ACLU fights Commandments again

Religions > Atheism > ACLU fights Commandments again

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"J Young"
Date:	14 Jan 2006 11:27:50 PM
Object:	ACLU fights Commandments again

Anyone who uses the 10 Commandments as a blueprint for living will not
find themselves on the wrong end of a legal proceeding.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48342
ACLU fights Commandments again
But legal defender sees 'tide turning' in battle over issue
In the wake of major decisions on public display of the Ten
Commandments, the American Civil Liberties Union is asking a federal court
to order removal of a Tennessee courthouse exhibit.
"The posting of the Ten Commandments sends the message that only
certain believers can receive justice at the courthouse," said Hedy
Weinberg, executive director of ACLU of Tennessee.
The ACLU filed the motion yesterday in U.S. District Court.
Weinberg said "residents should not be made to feel like second class
citizens because they do not hold the prevailing religious beliefs promoted
by the county government."
The display in Rutherford County was approved by a 16-5 vote of the
county commission in April 2002, but two months later, federal court Judge
Robert Echols issued a preliminary injunction removing it.
The decision was stayed, however, pending a decision on similar cases
in two Kentucky counties, McCreary and Mercer.
In each of the counties, the Ten Commandments is displayed among
historical documents. The Rutherford County display includes copies of the
preamble to the Tennessee Constitution, the National Motto, the National
Anthem, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, the Bill of
Rights, the United States Constitution and the Mayflower Compact.
Last June, the Supreme Court in a split 5-4 decision upheld a
preliminary injunction against McCreary County because the court said the
prior history of the county's evolving display suggested a religious
purpose. However, the court permitted the case to return to the trial court
for a final ruling.
In the meantime, Dec. 20, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, the same
court to which the Rutherford County case will be appealed, upheld Mercer
County's identical display.
That court scolded the ACLU, rejecting its "repeated reference to 'the
separation of church and state.'"
"This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome," the court
said. "The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between
church and state."
Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which represents all three counties,
notes it also defeated the ACLU in defense of a similar display in Elkhart
County, Indiana, before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Mathew D. Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel
believes the "tide is turning against the ACLU's war on the Ten
Commandments."
"Every federal court of appeals that has ruled on the Ten Commandments
since the Supreme Court's ruling has upheld such displays," he said. "The
courts, and history, are working against the ACLU."
Staver believes that with Judge Samuel Alito's expected confirmation
to the Supreme Court, "the ACLU can no longer count on the High Court to
further their agenda."
--
"Honesty, Integrity, Compassion, and Decency"
.

User: "• Ninure Saunders"
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	15 Jan 2006 05:17:13 PM

In article <DbednXt3Q-_dQFTeRVn-rQ@giganews.com>, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
- Anyone who uses the 10 Commandments as a blueprint for living will not
-find themselves on the wrong end of a legal proceeding.
-
-Dear Conservative Friend:
Why not simply KEEP the 10 commandments?
I mean would not hundreds of thousands of living "monuments" speak a lot
louder than any stone?
I mean if you truly are a Christian, is not the "Law" of God written on
your hearts?
Now if you really are "zealous" about your faith", and keeping the "commands":
How do you think it looks to non-believers when you say removing a stone
reperesentation of some Bible pages is "removing God²? You might be a
little concerned that your loyality to these stone slabs, and signs and
such just might be making "idols" out them.
I mean you also might want tell your family no more shopping trips on
the Sabbath, no more watching TV, or particpating in sports events, no
going out for dinner or to the movies for example?
Or no more "little white lies" about anything are permitted, right, if you
are actually keeping the "commands"? No more more claiming that people who
disagree without your claim that such people intend to destroy the
country, or the family, or "life as we know it", no more claiming that
people who don't share your religious views are "satanist", or atheist, or
³thery hate religion", right?
No more "borrowing" stuff from work or school, would, I am sure , speak
volumes. No more keeping lost items, or ³stiffomg² the waitress.
You married conservatives, remember how Jesus said even looking at someone
with "desire" is the same as the actual act of adultery? No more watching
those pagents, and super models!! And don¹t forget if you ant of your are
lawyers you can¹t be involved in ³divorce cases² any more, since you are
enabling people, according to Jesus, to commit adultery. You will support
this, right?
Beter yet, why not keep the Royal Law?
Rom. 13:9 The commandments, ³Do not commit adultery,² ³Do not murder,²
³Do not steal,² ³Do not covet,² and whatever other commandment there may
be, are summed up in this one rule: ³Love your neighbor as yourself.²
Gal. 5:14 The entire law is summed up in a single command: ³Love your
neighbor as yourself.²
James 2:8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, ³Love
your neighbor as yourself,² you are doing right.
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
http://Rainbow-Christian.tk
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk
My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
.

