User Profile: TeresaJ

TeresaJ

Member Since: June 27, 2012

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [27] December 19, 2014 at 2:24pm

    Only one could be considered a commandment, and it is Biblically based ( # 7). Some are a moral suggestion (6,8,10), and the rest are not moral commands at all, but attacks, mild or no, on belief in a religion or Deity.
    The Top 10 Philosophies of Atheists would be more accurate; and then they contradict, in fallible human fashion.
    #1 “Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence” unless it points to God
    #2 “Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true” unless it’s what you think is true
    #3 “The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world” unless it contradicts my philosophy (i.e. abortion #4)
    #4 “Every person has the right to control over their body”
    #5 “God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life” so all the “commandments” I make here are meaningless. We will measure ourselves against what we think is ok, and we’ll turn out just fine.
    #6 “Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them” Almost a Biblical statement.
    #7 IS a Biblical statement
    #8 “We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations” yet you don’t. #8 is also Biblical, however.
    #9 See # 5
    #10 “Leave the world a better place than you found it” as long as its not by the dumb (See #1) ancient writings of a Deity or old, dead men.

  • December 18, 2014 at 7:05pm

    The Justice Department can’t be trusted to interpret the Constitution with anymore integrity than Obama can be trusted to uphold it.

  • [7] December 16, 2014 at 4:23pm

    Agreed. I was thinking… how is this an accurate representation? I don’t listen to the radio (most of the time they don’t even play real Christmas music anyway, it’s “holiday” music) and I don’t stream music. However, I love Christmas! And Christmas music. We did our choir program over this weekend already. ^^

    I’m sure it wasn’t meant to be a serious representation, probably more of an advertisement.

    Merry Christmas!!

  • [4] December 15, 2014 at 10:33pm

    Mot, you are referring to a different part of the Constitution. Religious rights are covered under the First Amendment. In addition, that “belief” is the “foundation on which our system of government rests,” to borrow a quote from Congress.

    In your second paragraph… I did say that laws are not enacted based on how someone feels. You took that and asked why those vices should be illegal… based on how people feel. Alchohol and drugs are scientifically proven to alter one’s cognitive reasoning to the point that they are a public danger. Prostitution and gambling attract immoral characters, which in turn invites crime and threatens public saftey and peace.

    I do think, like many young people of this generation, that you have a distorted view of what “freedom” means. The Colonists didn’t fight for freedom to replace it with anarchy. We don’t need a government if for the purpose of complete “freedom” of the version you illustrated. We need a government to establish order. That is its purpose. Religion and personal governance is the backbone of American government.

    “The primary objects of government are the peace, order, and prosperity of society. . . . To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support: and among these . . . religious institutions are eminently useful and important. . . . The legislature, charged with the great interests of the community, may, and ought to countenance, aid and protect religious institutions—institutions wisely calculated to direct men to the performance of all the duties arising from their connection with each other, and to prevent or repress those evils which flow from unrestrained passion.” Oliver Ellsworth Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court 1802

  • [2] December 15, 2014 at 9:57pm

    “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. . . . When the State encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.” Supreme Court 1953

  • [2] December 15, 2014 at 9:57pm

    “There certainly can be no doubt as to the practice of employing chaplains in deliberative bodies previous to the adoption of the Constitution. We are, then, prepared to see if any change was made in that respect in the new order of affairs. . . . On the 1st day of May [1789], Washington’s first speech was read to the House, and the first business after that speech was the appointment of Dr. Linn as chaplain. By whom was this plan made? Three out of six of that joint committee were members of the Convention that framed the Constitution. Madison, Ellsworth, and Sherman passed directly from the hall of the Convention to the hall of Congress. Did they not know what was constitutional? . . . It seems to us that the men who would raise the cry of danger in this state of things would cry fire on the 39th day of a general deluge. . . . But we beg leave to rescue ourselves from the imputation of asserting that religion is not needed to the safety of civil society. It must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment—without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices.” House Report, March 27, 1854

  • [2] December 15, 2014 at 9:56pm

    “We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. . . . I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more clergy of the city be requested to officiate in that service.” Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Constitution, Signer of the Declaration, Governor of Pennsylvania

    “It is the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to countenance and encourage virtue and religion. I therefore recommend a general and public return of praise and thanksgiving to Him from whose goodness these blessings descend. The most effectual means of securing the continuance of our civil and religious liberties is always to remember with reverence and gratitude the source from which they flow.” John Jay, Original Chief-Justice U. S. Supreme Court, An Author of the Federalist Papers, Governor of New York

  • [1] December 15, 2014 at 9:56pm

    “While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.” George Washington

    “We can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning during the sessions in order to open the meeting with prayer.” Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, A Framer of the Bill of Rights in the First Congress

    “Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement. . . . The very existence of the republics . . . depend much upon the public institutions of religion.” John Hancock, Signer of Declaration of Independence, Governor of Massachusetts

  • [2] December 15, 2014 at 9:55pm

    “I had the honor of being one among many who framed that Constitution. . . . In order effectually to accomplish these great ends, it is incumbent upon us to begin wisely and to proceed in the fear of God; . . . and it is especially the duty of those who bear rule to promote and encourage piety (respect for God).” Henry Laurens, President of Congress, Selected as Delegate to the Constitutional Convention

    “A free government. . . . can only be happy when the public principle and opinions are properly directed. . . . by religion and education. It should therefore be among the first objects of those who wish well to the national prosperity to encourage and support the principles of religion and morality.” Abraham Baldwin, Signer of the Constitution, A Framer of the Bill of Rights in the First Congress

    “No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.” Thomas Jefferson

    Refering to the Ten Commandments: “The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws.” John Quincy Adams

  • [-1] December 15, 2014 at 6:22pm

    See my answer in the first part of my post.

