Who mentioned a “theocracy” save for you, and others who hate moral absolutes, as means of striking fear in others?

I would agree about putting the ten commandments back into the Congress, etc. However, if the kids are not taught them then what happens when they become the politicians, and who are they going to vote for when of age? of course. We just saw in the last election who they will vote for as their parents did. Congress does have a chaplain, thanks to Benjamin Franklin, and opening prayer. The seat of the Chief Justice sets below the tablets of the Ten Commandments. The seat of the Speaker of the House faces the statue of Moses. It is just the kids that don’t.

You are right about the home too. However, in todays society, and so many different “theologies” to choose from, why would anyone bother particularly if when the kid gets to the school he is told to shut up about his faith, or do nothing to demonstrate said faith. When a child can be suspended simply for drawing a picture of Christ in an art class then I would say there is definitely something wrong there.

Currently the Atheists, and the Muslims, have more rights then the Christian. Atheist beliefs, called “seculaism”, are supported everyday, and the Muslim religion has been promoted in many schools.

Why can’t there be a generic “god”, or one called “Natures God” as expressed in the Declaration of Independence? Since when can one parent of one child who feels “offended” by the expression of the majorities faith make it so that none can express their faith?

Teaching a child to use a condom does not demonstrate any form of morality, it discourages it. It tells the child that it is not necessary to abstain from ones desires. It is from this that we now have the crisis of HIV/AIDS, chalmydia, etc. And there there is the abortion enterprise.

Like it or not, from the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock, and through the history of the United States, Christianity has played a major role in its growing to the world power it has become, and is now losing as it loses it moral roots. The signing of the Mayflower Compact, and the various other compacts, and “agreement”, made this clear. The first textbook was the Bible. McGuffey’s Readers, and Rays Arithmetics, along with Blackstones Commentary on the Law, formed the basis of American education, and Courts, and were based on the Bible, and Judeo/Christian beliefs. One of the first acts of Congress was to finance the publishing, printing, and distribution, of the Bible. The “Ivy League” universities were established for the purpose of educating missionaries to the “territories”. Congress funded, and even Jefferson signed into law, the payment of salaries of Catholic priests who were missionaries to the Indians, among others, and for the building of Church’s.

Finally, it was Noah Webster, and I can give many more examples from the Founders, that said “The moral principles and percepts containedin the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.

Swipies says,
“Teaching a child to use a condom does not demonstrate any form of morality, it discourages it. It tells the child that it is not necessary to abstain from ones desires. It is from this that we now have the crisis of HIV/AIDS, chalmydia, etc.”

-Are you saying that the use of condoms is the cause of HIV/AIDS? You realize what a condom does right? That’s like saying that it’s because of firefighters that we have so many home fires.

OK, I gotta go…I need to go soak my head in a cold bucket of water and preserve the endless amount of brain cells that were damaged by reading that post.

LOL @ Shortall.

Once again the ad hominem professional refuses to refute the actual facts, and then brings up Jesus, a person whom he says he does not believe in, and again tries to use Him to denigrate others.

Nowhere has any person, myself included, stated that Man is perfect, and that he does not make mistakes. Of course, this “non-believer” does not think Christ would be “retching in disgust” over abortion; the promiscuity promoted by the left; no-fault divorce introduced by the left; forcing others to provide for the lazy, and the slothful, etc.

Mr. Shortall, do you know why the jackass represents the Democratic Party, and the elephant the GOP? Here is a short synopsis:

“When Andrew Jackson ran for president in 1828, his opponents tried to label him a “jackass” for his populist views and his slogan, “Let the people rule.” Jackson, however, picked up on their name calling and turned it to his own advantage by using the donkey on his campaign posters. During his presidency, the donkey was used to represent Jackson’s stubbornness when he vetoed re-chartering the National Bank.
The first time the donkey was used in a political cartoon to represent the Democratic party, it was again in conjunction with Jackson. Although in 1837 Jackson was retired, he still thought of himself as the Party’s leader and was shown trying to get the donkey to go where he wanted it to go. The cartoon was titled “A Modern Baalim and his Ass.”When Andrew Jackson ran for president in 1828, his opponents tried to label him a “jackass” for his populist views and his slogan, “Let the people rule.” Jackson, however, picked up on their name calling and turned it to his own advantage by using the donkey on his campaign posters. During his presidency, the donkey was used to represent Jackson’s stubbornness when he vetoed re-chartering the National Bank.

An 1860 issue of Railsplitter and an 1872 cartoon in Harper’s Weekly connected elephants with Republicans, but it was Nast who provided the party with its symbol.

Oddly, two unconnected events led to the birth of the Republican Elephant. James Gordon Bennett’s New York Herald raised the cry of “Caesarism” in connection with the possibility of a third term try for President Ulysses S. Grant. The issue was taken up by the Democratic politicians in 1874, halfway through Grant’s second term and just before the midterm elections, and helped disaffect Republican voters.