User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian"
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	15 Jan 2006 12:08:04 AM

J Young wrote:

Anyone who uses the 10 Commandments as a blueprint for living will
not
find themselves on the wrong end of a legal proceeding.

And justly so. Not only is displaying that stuff in a secular court (or in
front of it) a too-easily-misunderstood statement, but the REAL
commandments (read Ex 34) are a perfect example of hatred and bigotry. Of
course the fundie zombies won't tell you that because they know damn well
that they've lost the very moment they start endorsing this "final
version"...
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove,
And gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer,
And fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
Why I am not a christian:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus/nojebus
.

User: "Gregory Gadow"
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	15 Jan 2006 03:34:08 PM

J Young wrote:

Anyone who uses the 10 Commandments as a blueprint for living will not
find themselves on the wrong end of a legal proceeding.

So the one and only way to use the Ten Commandments as a blueprint for living is
to force them down everyone elses throat, no matter what religion or worldview
they follow?
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
- Robert Anton Wilson
.

User: "newzguys"
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	15 Jan 2006 10:44:47 AM

J Young wrote:

First of all, anyone that reads worldnutdaily has no credability.
Second, the 10 Commandments are a list of property rights
violations that have been made to be some holy sacred
"blueprint for living" when in fact it is a list of slave rights.
They had just come out of Egypt and now needed to know
who own what and whom. And then it goes on in Exodus 21
to expand the slave rights. So not only are you following
a Nazi, you are telling us we should follow slave Commandments.
Ten Commandments, Chapter 20 of Exodus
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
You are my property, I made you.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
I am my own property don't make my image, you have no right.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
I made you, you have no right to belittle me.
4. Remember the sabbth day, to keep it holy
I made you, you are to remember me.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother
You are the property of your father and mother keep their
lineage.
6. Thou shalt not kill
Everything is God's property you have no right to interfere in
his plan and kill/take his property.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery
You have no right to take another man's property (women and
children are the property of the father or the husband Exodus 21:7 ).
8. Thou shalt not steal
Don't take another man's property
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
This leads to the loss of another mans property or life.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's (property)
.

User: "Dionisio"
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	16 Jan 2006 11:51:57 AM

newzguys wrote:

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's (property)

Oh, come now. This is alt.politics.homosexuality. You can say "*****" here.
<ducks>
(You can say the other words too. I promise we'll do our best not to
make comments about double entendre.) ;-)
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
.

User: "newzguys"
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	15 Jan 2006 10:45:20 AM

J Young wrote:

User: "Adam H."
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	14 Jan 2006 11:45:51 PM

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:27:50 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

Anyone who uses the 10 Commandments as a blueprint for living will not
find themselves on the wrong end of a legal proceeding.

Actually, they easily could. Let's see if you can figure out how.
Or are you too damn afraid to discuss your posts, knowing how easily
they're refuted?
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.

User: "J Young"
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	14 Jan 2006 11:56:46 PM

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:9bojs1tbq6qaddc9olkjnd06mdhnvnb6tt@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:27:50 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

Anyone who uses the 10 Commandments as a blueprint for living will

not

find themselves on the wrong end of a legal proceeding.

Actually, they easily could. Let's see if you can figure out how.

Or are you too damn afraid to discuss your posts, knowing how easily
they're refuted?

Proceed.[ since I participate in a number of posts, I may not respond
immediately but I will respond ]
.