  • December 15, 2014 at 6:19pm

    No Harry, because as I said, you are basing your argument on a feeling. Until if and when you can prove consistently that someone IS attracted to the same sex and cannot change that attraction no matter what, and that proof must be based on tangible evidence and not someone’s say-so, you do not even have a beginning of an argument to compare it to interracial marriage.

    Even if you can prove these things, it is still not an immutable trait in the manner of skin color, because it is a feeling and a behavior, not a body part. They are not like issues. Again, flawed argument, flawed reasoning, flawed cause. Not only have you not proven it, evidence abounds that people turn to homosexuality as much if not more due to environmental factors than being “born with it.” That alone strikes that argument down.

    Secondly, marriage in the eyes of the law has nothing to do with you “marrying your partner.” While justice should not be without compassion, the government has no business, interest, or investment in how you feel. Government interest in marriage is to provide a stable environment for a healthy society. You would need to prove that same-sex marriage provides that. I have seen the completely biased, small sampled attempts. I have not yet seen a report on the number of self-professed gays coming from broken homes, or the doctors who have been concerned with the confusing environment a same-sex household might have on child sexual development.

  • [2] December 15, 2014 at 3:19pm

    In the case of B., homosexuals have not been discriminated against in like circumstances. They are able to marry the opposite sex like any other person. In addition, marriage has meant marrying the opposite sex not just in our culture, but pretty much any culture. Saying its discrimination is like saying its discrimination for not allowing a baseball player to come and play baseball at a football field (bad analogy, short on time :) ) Again, from its base this is a flawed argument.

    By adopting a law on flawed reasoning, the door is opened to make a lawful argument for a good many things I don’t imagine reasonable people have counted on. That is how our system of government works.

    The homosexual movement has done its best to override any reasonable argument. It is important that man never merely rely on his own flawed judgment. I said to you before that God is a God of order. That order is and includes the laws of science. Some liberals say we should only use science in regards to public domain. I can agree with that. Let’s let scientists give us some real facts not based on agenda in regards to homosexuality. In the meantime, its pretty foolhardy to exchange a system that we know creates stability (marriage) for one we know nothing of (marriage redefinition).

    I have to go, wish I could say more. Best wishes. :)

    Responses (2) +
  • [10] December 15, 2014 at 2:54pm

    Hey Think.

    I’m on my way out the door, so I don’t have a lot of time to comment, but I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding in regards to law and marriage.

    The law states more or less that for a minority group to seek protection under equal rights, they must have an immutable trait, that is, something that cannot be genetically changed, which has been for the most part race and gender, but also could be health related like deaf or handicap.

    They must also prove they have been discriminated against regarding those traits, when it is possible they could reasonably be accommodated. In some circumstances, they may even be granted special rights. For instance, someone without legs cannot reasonably sue to run a race. Prosthetics give him an unfair advantage, so he must run in races with others similar. However, he can also get a handicap parking tag.

    The gay rights agenda falls apart if they cannot prove A., that it is an immutable trait, and B., they have not been discriminated against in like circumstances. Neither of these have been proven. In the case of A, it is impossible to prove sexual feelings like skin color or missing body parts, because the basis is ultimately a feeling. Good laws are not based on how someone feels. They are based on reasonably indisputable facts. Laws regarding sexual preferences are going to be flawed right at its foundation if based on this argument.

    Responses (4) +
  • December 15, 2014 at 2:26pm

    Someone needs to read more American documentation than one line of text that wasn’t even consistent with both copies of the particular document.

  • December 15, 2014 at 1:18pm

    “our” government

  • [2] December 15, 2014 at 1:04pm

    There’s a lot of people who don’t have a “law degree,” including some in the government itself, if they do not understand the difference between “endorsing” and “establishing,” and “excessive entanglement” and “no entanglement.”

  • [8] December 15, 2014 at 12:57pm

    The purpose of displaying the Ten Commandments was as a visual reminder of law and order, and that while are government did not specifically entangle itself in any particular denomination, it is still the laws of nature and nature’s God on which we base our laws and law system.

    Responses (10) +
  • [5] December 15, 2014 at 12:27pm

    My thoughts exactly. The anti-thiests will have to prove it’s religious in nature to begin with, then they will have to prove that it is violating anyone’s religious rights.

    It’s a sign that celebrates Christmas, a national holiday, and does not tell anyone what to believe. In addition, it’s a firehouse. How many people drive by a firehouse and think “seat of government.” Only anti-thiests I suppose. Are they afraid a fireman will not rescue them in an emergency?

  • [7] December 12, 2014 at 6:20pm

    What are you ten, Blinknight? Shouldn’t it be beneath you to make such a childish comment?

    Am I stupid for making the correlation you just correlated, or for commenting that you might actually believe the correlation you just correlated?

  • [11] December 12, 2014 at 4:07pm

    Closest I have ever seen you to admitting that homosexuality is a disorder and therefore not normal.

    Responses (3) +
123 To page: Go