While the illustrated journals were depicting Grant wearing a crown, the Herald involved itself in another circulation-builder in an entirely different, nonpolitical area. This was the Central Park Menagerie Scare of 1874, a delightful hoax perpetrated by the Herald. They ran a story, totally untrue, that the animals in the zoo had broken loose and were roaming the wilds of New York’s Central Park in search of prey.

Cartoonist Thomas Nast took the two examples of the Herald enterprise and put them together in a cartoon for Harper’s Weekly. He showed an ass (symbolizing the Herald) wearing a lion’s skin (the scary prospect of Caesarism) frightening away the animals in the forest (Central Park). The caption quoted a familiar fable: “An ass having put on a lion’s skin roamed about in the forest and amused himself by frightening all the foolish animals he met within his wanderings.

One of the foolish animals in the cartoon was an elephant, representing the Republican vote – not the party, the Republican vote – which was being frightened away from its normal ties by the phony scare of Caesarism. In a subsequent cartoon on November 21, 1874, after the election in which the Republicans did badly, Nast followed up the idea by showing the elephant in a trap, illustrating the way the Republican vote had been decoyed from its normal allegiance. Other cartoonists picked up the symbol, and the elephant soon ceased to be the vote and became the party itself: the jackass, now referred to as the donkey, made a natural transition from representing the Herald to representing the Democratic party that had frightened the elephant.

Although Nast’s original interpretation used the donkey to stand in for a Democrat-leaning newspaper scaring away Republican voters, his cartoon showing a duplicitous donkey attacking a weak-minded elephant, became a handy symbol for other cartoonists wanting to represent Democrats attacking Republicans.”

Moral of the Story: In 150 years nothing has changed. Democrats still use deceit, hate, fear, and intimidation as their tactic, and Republicans have yet to figure out how to combat this tactic.

Nice cut and paste from WikiAnswers, Ken.

First off, no where did I claim that the synopsis was my own. In fact, I placed it in quotation marks, and since it can be found in several different sites, as has been demonstrated, I cited no source for the facts presented.

Having said that, none of you are even bothering to refute the facts presented with any form of intelligent discourse something you most often accuse your opponents of. Is that what passes for “rational debate” with you? Obviously the answer if yes.

Having said that, Shortall, you are lying again. I have on at least three occassions shown the difference between your dictionary definition of a “liberal”, and the “liberal” of the time of the Founders. Sorry if you are so small minded that you cannot accept it.

Mr. Whaaaa (sounds like a childs whining cry), are you saying that the condom never fails? Are you saying that in each instance a condom is used there is no passing of a disease, or no pregnancy occurs? Is it your contention that the use of a condom does not promote promiscuity which has led to the spread of diseases?

Mr.Bendite, would you please point out where the teaching of the ten commandments has ever prevented one from voting because of their religious affiliation?

What never ceases to amaze me is that those of your ilk continue to live in such a horrible country as this with all of its murderous background, etc. What amazes me is that some of you actually left your country of origin, which must have a history far better then the US, and moved to this horrific country.

And since it is so bad, may I suggest you leave? For over 200 years we did just fine without your kind, and I am sure we would do a lot better in the next 200 if you weren’t here supporting the abortion of chldren who, I am sure, would be more deserving.

The too, there is no violence, or death, in the abortion process you support, is there?

I’m actually with Swipies on this one. I agree with the “facts” presented: the jackass indeed represents the Democratic Party, and the elephant the GOP. On Swipie-planet the choice of emblem or mascot is deviously revealing of the true nature of a political party… hmmmmm.

And Swipies… it’s not “my” dictionary definition of “liberal” it is THE dictionary definition of “Liberal” aka the actual meaning of the word… not Rush Limbaugh’s interpretation. And in a real dictionary this actual meaning of “liberal” is that used by the Founders.. try, real hard, to look it up again.

“Is it your contention that the use of a condom does not promote promiscuity which has led to the spread of diseases” … disease more likely if NO condom worn. NEXT

Snicker: it was only a matter of time before this old lemon came up:”What never ceases to amaze me is that those of your ilk continue to live in such a horrible country as this with all of its murderous background, etc. What amazes me is that some of you actually left your country of origin, which must have a history far better then the US, and moved to this horrific country.

And since it is so bad, may I suggest you leave”… nah, I’ll stay mate, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

And most hilariously: “For over 200 years we did just fine without your kind”… the US did just fine WITHOUT IMMIGRANTS for 200 years….. bbbbbwwwwaaaaahahahahaha! Is it cold on your planet?