User: "Cuthbert Thistlethwaite"
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	15 Jan 2006 09:46:06 AM

J Young wrote:

Anyone who uses the 10 Commandments as a blueprint for living will
not find themselves on the wrong end of a legal proceeding.
First of all, which "Ten Commandments?" There are several, but I'm sure
you know that.
But in any event, the Ten Commandments are a preposterous bit of
puffery, combined with inappropriate, out-of-order death threats. Many
commandments make little or no sense, and the ones which actually make
sense are utterly trivial, so trivial as to leave one asking, what's
the big deal?
I shall use the Catholic commandments to illustrate:
1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt
not have strange gods before me.
COMMENT: What self-serving pomposity. Smite my enemies (starting with
the moslems), or go away and take your nonsense with you.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the
Lord thy God in vain.
COMMENT: I don't waste my time swearing at non-existent gods. I swear
at human butt-heads, and I have every right to. Keep out of it.
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath
Day.
COMMENT: I take all the days off I can, without the urging of any
invisible, supernatural entities.
4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
COMMENT: Here we go with the obvious and trivial. Mom and Dad? Of
course. Makes me wonder what kind of primitive shepherds these
pre-Jewish people were, anyway, if they needed to be told that. No real
Jew needs to be told to fuss about his mother.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
COMMENT: Duh. At least, unless someone really has it coming. (Refer to
biblical penalties for commandment violations: Death, in every case.)
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
COMMENT: Fooling around with someone else's spouse is rude and
ill-advised, but everyone knows that.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
COMMENT: Duh. Even primitive shepherds cannot enjoy a minimally orderly
society when they find their own pots and pans in the other guys' hut.
They had to be real morons to require being told this.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbor.
COMMENT: Duh. Don't lie on one another. Again, what kind of freak *****
people were these pre-Jews?
9. Thou shalt not covet thy
neighbour's wife.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's
goods.
COMMENT: I will address the "coveting" clauses together: I have never
agreed with the coveting clauses. What the hell makes me get up in the
morning and get off to work besides my desire to do well and provide for
my family (of whatever sort)? Coveting motivates. As Gordon Gekko said
of greed, "Coveting is good."
So there is my simple case that the Ten Commandments are all either
nonsensical or so trivial as to be ridiculous.
And I'm sure the Jews were happy to leave this amazingly primitive level
of existence behind them and go on to be great jurists, lawyers,
scientists, philosophers, investors, and Nobel prize winners. It is
difficult to imagine that they were ever such idiots.
.

User: "Cuthbert Thistlethwaite"
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	16 Jan 2006 10:14:19 AM

J Young wrote:
.. . .

Proceed.[ since I participate in a number of posts, I may not respond
immediately but I will respond ]

Just another filthy Papist lie, I see.
Sort of like "5 years indulgence."
.

User: "LC"
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	17 Jan 2006 08:30:08 AM

"Cuthbert Thistlethwaite" <nosillygods@myface.net> wrote in message
news:43CBC3A3.D82CAE9F@myface.net...

J Young wrote:
. . .

Proceed.[ since I participate in a number of posts, I may not respond
immediately but I will respond ]

Just another filthy Papist lie, I see.

Par for the course. "J" always runs when he's challenged.
Always.

Sort of like "5 years indulgence."

<g>
.

User: "Daniel Kolle"
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	15 Jan 2006 06:26:20 PM

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:56:46 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
thought hard and wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:9bojs1tbq6qaddc9olkjnd06mdhnvnb6tt@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:27:50 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

Anyone who uses the 10 Commandments as a blueprint for living will

not

find themselves on the wrong end of a legal proceeding.

Actually, they easily could. Let's see if you can figure out how.

Or are you too damn afraid to discuss your posts, knowing how easily
they're refuted?

Proceed.[ since I participate in a number of posts, I may not respond
immediately but I will respond ]

The spacebar is your friend.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 17 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.

User: "Adam H."
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	15 Jan 2006 12:05:02 AM

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:56:46 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:9bojs1tbq6qaddc9olkjnd06mdhnvnb6tt@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:27:50 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

Anyone who uses the 10 Commandments as a blueprint for living will

not

find themselves on the wrong end of a legal proceeding.

Actually, they easily could. Let's see if you can figure out how.

Or are you too damn afraid to discuss your posts, knowing how easily
they're refuted?

Proceed.[ since I participate in a number of posts, I may not respond
immediately but I will respond ]

Did you figure out how yet?
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.

User: "J Young"
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	15 Jan 2006 12:07:34 AM

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:cfpjs15l6mkljjqree0nbbec0e1co5kdpv@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:56:46 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:9bojs1tbq6qaddc9olkjnd06mdhnvnb6tt@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:27:50 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

Anyone who uses the 10 Commandments as a blueprint for living

will

not

find themselves on the wrong end of a legal proceeding.

Actually, they easily could. Let's see if you can figure out how.

