Ten Commandments Disallowed in Courthouses

[Richardols]

condan:

Were Christians the only people in the world over the course of history who held slaves? Hardly. Virtually every civilization had slavery as a labor source at one time or another.

A bit off topic, but my sinning doesn’t excuse your committing the same sin.

 

[Brad]

Thekla:

Are you saying the nation is the Titanic? Because if you are, I don’t think I’m on the Titanic and besides, I have the ultimate captain. Even the people on the Titanic didn’t know ahead of time that it was going to sink so who’s to say what they were supposed to be doing.

We are told to always be prepared for our own end because we don’t know when it is coming. History is littered with people who thought they had read the “tea leaves.” They are in the ground and wasted a lot of time worrying about some pretty irrelevant stuff.

History is littered with people who sat back and did nothing while Christians and Jews were persecuted. First by propaganda against their religion. Second by discrimination against them. Third by imprisonment and death. The Gospel clearly states who we should stand for in season and out of season.

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

History is littered with people who sat back and did nothing while Jews were persecuted.

Yeah, those people were called Christians.

 

[Brad]

Thekla:

I’d trust a Catholic over a non-Catholic anyday. I don’t want to argue about this, but there is a lack of inclusion from some “Christians” which is downright frightening. Force Catholics to convert? I don’t know, but when you equate the Holy Father to Satan and tell Catholics they’ll burn in hell unless they are “born again” you’ve crossed over some line of tolerance that tells me that “forced conversion” isn’t far away.

So is it better for Catholic pastors to teach direct heresy against the faith and ostracize parishoners that trust in the Magisterium, leading souls astray unwittingly?

Is a Protestant equates the Holy Father to Satan, I feel sorry for them and pray for them. They are confused. Forced conversion is contrary to the basic Gospel. They will not go in that direction.
And certainly they pose a much lesser threat to my family that judges that allow pornography in the schools and free over the counter contraceptives and abortions without my notification.

Also, if a Catholic is obstinant against the Church, I pray for them also, but they also pose a much greater threat than Protestants.

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

Is a Protestant equates the Holy Father to Satan, I feel sorry for them and pray for them.

In my observation, in discussions on their websites, Protestants rarely, if ever, do so. Fundamentalists and some Evangelicals are frequently guilty of making that equation.

 

[Brad]

Philip P:

Are you implying that there is no sin or suffering in countries who DO see their rights coming from God? No suffering in the Islamic theocracies? No suffering or persecution in Calvins Geneva, in Franco’s Spain, in the Vatican States, in post-Constantine Rome, in Byzantine Empire, in Puritan Plymouth Bay, in…

There’s no shortcut to a just society. The implication that the Constitution ought to be explicity Christian seems like just such an attempt. Blaming “the liberals” or “the courts” or whatever other bogeyman you like is just a way of ducking the our failures as a society and a nation. If immorality and injustice in society bother you, it’s not to a stone tablet in a Texas courthouse you should be looking at, but into our own hearts and souls.

Instead of attacking the courts on abortion, how about asking why women have abortions, and trying to address those causes? Instead of attacking gays, how about asking why heterosexuals have such high divorce rates, and addressing those causes?

Government policy and direction influences behavior. There is a direct connection between the court’s systematic war against Christianity starting around mid-20th century and the rampant breakdown of the family and morals in the country.

Someone smarter than I once said “a good society is one in which it is easy to be good”. I would imply that this current society is bad because it is easy to be bad.

Our government has sanctioned immorality as have many of our churches. I address causes from all angles. The court is one biggie. The question is not why do I address the courts but why you do not.

Perhaps I address the homosexual agenda because it’s aim is to destroy the moral fabric of the nation. Why do you, as a Christian, not stand for the Gospel message of charity in loving the sinner and hating the sin? Why do you think it is ok for government to institutionalize sin? What do you think brought down the Roman Empire?

Why are you so adamament that these tablets should be removed? Do you disagree with them? Do you think they are bad for non-Christians to be exposed to? Do you not think the Christian message is true and for all people?

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

Having a majority of people who say that they’re Christian isn’t the same as having a Christian nation. Sorry.

And you, as a Christian, do not want a nation that promotes Christian values? This is so contrary to the Gospel, it amazes me.

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

And you, as a Christian, do not want a nation that promotes Christian values? This is so contrary to the Gospel, it amazes me.

No, I don’t. I want Christians to promote Christian values. Even Jesus Christ Himself didn’t ask the Roman government to promote His teachings. He wanted His individual followers to do so.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

Yeah, those people were called Christians.