And by the way, I don’t see anyone above “supporting” abortion…. yet you seem to bring it up all the time…. hmmmmmm

“Why can’t there be a generic “god”, or one called “Natures God” as expressed in the Declaration of Independence? I have no problem with Generic God, actually, I think schools should be MUCH stricter than the sugary playgrounds of the spoiled that we have now. I also think World Religions should be taught throughout K-12 as a Priority Subject. Since 9/11 we all realize how stupid it is to be ignorant about religions.

“Since when can one parent of one child who feels “offended” by the expression of the majorities faith make it so that none can express their faith” Who IS this ONE parent of this ONE child? And this is not the rationale by which “the 10 Commandments and God” were removed from public schools. We wouldn’t want US schools to be Christian Madrassas surely!

I am amused that the man who called me a liar and inferred that I am a coward accuses ME of ad hominem arguments. Surely a case of the pot calling the kettle black

“A while back, my amusing little man, when your sentences started to look just a little bit too well crafted to have been written by you I started to investigate and discovered that you are “cutting and pasting” large chunks of text from vzarious websites and pretending they are your own arguments.”

Because your writings probably don’t read like the talking points pages of 9/11truth.com or moveon.org. Riiiiiight. NEXT!

Oh, where to start since so much “intellect” has been spread about since my last post.

To Joe. Say a parent teaches their child that homosexuality is a sin, and a deviancy. Then the child goes to school, and the teacher says the parent is wrong. What then? Say a parent teaches a child that sex outside of marriage is wrong, then the child goes to school, and the teacher says that kids are going to do it anyway, so lets teach them how to use a condom. What of the child that wishes to write an essay on Christ, or draw a picture of Christ, and the teacher says no? Get the idea?

If the idea of school is about the three R’s, and it is failing in that regards, as you contend then perhaps the schools should do just that.

Mr. Shortal, the “one parent, one child” is the O’Hare case of 1963. From there stems all other cases that removed God from education, the ten commandments, nativity scenes, etc. Read about it here http://goodnewspirit.com/america-spurnsgod.htm

And Mr. Shortal, surely anyone with half a brain can see that I answered your question about the “liberal”. It is not a question of “the pot calling the kettle black”. It is the reality of your whining about others using ad hominem attacks when you are quite good at it. Then too, the secretary at the TS Weekly office did not “fear” for her “personal safety” when I was there, and talked with her.

I would also point out that in “the” dictionary definition of liberal it speaks of the removal of economic restraints somehting the Founders believed in for sure, however, not todays “liberal”.

As to the slavery question, and the genocide of Native Americans. I would hope you would be honest enough to admit that the greatest cause of the “genocide” of the Native American was not the “wars” brought about by the Western Expansion, or Manifest Destiny, whichever you wish to call it, it was the diseases brought by Europeans beginning at the time of Columbus.

Equally so, when you speak of slavery just who was it that introduced slaves to the US soil? Why is it you never speak of the 1000’s of Blacks that owned slaves on American soil, or the numbers of slaves owned by Native Americans? Why do you never speak of the fact that it was Blacks, in Africa, that captured these Blacks, sold them to Dutch, and British, traders for transporting to the Caribbeans, and the Spanish, and then on to America? You do know that slavery is practiced in Africa today, do you not?

As to war, Jesus would not have supported wars to be sure. Perhaps you subscribe to Aquinas’s thoughts on a “Just War”, perhaps not. However, in all of the wars that the US has fought none have been fought for the conquest of land setting aside the Indian Wars.

To whaaaa, when you vote for a person, or support a party, that condones abortion then you by proxy support it. Matters not if you personally say you are against it, if you support a womans right to “choose” to kill her unborn then you are condoning it.

So, as to the Ten Commandments, is there a reason why you do not want children to be reminded that it is wrong to lie, commit adultery, murder, covet anothers wife, or goods, or that one should homor their parents?

Or, is it just the first four you have a problem with?

Party Pooper said:
“Mr Swipies

Some responses to your responses: and questions I hope you’ll answer for me

State one moral absolute – as you’re so fond of them”

Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal; that shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not commit perjury; thou shalt not covet; thou shalt not murder; and there are more

“Why have “the 10 Commandments and God” in all our schools if Theocracy isn’t your aim?”

They were there for 200 years, and remain in the USSC, and Congress. What attempt at a theocracy was made? Why is it that the Congress can open each session with a prayer by a hired chaplain, and yet the children in the schools can’t even have a moment of silence? Does not the “separation of Church and State” apply to Congress?

“Why can’t “the kids” just learn the “10 Commandments and God” at home? Why must it be in school?”

They should be, however, the schools are teaching activities which violate the Ten Commandments. Why is it so hard to allow a reminder to the kids of the Ten Commandments? Why must they be removed from all public “property”? Why are the secularists, atheists, etc., insisteing on the removal of all crosses from public property, from State, city, etc., flags? Is it their intent to establish a pagan society with no “god”, and a lack of morality?

