don't want a Christian nation

Yup. One but distinct. Don't tell me "no buts". There is a but. God is One but each member of the Godhead is distinct.

 

So do you believe Jesus was lying when he said "I and my Father are one." Or was he just teasing?

 

No. I said they are One. Are you saying you don't believe in the Trinity?

 

Now back to the originally scheduled programming...

I want a Christian nation but not a Christian government.

The establishment clause was created to protect religious freedom from government. That freedom is undermined when government trespasses into the realm of religious doctrine.

I personally believe that all public schooling and any public program that promotes humanism, naturalism, evolution, etc are violations of the establishment clause. They infringe on the rights of people to operate according to their own conscience concerning matters of religion and/or religious valuations.

I agree with the man who said that the power to educate is the power to indoctrinate. Thoughtful people who value our rights and liberties trust churches, private organizations, and even private business more to educate people than the government.

 

Of course he's faring okay...selling his lapel pin version of the ten commandments for $24.95!!!!

Along with Ten Commandments:

yard signs, auto tags, bumper stickers, car magnets, coins, tshirts, etc.......

 

No buts. Do you consider God the father and Jesus the son are one? </font>[/QUOTE]I don't believe that's what the Bible teaches, but what really started this was the verse you chose to pervert the words of Jesus. It is evident by my post that I really thought you were kidding. Then it became evident by your posts that you weren't.

Luke 14:26 is a verse I am always on the lookout for. It is probably the most used verse that non believers throw out when they really want to slam Jesus or give him a black eye, if you will. Your use of it made my antenna go up immediately.

I still believe your contention that the ten commandments are not Christian is salacious, but so be it. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

My condolences concerning your aunt. I missed it the first time you mentioned it.

In Christ

 

No, they fired a judge because he was violating the law, namely, Amendment I of the US Constitution. Many Christians condemned him because there was no scriptural mandate for what he did (there's no scriptural instruction to require people to erect and display the 10 Commandments).

 

I have less of a problem with what Moore did unless it violated the Constitution of Alabama than I do with the notion that the federal government should have the right to dictate to the State of Alabama what they can have in their supreme court building.

I would remind you all that several states experimented with an official state church in the early years of our country. The federal government of the time rightly considered it a matter for the people of the states to determine for themselves.

 

Judge Moore kept saying he would not obey the law, because he had the right to "acknowledge God". He has that right, of course, but exercising it doesn't mean violating the law and doing it with a multi-ton granite monument in the courthouse. Also, isn't it ironic, that one of the commandments is against "graven images". Moore puts one up to honor this commandment. This is like eating donuts for weight loss.

 

No, they fired a judge because he was violating the law, namely, Amendment I of the US Constitution. Many Christians condemned him because there was no scriptural mandate for what he did (there's no scriptural instruction to require people to erect and display the 10 Commandments). </font>[/QUOTE]I thought he was fired for defying a court order. Is that covered under the 1st amendment?

 

Yes, you are absolutely correct. So to say that there is a wall of separation between church and state is incorrect.

KJ, sorry for your loss.

The Ten Commandments were authored by God and given to the Nation of Israel (which includes Jews - tribe of Judah) and are the basis upon which our Judeo-Christian nation was founded.

I might also point out that people used to be put in stocks for committing adultery (one of the 10 commandments) in the middle of town square. Nowadays, though, there aren't big enough town squares to contain all the adulterers being placed in stocks.

 

Yes, I wish adultery were still a criminal offense. But that has more to do with the fact that I was the victim of adultery, more than it has to do with any objectivity. I'm sure most folks who have been the victim would love to see the other party face a firing squad after being tarred and feathered. Adultery is still a civil violation.

But, it's incorrect to say that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments, for two reasons:

1 - The 10 Commandments were not the civil code that adhered to Israel. They had a separate civil code given to them by God. Some of them overlapped the 10C's, but some did not.