Or are you too damn afraid to discuss your posts, knowing how easily
they're refuted?

Proceed.[ since I participate in a number of posts, I may not respond
immediately but I will respond ]

Did you figure out how yet?

Proceed.
.

User: "Adam H."
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	15 Jan 2006 01:38:49 AM

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:07:34 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:cfpjs15l6mkljjqree0nbbec0e1co5kdpv@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:56:46 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:9bojs1tbq6qaddc9olkjnd06mdhnvnb6tt@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:27:50 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

Anyone who uses the 10 Commandments as a blueprint for living

will

not

find themselves on the wrong end of a legal proceeding.

Actually, they easily could. Let's see if you can figure out how.

Or are you too damn afraid to discuss your posts, knowing how easily
they're refuted?

Proceed.[ since I participate in a number of posts, I may not respond
immediately but I will respond ]

Did you figure out how yet?

Proceed.

4th. Commandment, Exodus 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it
holy”. Old Testament punishment - Exodus 31:15 “Whosoever shall work
in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death”. Numbers 15:32.
“And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a
man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day…And all the congregation
brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died;
as the Lord commanded Moses.”
Plan on enforcing that one?
5th. Commandment, Exodus 20:12 “Honour thy father and thy mother”. Old
Testament punishment - Exodus 21:15-17 “And he that smiteth his
father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death”. More punishment
- Exodus 21:17 “And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall
surely be put to death”.
Or this one? Or do you think that you don't have to follow the 10 in
any way but the way you say is correct?
Oh, wait - that's one of the seven sins, right there.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.

User: "glugg"
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	15 Jan 2006 08:34:10 AM

Adam H. wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:07:34 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:cfpjs15l6mkljjqree0nbbec0e1co5kdpv@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:56:46 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:9bojs1tbq6qaddc9olkjnd06mdhnvnb6tt@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:27:50 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

Anyone who uses the 10 Commandments as a blueprint for living

will

not

find themselves on the wrong end of a legal proceeding.

Actually, they easily could. Let's see if you can figure out how.

Or are you too damn afraid to discuss your posts, knowing how easily
they're refuted?

Proceed.[ since I participate in a number of posts, I may not respond
immediately but I will respond ]

Did you figure out how yet?

Proceed.

4th. Commandment, Exodus 20:8 "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it
holy". Old Testament punishment - Exodus 31:15 "Whosoever shall work
in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death". Numbers 15:32.
"And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a
man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day...And all the congregation
brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died;
as the Lord commanded Moses."

Plan on enforcing that one?

Is he Moses?

5th. Commandment, Exodus 20:12 "Honour thy father and thy mother". Old
Testament punishment - Exodus 21:15-17 "And he that smiteth his
father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death". More punishment
- Exodus 21:17 "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall
surely be put to death".

Or this one? Or do you think that you don't have to follow the 10 in
any way but the way you say is correct?

Are you saying there is a command here to put someone to death?
Just from what you wrote I dont see any command.
.

User: "Andrealphus"
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	15 Jan 2006 09:04:12 AM

In News 1137335650.141747.295100@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,, glugg at
glugg2001@hotmail.com, typed this:

Adam H. wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:07:34 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:cfpjs15l6mkljjqree0nbbec0e1co5kdpv@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:56:46 -0500, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:9bojs1tbq6qaddc9olkjnd06mdhnvnb6tt@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:27:50 -0500, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:

Anyone who uses the 10 Commandments as a blueprint for
living will not find themselves on the wrong end of a legal
proceeding.

Actually, they easily could. Let's see if you can figure out how.

Or are you too damn afraid to discuss your posts, knowing how
easily they're refuted?

Proceed.[ since I participate in a number of posts, I may not
respond immediately but I will respond ]

Did you figure out how yet?

Proceed.

4th. Commandment, Exodus 20:8 "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it
holy". Old Testament punishment - Exodus 31:15 "Whosoever shall work
in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death". Numbers 15:32.
"And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found
a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day...And all the
congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with
stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."

Plan on enforcing that one?

Is he Moses?

5th. Commandment, Exodus 20:12 "Honour thy father and thy mother".
Old Testament punishment - Exodus 21:15-17 "And he that smiteth his
father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death". More punishment
- Exodus 21:17 "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall
surely be put to death".

Or this one? Or do you think that you don't have to follow the 10 in
any way but the way you say is correct?