“How did the last election show us that kids vote for “who their parents” voted for?”

Each generation is becoming more degenerate. For the past 20 years, or more, we have elected liars, etc., to office. Barack Obama was not elected on his qualifications. He was elected on the basis of his promises to give “freebies” to all, and this generation desires more of the same.

“Who was this child you say was suspended for drawing Jesus?”

Could not find that exact story, however, I did find this from http://www.allschooltrends.com

June 7, 2008
Student Suspended for Praying Silently
CHATTANOOGA, Tn – Serial prayer-in-school offender Tammy Drekker, 15 (at left), was suspended for her 6th time this year after admitting communicating privately with her Heavenly Father during an American History class last week at Farrel County High School. Her teacher, Margaret Smith, said the offense was easy to detect. “I saw her lips moving so I asked her and she admitted it. She never lies,” she said.

Principal Sam Shilton said his school was getting the upper hand in the battle to eradicate the problem. “We’ve stopped group-prayer, prayer-partner-prayer, hands-clasped soloing, and we’ve pretty much eliminated silent lip-moving prayer. It’s just mental prayer that’s left and we’re getting so we can tell when a student goes into that zone too. They get a certain look in their eyes and the Christian kids can’t help but admit it when confronted. This is government property. That kind of communication isn’t appropriate in this restricted air space.”

“Why does “teaching a child to use a condom not demonstrate any form of morality”? Surely it teaches boys that they should consider the possibility that the girl they are having sex with may get pregnant and they can reduce this chance significantly and the chance of ruining her life by wearing a condom? Isn’t this more moral than him not considering it?”

What it teaches kids is that there is less of a chance of getting a disease, or a girl pregnant, if they use one. While this is true, it is also true that the children will then take riskier chances. have you ever lookedat the rise in the numbers of STD’s, HIV/AIDS, Chalmydia, amongst the young children? Are you aware that the fastest growing group of people getting HIV/AIDS is the 16 to 24 age group?

“By what mechanisms are Jesus Christ and Christianity related to the US domination the world, particularly financially and militarily? I’m intrigued by this one.”

Is the US dominating the world? Did not know that. However, it was upon the Christian faith that the US was based. Does not mean that the US is, or ever was, a “Christian” nation to the exclusion of all other religions. Nor does it mean that the US was founded to be a solely Christian nation. However, if you consider the basis for the founding of the US it definitely was Christian.

“Your historical analysis portrays the US as “Christian” nation, of Christian people, by Christian people and for Christian people… isn’t this just a Theocracy?”

Read previous answer.

BTW, do you even know what a theocracy is? Do you know that the Israeli’s rejected with the crowning of King Saul? Do you know of any Christian group that espouses such?

Biblically speaking, Christ has said He will establish His kingdom on earth when He returns. There is nothing said of man establishing His kingdom.

“I look forward to your considered replies.”

Hope it satisfies you. If not, ask more questions.

Richard Shortall said:
Thanks again Ken, we are endebted to you for helping me understand that the Indians’ lousy immune systems were responsible for their Genocide, Blacks enslaved themselves and each other,”

Hopefully you are not so arrogant (or is it ignorance) as to think that it is not true. If you were to study the actual history of the Native American you would find that 2/3’s of the original population had been eliminated by disease (especially that of smallpox, and syphillis) before there was any westward expansion. And I will put it down to your ignorance, Bkacks did sell Blacks, Native Anerican’s did own Blacks, and others, as slaves (they even traded them with other tribes); and Blacks did own Blacks.

Don’t blame it all on the “white man”.

“and that a supposedly literate man can read the definition of “liberal” and then spend two weeks demonstrating that he hasn’t understood a word of it.”

Where at any point have you even provided one shred of proof that the “liberal” of today is the same as the “liberal” of the 1700’s?

And yet, I have provided many points of evidence that shows they are not the same. And you are just too arrogant to accept it.

“As for “If the idea of school is about the three R’s, and it is failing in that regards, as you contend then perhaps the schools should do just that” I agree (except that I think World Religions should be taught as a core subject in k-12 to reduce the incredible ignorance about religion in the US) but I think the Sermon on the Mount is a far superior moral compass to the 10 Commandments – which is crap
Good luck in your search -”

And which of the Beatitudes have you lived up to?

Without the Ten Commandments there would have been no Nine Beatitudes. Reason why? Without the law, of which the Ten Commandments is the foundation, there would be no restraints on mans behaviour to allow for ones “meekness”.

“Is that really ALL you’ve got Mr. Jeggles? Could you try, just for once, to rise above your old prejudices and limitations ”

Funny, same thing I am continuously left feeling about you. Be sure to post a reply so you can have the last word like always. Child!