Please stop parsing my sentences for quotes. It is not appreciated. Quote the whole sentence or none of it.

I agree with you. History is littered with Christians and others that sat back and did nothing while Jews AND Christians were persecuted (are you not even aware that Christians were killed by the millions by Nazis and Communists?).

And now we see history repeat itself. I’m standing up for the Christians. What are you doing?

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

In my observation, in discussions on their websites, Protestants rarely, if ever, do so. Fundamentalists and some Evangelicals are frequently guilty of making that equation.

I’m using the Protestant reference to cover all non-Catholic Christians. I understand that this is done primarily by specific Christian groups. In an event, I’m not the least bit scared of them. In fact, I pray with them, read the Scripture with them, and dine and visit with them.

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

I agree with you. History is littered with Christians and others that sat back and did nothing while Jews AND Christians were persecuted (are you not even aware that Christians were killed by the millions by Nazis and Communists?).

Of course. And the mutual persecutions and mass killings by Catholics and Protestants in Europe in history are nothing that either side can or should be proud of.

And now we see history repeat itself. I’m standing up for the Christians. What are you doing?

I do not see the situation as you do, apparently, regarding your perceived persecution of Christians in America by the Government.

 

[Brad]

No, I don’t. I want Christians to promote Christian values. Even Jesus Christ Himself didn’t ask the Roman government to promote His teachings. He wanted His individual followers to do so.

So all the business about going to the ends of the earth promoting the Gospel only means in private homes ?(which of course now the government can seize so I guess we have no real place to do any evangelizing).

What happens when these Christians that Jesus sent out get elected to office because of their Christian values. You think Jesus wants them to clamp up about anything related to the Gospel, such as the 10 Commandments? What values do you think Jesus would want this person to promote? Anti-Christian ones? Where does that leave us?

When the centurion was converted, you think Jesus thought he should run away from the empire or continue to promote the good things that Christ had done?

Jesus never ever said that the government should not be influenced by religion.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

Of course. And the mutual persecutions and mass killings by Catholics and Protestants in Europe in history are nothing that either side can or should be proud of.

I do not see the situation as you do, apparently, regarding your perceived persecution of Christians in America by the Government.

Can you agree that totalitarian anti-God governments such as the Nazis and Communists were the cause of the death of millions of Christians and Jews or do you think anti-God governments work better because they keep the killing Christians in line?

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

I’m using the Protestant reference to cover all non-Catholic Christians.

It makes it a bit confusing. Protestants most correctly mean those who broke from the Church during the Reformation and afterwards - Calvinists, Lutherans, etc. - those who protested the teachings of the Church.

Baptists deny that they are Protestants, and Fundamentalists and most Evangelicals vehemently deny that they are “Protestant.” “They are not protesting anything, they are returning to what the Bible actually teaches.” The same holds true about folks like Nazarenes or Church of Christ who, though not generally anti-Catholic like the Fundies, are not break-away bodies properly called Protestant.

I think we misss something when we lump them all together. There’s quite a difference between High-Church Anglo-Catholics and Independent Baptist Fundamentalists.

I myself usually say “non-Catholic” Christians when I don’t mean Reformation Protestant bodies.

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

So all the business about going to the ends of the earth promoting the Gospel only means in private homes ?(which of course now the government can seize so I guess we have no real place to do any evangelizing).

The State has always had the right of eminent domain for State purposes.

I can set up a “soap-box” anywhere. I don’t want the State to be preaching Catholicism or Lutheranism or Islam.

When the centurion was converted, you think Jesus thought he should run away from the empire or continue to promote the good things that Christ had done?

The centurion should have promoted the Gospel.

Jesus never ever said that the government should not be influenced by religion.

A bad thing to try to argue from the negative. Jesus never said anything about birth-control, either. Best to stick to what we know Jesus said.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

It makes it a bit confusing. Protestants most correctly mean those who broke from the Church during the Reformation and afterwards - Calvinists, Lutherans, etc. - those who protested the teachings of the Church.

Baptists deny that they are Protestants, and Fundamentalists and most Evangelicals vehemently deny that they are “Protestant.” “They are not protesting anything, they are returning to what the Bible actually teaches.” The same holds true about folks like Nazarenes or Church of Christ who, though not generally anti-Catholic like the Fundies, are not break-away bodies properly called Protestant.

I think we misss something when we lump them all together. There’s quite a difference between High-Church Anglo-Catholics and Independent Baptist Fundamentalists.