Are you saying there is a command here to put someone to death?
Just from what you wrote I dont see any command.

No wonder the Bible thumpers have so much trouble. I had assumed that they
could at least read the text.
Tell us what you think the phrase, "...shall be surely put to death..."
means.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
.

User: "Adam H."
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	15 Jan 2006 09:55:11 AM

On 15 Jan 2006 06:34:10 -0800, "glugg" <glugg2001@hotmail.com> wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:07:34 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:cfpjs15l6mkljjqree0nbbec0e1co5kdpv@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:56:46 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:9bojs1tbq6qaddc9olkjnd06mdhnvnb6tt@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:27:50 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

Anyone who uses the 10 Commandments as a blueprint for living

will

not

find themselves on the wrong end of a legal proceeding.

Actually, they easily could. Let's see if you can figure out how.

Or are you too damn afraid to discuss your posts, knowing how easily
they're refuted?

Proceed.[ since I participate in a number of posts, I may not respond
immediately but I will respond ]

Did you figure out how yet?

Proceed.

Is he Moses?

Did you read the post? 'Whosoever', not Moses.

Are you saying there is a command here to put someone to death?
Just from what you wrote I dont see any command.

Did you read the post? 'Cause if you did, the commands are clear.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	15 Jan 2006 08:22:52 PM

Adam H. wrote:

On 15 Jan 2006 06:34:10 -0800, "glugg" <glugg2001@hotmail.com> wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:07:34 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:cfpjs15l6mkljjqree0nbbec0e1co5kdpv@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:56:46 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:9bojs1tbq6qaddc9olkjnd06mdhnvnb6tt@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:27:50 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

Anyone who uses the 10 Commandments as a blueprint for living

will

not

find themselves on the wrong end of a legal proceeding.

Actually, they easily could. Let's see if you can figure out how.

Or are you too damn afraid to discuss your posts, knowing how easily
they're refuted?

Proceed.[ since I participate in a number of posts, I may not respond
immediately but I will respond ]

Did you figure out how yet?

Proceed.

Is he Moses?

Did you read the post? 'Whosoever', not Moses.

I didnt mean who should die (whosoever), I mean who was commanded
(Moses) and could therefore be an "enforcer" of the command if that's
what it means.
I read that line to mean the man died as was fortold in the
commandment(s) given to Moses. Of course there is also
translation problems which could complicate the issue.

Are you saying there is a command here to put someone to death?
Just from what you wrote I dont see any command.

Did you read the post? 'Cause if you did, the commands are clear.

"surely put to death" means put to death by whom or by what?
If you and I were standing by a busy freeway full of cars going 60mph
practically bumper to bumper and I said to you "anyone who attempts
to cross this road will surely be put to death" would you take it to
mean
that I'm ordering you to kill anyone who attempts to cross the road?
It seems to me more like a warning than anything else.
Maybe there is more in the bible that makes it more clear these
things you wrote are orders for men to kill men who disobey the
commandments but then thats why I pointed out that I'm only
going by what you wrote. I just thought maybe you could provide
the answer.
.

User: "Adam H."
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	15 Jan 2006 08:32:57 PM

On 15 Jan 2006 18:22:52 -0800,

wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

On 15 Jan 2006 06:34:10 -0800, "glugg" <

> wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:07:34 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:cfpjs15l6mkljjqree0nbbec0e1co5kdpv@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:56:46 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:9bojs1tbq6qaddc9olkjnd06mdhnvnb6tt@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:27:50 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

Anyone who uses the 10 Commandments as a blueprint for living

will

not

find themselves on the wrong end of a legal proceeding.

Actually, they easily could. Let's see if you can figure out how.

Or are you too damn afraid to discuss your posts, knowing how easily
they're refuted?

Proceed.[ since I participate in a number of posts, I may not respond
immediately but I will respond ]

Did you figure out how yet?

Proceed.

Is he Moses?

Did you read the post? 'Whosoever', not Moses.

I didnt mean who should die (whosoever), I mean who was commanded
(Moses) and could therefore be an "enforcer" of the command if that's
what it means.

I read that line to mean the man died as was fortold in the
commandment(s) given to Moses. Of course there is also
translation problems which could complicate the issue.

The man didn't just 'die', he was executed as punishment for working
on the Sabbath. It seems quite clear.

Are you saying there is a command here to put someone to death?
Just from what you wrote I dont see any command.