Dear Mr. Swipies

I’ve taken the liberty of responding to a few points not directed at me, hope you dont’ mind.

”
Would it not be great if we lived in a perfect world with perfect people? Or would it get quite boring”. It would be hell on earth Mr Swipies, hell on earth. Diversity is vital and one of the most diverse nations on Earth is the US. It is not and it never was perfect no matter how good one’s memories of it are.

MORAL ABSOLUTES:
I note the MORAL ABSOLUTE to which you aspire: “Thou shalt not kill” – where do you stand Mr. Swipies on the Death Penalty? Your stance seems decidedly relativist for such an ABSOLUTIST: “As to the death penalty, it is my opinion that no one should be executed save for evidence of which there can be no question has been presented as in the case of Dahmer, Bundie, and others” You have to be very careful what you write. Remember “ABSOLUTE” means absolute – it doesn’t mean anything else. You have to be careful of espousing “absolutes” you never know when YOUR daughter will be raped and become pregnant and want an abortion – so often the SPECIFIC case, so close to a conservative’s home becomes the “aw well, maybe just this once”… hypocrisy follows. Thou shalt not steal….. never stole anything… ever… congratulations Mr Swipies.. you are unique so you may judge. Never lied???? ABSOLUTELY never.

“They should be, however, the schools are teaching activities which violate the Ten Commandments” – what school activities are being taught that violate the 10 Commandments?

“Is it their intent to establish a pagan society with no “god”, and a lack of morality” – you’re drifting, I asked you for YOUR intention, their intention is irrelevant to the answer.

“And which of the Beatitudes have you lived up to?” – why so angry Mr Swipies? We have all (even you) broken commandments and failed to live up to the Beatitudes for only Jesus in all of history succeeded. I feel the Beatitudes would be more suitable to the school situation (and Congress etc) but I know why they will never get there…. because the Beatitudes are soooooooo un-American. The nation that has bombed more civilians than any other nation on Earth doesn’t go in for “meekness” or “peace”.

If the idea of school is about the three R’s, and it is failing in that regards, as you contend then perhaps the schools should do just that” I agree (except that I think World Religions should be taught as a core subject in k-12 to reduce the incredible ignorance about religion in the US) but I think the Sermon on the Mount is a far superior moral compass to the 10 Commandments

“Where at any point have you even provided one shred of proof that the “liberal” of today is the same as the “liberal” of the 1700’s?” You’ve just given another example to prove you didn’t understand the definition of “liberal”…. read it again…. it’s about a mode of thought and a set of beliefs in the nature of man. New and Old liberals exist only in YOUR mind Swipies. Do try to keep up.

And yet, I have provided many points of evidence that shows they are not the same.NO YOU DIDN’T And you are just too arrogant to accept it POT CALLING KETTLE BLACKARSE AGAIN.

HILARIOUS!!! “”And which of the Beatitudes have you lived up to?”… we’re not in the middle school debate here Swipies… yeah, well, I saw you spit, so’n’yer in trouble too!… Get over yourself. If you don’t have an answer to my suggestion about the Beatitudes at least try to do better than “which have you lived up to” that was wayyyyyy beyond irrelevant. Almost as bad as “Or, is it just the first four you have a problem with”… pathetic, middle school, boy who never made the debating team standard.

“Without the Ten Commandments there would have been no Nine Beatitudes. Reason why? Without the law, of which the Ten Commandments is the foundation, there would be no restraints on mans behaviour to allow for ones “meekness” There is some sense behind this but it does not mean we can’t have the Beatitudes in schools INSTEAD of the 10 commandments. As I said above, I actually think world religious should be taught in k-12: religion is too important to be left to amateurs.

July 26, 2009 Party Pooper II said:
“A bit superficial here: “And I don’t think that if one considers the nature of the human heart that war can be avoided unless one wants to be a slave to another” Switzerland seems to have managed it… actually, don’t you think the US is a bit too fond of war? Who profits? hmmmmmmm”

Switzerland? You mean the country where every man, and woman, is required to serve two years in the military? Where every household is required to have a gun in working condition, fully loaded, and available? That Switzerland?

“Some lessons in logic: the reduction of the tribes’ population prior to expansion and eventual genocide does not exculpate the Europeans from their part in trying to wipe out the remainder. Similarly, that other people own slaves does not exculpate a European settler (i.e. white man) from owning a slave. You’re very illogical Mr Swipies. Tut tut.”

What is illogical in presenting ALL of the facts concerning a situation? You, an d others, seem to want to blame all of the ills on the European “white man” when it is not true.

“More lack of logic: “it is also true that the children will then take riskier chances” not so – wearing a condom does not constitute a risk NOT wearing one does. Mixed up again.”

