you suggest, the 10 Commandments were chosen for their direct tie to the Christian God himself then that makes a different issue. (which they could have been too..I don't deny that interpretation. They referred to divine intervention and providence too....surely not generic on that reference.)

I'd want to know what the overwhelming change and need is to alter what has been for our entire national history? Up until the last few decades (coincidentally, when some of this has become a point to change or attack) it's served us quite well too. We didn't become the World's Superpower, however that's not being thrown away, by the world permitting it. It was earned and taken by advancement to make it possible.

So.. Why the need to tear up, change and erase so much of what is simply a part of Americana and American scenery for it's nature? (I know you're good enough not to make comparisons to slavery as something that needed change so why not this, kinda thing too... so many do compare apples to watermelons that way)

Originally posted by neo96

I want some freedom from the DOJ and the rest of the tyrannical despots killing god to become gods.

Spot on neo, thats where this is headed. Wont it be the sad day when the beast replaces God.
Of course, the remaining sheep will be led out to green pastures, where they will be slaugtered.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


's ok, I'm probably just becoming a crabby old man like my kids keep telling me.

I think my biggest problem with the display of the commandments by self-titled "Christians' is that the 10 were given to the Jews. The Christians were given only ONE: "Love each other as I have loved you." Why is it that the so-called righteous Christians never include the one and only commandment given by the Son of God directly to them? Why isn't Christ's Commandment on that list on the courthouse lawn?

Maybe because they couldn't be so judgmental and self-righteous? That would take all the fun out of the whole ' Me good- you bad because GOD said so" thing, wouldn't it?

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

because obama referenced god. the youth programs reference god. you cannot hold that one should go on the (misbegotten) principle of "separation of church and state", but the other should stay; they both equally reference god, ergo your call to end one over the other is hypocritical.

When did I say the other should stay? Neither is acceptable in my opinion, nor is swearing into office on a Religious book, nor swearing to tell the truth so help you God in a court of law.

And for the record, I neglected to add this in my last post... I do believe in God and have no issue with Religion whatsoever. My issue is when Religion crosses into government or vice versa.

reply to post by burntheships

Spot on neo, thats where this is headed. Wont it be the sad day when the beast replaces God. Of course, the remaining sheep will be led out to green pastures, where they will be slaugtered.

Yes at least with God he didn't have to use 'technology' to become 'all seeing,all knowing'.

reply to post by Kali74

When did I say the other should stay? Neither is acceptable in my opinion, nor is swearing into office on a Religious book, nor swearing to tell the truth so help you God in a court of law.

And for the record, I neglected to add this in my last post... I do believe in God and have no issue with Religion whatsoever. My issue is when Religion crosses into government or vice versa.

so you believe in god, yet swearing into office (and you could make a fair point about using a specific book, but then that point could be countered with "it's tradition, and not meant to be offensive") or to tell the truth on the highest authority that exists isn't acceptable?

should only atheists hold office? then you'd be excluding people because of their beliefs. ok, well should those that believe in god be able to hold office, but not speak or act on their beliefs? that would be silly.

a government created to hold up the freedom of all cannot function if it prevents everyone that has an opinion based on their world view (which is everyone on the planet) from holding office. it creates more problems and divisions.

an analogous example of this is seen in congress, where it is completely fine to have a "black caucus" and prevent whites from joining, but racist to have a "white caucus". the existence of EITHER will lead to division, the same as if it were the "non-religious caucus" and everyone else.

reply to post by neo96


Yes, a good bit of levity upon an otherwise crushing set of truths.
Thanks for that, I needed a good chuckle.

I must say, along those lines I dont mind God knowing my thoughts, but I highly object
to an artificial intelligence managed by The Beast State attempting
to pry in.

reply to post by Kali74

in short, i believe you are debating semantics over the true issue.

is this group seeking to use religion to grab political power? no, not in the slightest. they merely have god (which you accept exists) mentioned in a pledge.

many of the founders that wrote the constitution and bill of rights believed in god. they wrote the amendment you're (incorrectly) using in your attempt to expunge all mention of god from anything that has to do with government.

do you not see the problem? you're using something written by people who held political power and had private beliefs in god to suggest that people holding political power shouldn't mention god, and that government should never acknowledge it's existence. you may as well burn the whole constitution. (by that i do not mean you would do such a thing, or that you think the constitution is irrelevant, but that your position; if followed through, would negate the whole constitution)

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

is this group seeking to use religion to grab political power? no, not in the slightest. they merely have god (which you accept exists) mentioned in a pledge.

edit on 30-6-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

I think you are kidding yourself. This group is a part of the culture that already HAS the political power, and they are defending it tooth and nail.
If they didn't already have the power, this issue would never have come up.

reply to post by Montana

I think you are kidding yourself. This group is a part of the culture that already HAS the political power, and they are defending it tooth and nail. If they didn't already have the power, this issue would never have come up.

i don't quite understand what you're trying to say.

if they didn't already have what power? because they have neither political nor religious power. this is a result of obama fulfilling his promise to make spending cuts as painful as possible. now THAT is power, a rather large misuse of it actually.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

to suggest that people holding political power shouldn't mention god, and that government should never acknowledge it's existence.

You're correct there, mentioning God may be a bit overzealous on my part... pledges and oaths however are a different matter that I stand by.