Did you read the post? 'Cause if you did, the commands are clear.

But there is no natural deadly consequence in cursing your parents.
Your analogy fails there.

Maybe there is more in the bible that makes it more clear these
things you wrote are orders for men to kill men who disobey the
commandments but then thats why I pointed out that I'm only
going by what you wrote. I just thought maybe you could provide
the answer.

You are not going by what I wrote, however, as your analogy makes
clear.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	15 Jan 2006 09:03:19 PM

Adam H. wrote:

On 15 Jan 2006 18:22:52 -0800,

wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

On 15 Jan 2006 06:34:10 -0800, "glugg" <

> wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:07:34 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:cfpjs15l6mkljjqree0nbbec0e1co5kdpv@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:56:46 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:9bojs1tbq6qaddc9olkjnd06mdhnvnb6tt@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:27:50 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

Anyone who uses the 10 Commandments as a blueprint for living

will

not

find themselves on the wrong end of a legal proceeding.

Actually, they easily could. Let's see if you can figure out how.

Or are you too damn afraid to discuss your posts, knowing how easily
they're refuted?

Proceed.[ since I participate in a number of posts, I may not respond
immediately but I will respond ]

Did you figure out how yet?

Proceed.

Is he Moses?

Did you read the post? 'Whosoever', not Moses.

I didnt mean who should die (whosoever), I mean who was commanded
(Moses) and could therefore be an "enforcer" of the command if that's
what it means.

I read that line to mean the man died as was fortold in the
commandment(s) given to Moses. Of course there is also
translation problems which could complicate the issue.

The man didn't just 'die', he was executed as punishment for working
on the Sabbath. It seems quite clear.

If thats the case the it's also clear they did "as" Moses was
command but it's not clear that they were commanded to do also.
I can do as someone else who was commanded but that
does not mean I was commanded.

Are you saying there is a command here to put someone to death?
Just from what you wrote I dont see any command.

Did you read the post? 'Cause if you did, the commands are clear.

But there is no natural deadly consequence in cursing your parents.

Says who? It would appear God warns otherwise.

Your analogy fails there.

OK. If I said "he who curses their parents will surely be put to death"
would
you take it to mean that I am ordering you to kill anyone who curses
their parents? Maybe you would, I wouldnt conclude that.
Once again It would seem to be warning that, in this case, you
dont believe exists.

You are not going by what I wrote, however, as your analogy makes
clear.

Im certainly not accepting these passages as you desire them to be
interpeted.
Arent we all lucky that the massive Christian majority of the USA does
not
think like you and interpet as you do?
.

User: "Adam H."
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	15 Jan 2006 09:17:26 PM

On 15 Jan 2006 19:03:19 -0800,

wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

On 15 Jan 2006 18:22:52 -0800,

wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

On 15 Jan 2006 06:34:10 -0800, "glugg" <

> wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:07:34 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:cfpjs15l6mkljjqree0nbbec0e1co5kdpv@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:56:46 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:9bojs1tbq6qaddc9olkjnd06mdhnvnb6tt@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:27:50 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

Anyone who uses the 10 Commandments as a blueprint for living

will

not

find themselves on the wrong end of a legal proceeding.

Actually, they easily could. Let's see if you can figure out how.

Or are you too damn afraid to discuss your posts, knowing how easily
they're refuted?

Proceed.[ since I participate in a number of posts, I may not respond
immediately but I will respond ]

Did you figure out how yet?

Proceed.

Is he Moses?

Did you read the post? 'Whosoever', not Moses.

I didnt mean who should die (whosoever), I mean who was commanded
(Moses) and could therefore be an "enforcer" of the command if that's
what it means.

I read that line to mean the man died as was fortold in the
commandment(s) given to Moses. Of course there is also
translation problems which could complicate the issue.

The man didn't just 'die', he was executed as punishment for working
on the Sabbath. It seems quite clear.

Nowhere does it say that Moses was the only one commanded.

Are you saying there is a command here to put someone to death?
Just from what you wrote I dont see any command.

Did you read the post? 'Cause if you did, the commands are clear.

But there is no natural deadly consequence in cursing your parents.

Says who? It would appear God warns otherwise.

Sorry, circular argument.

Your analogy fails there.

'Put to death' is an execution.

You are not going by what I wrote, however, as your analogy makes
clear.