Do some research on how many condoms fail, slip off during intercourse, or simply leak over the top of the casing. Do some research on how many of these diseases can be passed by simple body fluids from the sexual transference.

Only abstinence presents no risk, and the modern day “liberal” opposes teaching that.

“This is all very stimulating, but you didn’t answer the question Mr. Swipies.”

LOL, simply because you did not understand the answer I suppose. For generations the kids have voted as their parents have, and as each generation becomes more “liberal” in their beliefs so does the voting pattern.

“Does not mean that the US is, or ever wasI PAUSE HERE TO POINT OUT A BAREFACED LIE, MR SWIPIES – YES, AS YOU WELL KNOW, THE US IS DOMINATING THE WORLD],You in fact said this earlier: “Christianity has played a major role in its growing to the world power it has become, and is now losing as it loses it moral roots”.. clearly you infer that Christian “morals” have led the US to world power status – what then lead the USSR, Britain, France and China to world power status? AND most important of all by what mechanism do Christian Morals beget POWER of all things? Aren’t you just talking through your hat? Can’t you hear Jesus snickering at you?”

First, it is YOUR contention that the US dominates the world. That is the bold faced lie. Being a world power does not necessitate domination.

Nor did I say that only Christian morals can lead a country to being a world power. Take Britain as an example. Was it not a world power till it dominated too much territory? Communism, or the use of force, can accomplish much as can evil.

“If the US isn’t “solely” Christian then why don’t we just keep all religion out of schools and Congress and courts? And wasn’t it YOU who inferred that the Christian status of the US was the reason for its preeminence? Backtracking again Mr Swipies….”

Have never “backtracked”. It is only your lack of understanding that makes it appear to be so, or should i call it “lying”?

Now, keeping “all religion” out of the schools would be fine if it were possible. However, as we now have it the only religion being kept out is the Judeo/Christian religion. Students have been taught to use Muslim names, prayer rugs, etc. Secularism, and Humanism, is the atheist version of religion. Hindu, Buddhist, Wicca, etc., symbols are allowed in schools.

Yawn, long long ago, Swipies, you became boring

Richard Shortall said:
I agree (except that I think World Religions should be taught as a core subject in k-12 to reduce the incredible ignorance about religion in the US) but I think the Sermon on the Mount is a far superior moral compass to the 10 Commandments”

Of the five major religions in the world can you name the one that has no God?

Of the ten Beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount, can you name one that is not based on the Ten Commandments, or does not promise a reward from God?

What do you have against teaching children not to lie, steal, commit murder, etc?

“You’ve just given another example to prove you didn’t understand the definition of “liberal”…. read it again…. it’s about a mode of thought and a set of beliefs in the nature of man. New and Old liberals exist only in YOUR mind Swipies. Do try to keep up.”

Not at all. While some refer to the “left wing” as “liberals”, “progressives”, or “socialists”, there is no comparison between them, and the “classical liberal” of the 1700’s. The “liberal” of the 1700’s would not have supported abortion, wefare, social security, the progressive income tax, a central bank, or the suppression of individual, and States, rights, or the expansion of the power of the Federal Government which Jefferson clearly warned against.

This you cannot accept.

“NO YOU DIDN’T And you are just too arrogant to accept it POT CALLING KETTLE BLACKARSE AGAIN.”

And again, you lie. I just did even as I have done many times before.

“HILARIOUS!!! we’re not in the middle school debate here Swipies… yeah, well, I saw you spit, so’n’yer in trouble too!… Get over yourself. If you don’t have an answer to my suggestion about the Beatitudes at least try to do better than “which have you lived up to” that was wayyyyyy beyond irrelevant. Almost as bad as “Or, is it just the first four you have a problem with”… pathetic, middle school, boy who never made the debating team standard.”

Then quit acting as a child, and explain why they are better, or superior, to the Ten Commandments.

“There is some sense behind this but it does not mean we can’t have the Beatitudes in schools INSTEAD of the 10 commandments. As I said above, I actually think world religious should be taught in k-12: religion is too important to be left to amateurs.”

“Amateurs”? Just who are these “amateurs”?

Again though, what is your opposition to the Ten Commandments?

Evidently it is the first four of the Commandments. So, let me ask you these few questions:

1. The First Commandment is to love the Lord thy God. Do you know who God is? Is not God the Lord of all? Could not the God of the Ten Commandments apply to any religion?

2. The Second Commandment is not the have any graven images that would represent another “god”. What is there that threatens you, or any other?

3. The Third Commandment is to not take the Lords name in vain. Anything wrong with not cursing?

4. The Third Commandment says “six days shall you work and do all your work. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord your God. In it shall you do no work” Does not man deserve a day off?