2 - The Constitution was not written with the 10 Commandments as a basis. It was written as a basis of preserving the rights of life, liberty, and the purssuit of happiness spoken of in the Declaration of Independence, which itself is not a document of law. While it's true that many of the 10 Commandments preserve our individual liberties (such as the ban against stealing, and against murdering), many do not (such as keeping the Sabbath day holy, and coveting our neighbor's ass).

 

Alabama's laws, and every state's laws, are not allowed to interfer with Constitutional protections granted to individuals (the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects an individual's rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments). Moore violated Amendment I. He was ordered by the court to remove it. He refused to comply with the court order. He was excused from the bench.

There was continued debate about state laws that abridged Amendment I freedom of the press, or of speech, as well, until Amendment XIV settled it completely.

 

Alabama's laws, and every state's laws, are not allowed to interfer with Constitutional protections granted to individuals (the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects an individual's rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments). Moore violated Amendment I. He was ordered by the court to remove it. He refused to comply with the court order. He was excused from the bench.</font>[/QUOTE] That is precisely what I was referring to John. I think the application of the 14th Amendment has empowered the Federal government in ways not intended by the founders and in ways that are detrimental to the rights of individuals to self-govern.

There was continued debate about state laws that abridged Amendment I freedom of the press, or of speech, as well, until Amendment XIV settled it completely. </font>[/QUOTE]Not true. The 10th Amendment had already settled it completely in that it granted all authority not expressly given to the Federal gov't to the State and to the people.

The 14th Amendment gave those wanting to centralize power in Washington and away from the people a toe-hold... the expansion since has eroded liberty.

 

If you want to repeal the 14th Amendment, then make a case for it elsewhere. Until then, each individual has the rights guaranteed in Amendment I, regardless of state statutes.

 

OK. My comments were directed at what should be... not what is.

BTW, Who had a religion established for them by the State of Alabama due to Moore's monument? Who was forced to pay a tax to a church or abide by a particular doctrine? Who was denied the right to freely congregate and worship according to their own conscience due to this action?

Doesn't the 1st Amendment say that "Congress shall make no law...?"

Was either Moore or the legislature of Alabama, Congress?

 

BTW, I still don't want a Christian government- state nor federal. I have a very good idea that it wouldn't be a government dominated by Bible-believing fundamentalists... who of course would never use force of government to force anyone to accept a set of religious beliefs.

 

No one. They had a respecting of an establishmen of religion imposed upon them.

Yes. Additional amendments guarantee that every individual in the US, regadless of state, will have no law imposed upon them in like manner. If the statue had been allowed to remain, then it would have become a legal respecting of the establishment of religion, thus a defacto law respecting an establishment of religion.

Your arguement holds no water, because Amendment XIV applies the guarantee to all individuals, regardless of state.

 

No buts. Do you consider God the father and Jesus the son are one? </font>[/QUOTE]I don't believe that's what the Bible teaches, but what really started this was the verse you chose to pervert the words of Jesus. It is evident by my post that I really thought you were kidding. Then it became evident by your posts that you weren't.

Luke 14:26 is a verse I am always on the lookout for. It is probably the most used verse that non believers throw out when they really want to slam Jesus or give him a black eye, if you will. Your use of it made my antenna go up immediately.

I still believe your contention that the ten commandments are not Christian is salacious, but so be it. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

My condolences concerning your aunt. I missed it the first time you mentioned it.

In Christ </font>[/QUOTE]Are you saying I want to slam Jesus or give Him a black eye? I do not but I am not in the mood to argue with you and convince you otherwise. Bottom line...I don't have to. I myself DO believe the Bible teaches a Trinity.

I explained to you why I used that verse. I am not going to again. I am not going to defend myself. The Ten Commandments are not Christian. They were given to Israel. I am not going to discuss that again. I just find it interesting that you think my statement was salacious but you are content to leave it at that. You should be trying to persuade me as a brother that I was wrong. Oh well.

Thank you for your condolences.