Im certainly not accepting these passages as you desire them to be
interpeted.
Arent we all lucky that the massive Christian majority of the USA does
not
think like you and interpet as you do?

The interpretation of these passages is quite clear - you're the one
throwing up ill-reasoned, specious objections.
'Put to death' is unambiguous.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	15 Jan 2006 10:47:54 PM

Adam H. wrote:

You are not going by what I wrote, however, as your analogy makes
clear.

Im certainly not accepting these passages as you desire them to be
interpeted.
Arent we all lucky that the massive Christian majority of the USA does
not
think like you and interpet as you do?

The interpretation of these passages is quite clear - you're the one
throwing up ill-reasoned, specious objections.

Then I feel grateful that the massive Christian majority of the USA
threw up ill-reasoned, specious objections or did whatever they did to
reject a interpetation such as yours and instead made a country where
thieves are not executed and acts such as blasphemy and adultry are
treated as a matter between a person and their own morality.
People warn all the time of extremist who find in their religion
reasons
to kill or oppress sinners and unbeleivers. Certainly any Christian
who was of similar mind to you, and therefore reaching the same
interpetation, would be a Christain extremist.

'Put to death' is unambiguous.

The identity of the "executioner" is not.
.

User: "Adam H."
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	15 Jan 2006 10:59:49 PM

On 15 Jan 2006 20:47:54 -0800,

wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

You are not going by what I wrote, however, as your analogy makes
clear.

Im certainly not accepting these passages as you desire them to be
interpeted.
Arent we all lucky that the massive Christian majority of the USA does
not
think like you and interpet as you do?

The interpretation of these passages is quite clear - you're the one
throwing up ill-reasoned, specious objections.

I see that you can't even be arsed to correctly suss out my point or
my argument.
Since I am NOT arguing for any of those penalties contained in the
commandments, but rather displaying how bloodthirsty those
commandments and the supposed writer are, it seems obvious to me that
you have so far been incapable of following the thread.

'Put to death' is unambiguous.

The identity of the "executioner" is not.

That's irrelevant. Since the bible is the purported word of 'god' then
it is 'god' demanding the death through the commandments.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	16 Jan 2006 07:10:03 AM

Adam H. wrote:

I see that you can't even be arsed to correctly suss out my point or
my argument.

'Put to death' is unambiguous.

The identity of the "executioner" is not.

That's irrelevant. Since the bible is the purported word of 'god' then
it is 'god' demanding the death through the commandments.

But humans are not commanded to commit or "enforce" as you said, the
killing.
Therefore a person who follows the 10 commandments should have no fear
that
following them will lead to being on the wrong end of a legal
proceeding.
.

User: "Adam H."
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	16 Jan 2006 07:21:37 AM

On 16 Jan 2006 05:10:03 -0800,

wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

I see that you can't even be arsed to correctly suss out my point or
my argument.

'Put to death' is unambiguous.

The identity of the "executioner" is not.

That's irrelevant. Since the bible is the purported word of 'god' then
it is 'god' demanding the death through the commandments.

But humans are not commanded to commit or "enforce" as you said, the
killing.

Yes, they are.

Therefore a person who follows the 10 commandments should have no fear
that
following them will lead to being on the wrong end of a legal
proceeding.

If you follow the 10, including the commanded consequences, you will
be a murderer. Your interpretation is irrelevant - if you claim to be
a follower of the bible, interpretation isn't even an option (Know
this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a
matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through
human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke
under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)). If you know of
someone worshipping another god you're commanded to put the TOWN to
death (Deuteronomy 13:13-19). Blasphemy carries a death sentence
(Leviticus 24:10).
Deuteronomy 14:6-10, “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy
son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which
is of thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and
serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall
thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou
conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first
upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the
people. Thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he
hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God."
It's pretty clear in that passage who is commanded to do the killing.
Did you still want to insist otherwise? Or can we dispense with your
justifications?
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.

User: "glugg"
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	16 Jan 2006 08:04:44 AM

Adam H. wrote:

On 16 Jan 2006 05:10:03 -0800,

wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

I see that you can't even be arsed to correctly suss out my point or
my argument.

'Put to death' is unambiguous.

The identity of the "executioner" is not.

That's irrelevant. Since the bible is the purported word of 'god' then
it is 'god' demanding the death through the commandments.

But humans are not commanded to commit or "enforce" as you said, the
killing.