Yawn, long long ago, Swipies, you became boring now you’re just an insulting little man calling me a liar – so now I’m bored AND angry at myself for being drawn into a series of stupid arguments with an ignorant, bigoted fanatic (with a 3.6 GPA and who knows maybe even big biceps)

So, OK, whatever you say, you’re right yawn

The Swipies Summary

lol, yawn, boooorrrring, yap, yap, yap lol, I’m da best ya boo, you lose, you lose, America Forever, I was right all along, yah boo

Ken

Expand your vocabulary or your perspective. Remember, disagreement does not automatically mean ‘lie.’ Your opinion is just that–not truth. Richard’s opinions are the same–opinions–sometimes based in fact, sometimes not.

I know one thing–I can’t argue with a christian believer, a 9/11 truther, and the latest true believer: the Obama birth certificate deniers.

Party Pooper said:
“And yet, Mr. Swipies, you haven’t answered any of the original questions I put in the letter to Source, you just went on some kind of a rant about new and old liberals WTF they are, called nearly everyone who disagreed with you a liar (unacceptable, don’t you think) and cited a bunch of stuff you cut/pasted from Google and Wiki (I checked). They you said you didn’t say what you had just said and so on:”

Didn’t I just go through your last post point by point, and answered everything? Was it not posted here, hmmmm. Well, here we go again.

“Isnâ ™t Theocratic Rule one of the reasons we donâ ™t like Iran and Saudi Arabia (woops, sorry, I didnâ ™t mean Saudi Arabia theyâ ™re one of our allies and best providers of suicide airline pilots)”

Again, I will ask you, who, aside from the likes of you, has even suggested any form of theocratic rule here in the States? Did I not say Christ has said when He would establish His rule (theocratic), and it was not for man to do so?

“2. Shouldnâ ™t we maybe put the â 10 Commandments and God⠝ back in the White House firstâ ¦and weâ ™ll work on the kids later? Rhetorical – no answer required”

Did I not give examples of how the Ten Commandments is already in the Congress, and the USSC? Why wait till later to work on the kids? Are they not deserving now? Or are you satisified with 60% of them lying/cheating on tests; murdering one another; over 30% stealing from their parents; etc?

“3. If kids had the â 10 Commandments and God⠝ at home, surely they wouldnâ ™t need it at school! True – ab initio. You supplied no answer to supplement this”

Actually I did. What I said was even if it is taught in the home, what about when the child goes to the school, and the teacher teaches something different? Forget so soon?

“4. What about the 10-15% of Americans who are atheists – donâ ™t they have rights too? How about Muslim, Jane, Hindu, Buddhist…. Americans. Are these â non-people,⠝ â non-citizens?⠝ You completely ignored this point.”

Not at all. You just seemed to have missed my response.

In fact, your 15% figure is wrong, as are most of your points. Since 86% of the American people claim to be Christian, and 90+% claim to believe in a higher power, of God, you can see how your claim for Atheism is in error.

Now, it is evidently your opinion that in order to protect the rights of those who are non-Christians we must suppress the rights of Christians, right? When those who do not believe in God are offended by “In God We Trust” on the money they covet so badly then perhaps you will have a point.

“5. Which version of God should we put in schools – there are some cute Hindu ones. You had a good suggestion about a “general God” I agree with you here. But “general God” is not God of the Old Testament – you can’t have it both ways.”

And, as I explained before, the God of the Ten Commandments can be viewed in a generic manner. Does not have to be the God of the OT.

“6. If kids donâ ™t have the â 10 Commandments and God⠝ at home â ” how likely are they to take any notice of these things in school anyway? Many donâ ™t seem to learn much there; do we really think â morals⠝ would prove successful if we canâ ™t even teach them to use a condom? You wandered off into an irrelevant diatribe about condoms for some reason… The question had nothing at all to do with condoms.”

Ok, once again for those who have a problem with reading comprehension.

Is it your position that the teaching of sex education, and the handing out of condoms; birth control pills, etc., does not promote promiscuity? And, is this not a moral question? Or, do you think kids as young as 11 having sex is not a moral question, and thus should be allowed? Is not abortion a moral question, or is killing the unborn for no other reason then convenience, acceptable?

“Thanks anyway – the argument was stimulating if somewhat overheated”

Would be better if you had just read what I said the first time around.

Sheeeesh! Mr Swipies, you really are an angry man! You seem to ignore my points above, and that’s OK for I think I can easily predict your answers down to the nearest gggggoooooowwwl anyway.

You seem to be fixated on “sub-classes” – you made up a few new categories of “liberal” – presumably because the real AND FULL dictionary definition paints a picture of a very admirable person indeed and this picture does not match your impression of the Democrats you have encountered. The resulting psychic shock forced you to conclude that there are different categories of liberal, not described in any dictionary. You really should write a book about this.

You have called everyone on this argument (except me, I think) a liar, including the president of the United States whose moral principles are so far superior to those of the previous (?two) administrations that they occupy completely different moral universes.