I myself usually say “non-Catholic” Christians when I don’t mean Reformation Protestant bodies.

You are correct, although I think you know what I meant.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

The State has always had the right of eminent domain for State purposes.

I can set up a “soap-box” anywhere. I don’t want the State to be preaching Catholicism or Lutheranism or Islam.

You haven’t been paying attention. You can NOT set up a soap box anywhere. Many schools will not allow non-government run bible studies. Many schools will not allow students to wear clothing that promotes religion. Christians were arrested in Philadelphia for preaching the Gospel in public at a homosexual pornographic parade. In Canada, you are not allowed to teach the Catholic teaching on homosexuality on the radio or TV. You can NOT set up a soap box anywhere. It is getting more and more limited. That IS the problem.

Richardols:

A bad thing to try to argue from the negative. Jesus never said anything about birth-control, either. Best to stick to what we know Jesus said.

I argued from the negative to show that YOUR argument from the negative doesn’t hold any water. YOU said that Jesus never demanded Rome teach the Gospel. That is my point. We don’t know all of what Jesus said and He didn’t cover everything. But the Church does speak for Him and the Church says that Christians in government should promote Christian values.

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

You haven’t been paying attention. You can NOT set up a soap box anywhere. Many schools will not allow non-government run bible studies.

You would want government-run Bible studies? Not I.

Many schools will not allow students to wear clothing that promotes religion.

No reason they shouldn’t unless such clothing demeans another religion.

Christians were arrested in Philadelphia for preaching the Gospel in public at a homosexual pornographic parade.

Don’t know the particulars so don’t have an opinion.

In Canada, you are not allowed to teach the Catholic teaching on homosexuality on the radio or TV.

I’m an American. Canadians should take care of their own problems.

But the Church does speak for Him and the Church says that Christians in government should promote Christian values.

As individual Catholics or as government officials?

 

[Philip_P]

Brad:

Why are you so adamament that these tablets should be removed? Do you disagree with them? Do you think they are bad for non-Christians to be exposed to? Do you not think the Christian message is true and for all people?

I never said the tablets should be removed. If you’ll note from earlier post, you’ll notice that my position is that the establishment cause ought to be interpreted as promoting religious pluralism, not the current complete absence of it. My problem is with the following attitudes:

Government policy and direction influences behavior. There is a direct connection between the court’s systematic war against Christianity starting around mid-20th century and the rampant breakdown of the family and morals in the country.

Someone smarter than I once said “a good society is one in which it is easy to be good”. I would imply that this current society is bad because it is easy to be bad.

Our government has sanctioned immorality as have many of our churches. I address causes from all angles. The court is one biggie. The question is not why do I address the courts but why you do not.

Perhaps I address the homosexual agenda because it’s aim is to destroy the moral fabric of the nation. Why do you, as a Christian, not stand for the Gospel message of charity in loving the sinner and hating the sin? Why do you think it is ok for government to institutionalize sin? What do you think brought down the Roman Empire?

The barbarian invasions brought down the Roman Empire in the West, and the Ottoman Turks brought down the Christian Empire in the East. It wasn’t a lack of explicit Christianity. My issue is with this whole “Christian nation” concept. I don’t agree that we ought to be an explicitly Christian nation. Nor do I think it is necessary to be Christian in order to be moral. I want to see an end to abortion and other forms of injustice, but I flat out disagree with making the explicit promotion of Christianity by the government a prerequisite for this.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

You would want government-run Bible studies? Not I.

You have to take a breather and READ the post. I said many schools will not allow NON-government run Bible Studies. Is this allowing a “soap box anywhere”?

Richardols:

No reason they shouldn’t unless such clothing demeans another religion.

Yes. No reason they shouldn’t. Yet some don’t allow it. Is this allowing a “soap box anywhere”?

Richardols:

Don’t know the particulars so don’t have an opinion.

Perhaps you should study up on what is happening in this country as a result of the movment to abolish God before you cast vigorous opinion against those that want to keep reminders of God around. I recommend the American Family Association as an excellent source. They protect Christians that are vilified for doing nothing more than standing up for the Gospel. Isn’t this a noble endeavor?

Richardols:

I’m an American. Canadians should take care of their own problems.

I see. And you can see no parallel between developments in Canada and the United States? Do you think that homosexual propagandists do not work together between Canada and the United States? Here’s a hint: they do work together. We’re headed down the same road, if you care.

Richardols:

As individual Catholics or as government officials?

Both:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

For example:

**When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.**