Yes, they are.

Therefore a person who follows the 10 commandments should have no fear
that
following them will lead to being on the wrong end of a legal
proceeding.

If you follow the 10, including the commanded consequences, you will
be a murderer. Your interpretation is irrelevant - if you claim to be
a follower of the bible, interpretation isn't even an option (Know
this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a
matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through
human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke
under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)). If you know of
someone worshipping another god you're commanded to put the TOWN to
death (Deuteronomy 13:13-19). Blasphemy carries a death sentence
(Leviticus 24:10).

Deuteronomy 14:6-10, "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy
son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which
is of thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and
serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall
thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou
conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first
upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the
people. Thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he
hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God."

It's pretty clear in that passage who is commanded to do the killing.
Did you still want to insist otherwise?

No. At this time it looks to me like you are right.
This was the kind of "other" passages that I was asking about.
Thanks.
.

User: "Dionisio"
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	16 Jan 2006 11:57:10 AM

Adam H. wrote:

glugg2001@hotmail.com wrote:

But humans are not commanded to commit or "enforce" as you said, the
killing.

Yes, they are.

Some examples:
God kills or orders it done (Genesis 19:24-25, 22:2; Exodus 21:14, 15,
16, 17, 23, 29, 22:18, 19, 20, 24, 23:27, 32:27; Leviticus 20:2, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 27, 21:9, 24:14-16 & 23, 21, 26:17, 22, 29;
Numbers 16:31-33, 35, 21:6, 31:1 ; Deuteronomy 13:5, 9-10, 21:18-21,
22:21; Ezekiel 14:9; Matthew 15:4; Acts 5:5 & 10) This is a partial
listing. I got tired of the monotony of it all.
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
.

User: "Adam H."
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again	18 Jan 2006 08:23:12 AM

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:07:34 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:cfpjs15l6mkljjqree0nbbec0e1co5kdpv@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:56:46 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:9bojs1tbq6qaddc9olkjnd06mdhnvnb6tt@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:27:50 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

Anyone who uses the 10 Commandments as a blueprint for living

will

not

find themselves on the wrong end of a legal proceeding.

Actually, they easily could. Let's see if you can figure out how.

Or are you too damn afraid to discuss your posts, knowing how easily
they're refuted?

Proceed.[ since I participate in a number of posts, I may not respond
immediately but I will respond ]

Did you figure out how yet?

Proceed.

I assume that since you've had lots of time and you've been posting
reams of your usual bumf that you've been unable to find a coherent
response or rebuttal. So noted.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.

User: "LC"
Title: Re: ACLU fights Commandments again (Keep running, "J")	19 Jan 2006 03:22:36 PM

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:cqjss1dmn2lt2uaj1r25lutp0h1s7s2fqo@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:07:34 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:cfpjs15l6mkljjqree0nbbec0e1co5kdpv@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:56:46 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:9bojs1tbq6qaddc9olkjnd06mdhnvnb6tt@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:27:50 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

Anyone who uses the 10 Commandments as a blueprint for living
will not find themselves on the wrong end of a legal proceeding.

Actually, they easily could. Let's see if you can figure out how.
Or are you too damn afraid to discuss your posts, knowing how easily
they're refuted?

Proceed.[ since I participate in a number of posts, I may not respond
immediately but I will respond ]

Did you figure out how yet?

Proceed.

I assume that since you've had lots of time and you've been posting
reams of your usual bumf that you've been unable to find a coherent
response or rebuttal. So noted.

Adam, J/IBen is hiding from you because he's busy running from one of his
"ID" trolls that got him in trouble:
"Mr. Young:
I challenge you here and now, publically, in front of witnesses, to a
written debate on the USENET group talk.origins."
From: Chris Thompson <cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu>, still waiting for
"J" to stop running.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
Subject: Re: What Are Darwinists So Afraid of?
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 07:52:26 GMT
Message-ID: <Xns974E1D3C4949CcthompsonTAKEOUTbmcc@207.69.189.191>
You'd think this loon would eventually learn, but that seems to be beyond
his scope.
LC~ Run, "J", run!
"Notice how NO ONE, not even his closest buddies, buy into his
dillusions; with the exception of some fools who know they can NEVER
defeat J Young in an intelligent debate."~ "J Young", all delusional talk,
no walk.
Message-ID: <1106495982.766431.208640@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
.