You described the Jackass/Donkey thing for no apparent reason but that you see something of import in the identity of the mascots that we all missed but middle school boys would no doubt appreciate.

Ken

Thanks–now we truly know where you stand. Let it go people–Swipies has seen the light! OTFLMAO!

Ah, yes, those WERE the days my friend, I thought they’d never end, we’d sing and dance forever and a day, we’d live the life we’d choose, we’d play and never lose, those were the days oh yes those were the days. Na na na na na na – na na na na na na, those were the days… oh yes those were the days.

Delusional, functionally illiterate, full of fear, anger and hate, xenophobic, sexist, probably racist and homophobic – fixated on fetuses and the sex lives of young people … we can’t help you Swipies, maybe no one can

Party Pooper said:
You first demanded MORAL ABSOLUTES (listing a few, including “Thou shalt not kill”) then you softened your absolutist approach twice: once to change the wording to “thou shalt not murder” – something one does not hear much outside the US by the way – then you changed your disdain for the Death Penalty to …. “well in cases where the scum deserved it!””

First off, I demanded NOTHING, so to that extent you are a liar again. Secondly, I never used the word “scum”, so you are lying again.

Christ said ln Matt. 5:21 that “You have heard that it was said to those of old ‘You shall not murder'”, an obvious reference to the Sixth Commandment, and I would take His word over yours any day.

“You dabbled in Biblical Exegesis having first said “kill” then “murder” then some Hewbrew word that is still the subject of considerable debate amongst Biblical scholars far more erudite than you or even me.”

Might want to read this since you have read nothing else of what I have written

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/what-does-thou-shall-not-kill-mean.html

“And Mr. Shortall’s point all along was ignored…. isn’t is so convenient for a government prone to making war (US) and executing its own citizens, and for a conservative citizenry morally untroubled by both of these “killing occasions” to interpret the Commandment as “murder” rather than “kill”. This question bears answering.”

Is there a question there, or just another baseless attack?

Just out of curiousity, from the War of 1812, to the invasion of Iraq, which of those wars in your mind was not justified? And how many were started by Democrats?

What would you do with rapists, murderers, etc? I know what God said to do, however, what would you do?
“When we ask for precision you make up sub-categories that suit your purpose…(the latest and funniest being the Natural Born Kill er, I mean Citizen) when we say different to you we are liars…. when we point out problems with the US you invite us to leave the country and when none of that works you embark on a rant about elephants.”

Now you lie again. I made no rant about elephants.

Secondly, is it your opinion that the Constitution does not mention a difference between “Natural Born Citizen”, and “citizen”? Is it your opinion that Schwarzenberger can run for President?

And finally, the question remains. If you hate the country so much why do you stay? I’m not inviting you to leave, just curious as to why you would stay in a country you obviously hate.

And, as I said before, most of your criticisms of the US are unfounded just as your accusation that I am filled with anger is. It is you, Shortall, and others, who have clearly demonstrated your hate, and anger, in your refusal to engage in intelligent dialogue. Instead, you resort to attacks, and BS, while whining if I respnd in a similar manner.

“Do unto others as you would have them do to you”

Mr Swipies…. if the wonderful circumstances in which you were brought up produced one so angry, unschooled, rude, cynical and negative as you then thank God those times are gone forever….

“You have grown accustomed to living with your fear, and your anger, that it seems there is no other way to live.

“Like I said, I pity all of you for things are not going to get better. You won’t let it”

Every single negative emotion and quality you have accused all the other writers of having – you have yourself, in spades… and quite a few others besides. From an analysis point of view this means that, deep down, you have pretty good self-knowledge: you project to others your own bad characteristics…. and accuse accordingly. It’s a classic maneuver.

It hasn’t been fun debating with you, for this and several other reasons as you don’t really know what a debate is (you believe it is an excuse to rant and rage) and you have only a rudimentary grasp of the terms used in the debate; “liberal”, “freedom”, “quality of life”, “proof”, “demonstrate” etc.

Ken–

No attack–just an acknowledgment that you have your own reality that precludes any rational consideration of contrary opinion or fact. I was referring to your Obama discourse…although I could have considered other parts of your commentary.

And, by the way, you don’t know me so don’t paste me with a ‘leftwinger’ label or any other. You think it’s because I disagree with you? Well, I’ve got a bunch of so-called ‘conservative’ friends who read your missives and just shake their heads. We pity you.

And beyond ‘nostalgia’ for the way things once were, a denial of any responsibility in the actions and processes that ‘changed’ things, shouldering that responsibility onto anyone who disagrees because they are liberal liars, and claiming that all it takes to make things better is that ‘old time religion’ and the ten commandments, you, sir, have presented no plan at all.

Whatever it is, you’re against it…