greggbert greggbert

The Bush Administrations Defense of the 10 Commandments

▼

The Bush Administrations Defense of the 10 Commandments

from PolMach Forums
I was reading through the white house press conference transcript yesterday, and I found an extremely telling example of how seriously this administration takes religion and morality:

Quoted From: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050201-7.html

REPORTER: Scott, last night, in an amicus brief filed before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Justice Department came down in favor of displaying the Ten Commandments in courthouses and statehouses around the country. The question is, does the President believe in commandment number six, "Thou shalt not kill," as it applies to the U.S. invasion in Iraq?

PRESS SECRETARY McCLELLAN: Go ahead. Next question. Ken, go ahead.

!!!!!!!!!AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!
politics
28,362 views 89 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #50 By: greggbert - 2/3/2005 4:01:36 PM
Not a loophole, it's called a CORRECT TRANSLATION of the original language.


That is such a load of bunk. Yes, it's true that certain religious leaders in the Christian and Jewish communities have been pushing this INTERPRETATION of the 10 commandments for hundreds of years in order to justify Executions, War, Revenge Killings, and other practices which are common and accepted in their cultures, but if you believe that man is made in the Image of God, there is no other interpretation than the one that everyone remebers from when they first learned it.


So are you now a translator? Can you offer *proof* that what gideon says is false? If not how can *you* say it's a load of bunk? In other words this is just *your* opinion. And your swearing is not needed, nor required, nor apprciated! So knock it off!
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is such a load of bunk. Yes, it's true that certain religious leaders in the Christian and Jewish communities have been pushing this INTERPRETATION of the 10 commandments for hundreds of years in order to justify Executions, War, Revenge Killings, and other practices which are common and accepted in their cultures, but if you believe that man is made in the Image of God, there is no other interpretation than the one that everyone remebers from when they first learned it.


I just want to clarify. Do you also oppose war at any cost, even if to save the lives of millions of Jews from the Holocaust?
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top

Not a loophole, it's called a CORRECT TRANSLATION of the original language.


That is such a load of bunk. Yes, it's true that certain religious leaders in the Christian and Jewish communities have been pushing this INTERPRETATION of the 10 commandments for hundreds of years in order to justify Executions, War, Revenge Killings, and other practices which are common and accepted in their cultures, but if you believe that man is made in the Image of God, there is no other interpretation than the one that everyone remebers from when they first learned it.


Greggbert, congratulations. You have, in remarkably short time shown yourself to be an arrogant, ignorant individual who blindly and irrationally holds to leftist propaganda, whether or not it has merit.


OK, Well that's just nasty. I want to tell you something special but unfortunately, it's a violation of the rules. Fill in the blank. ________ you also.


Greggbert,


First of all, I DO have a substantial amount of formal training on this particular issue. What YOU don't know, and would, if you were to read what I say consistently, is that I am very much anti war. In fact, i've actually worked as an anti war ACTIVIST (which means, doing things, not sitting on my ass in front of a computer calling people names). That does not change the FACT of the translation of the ten commandments (did you MISS the several times in the OT where the same God that made that statement COMMANDS the Children of Israel to engage in war?)


Second of all, you just negated any point you may have had with your infantile response. Unfortunately, when you do that, you reinforce stereotypes of the left that other, more rational individuals wind up living with. This HURTS your cause more than helping it (I am, as stated on another blog, a defector from the left because of jerks like yourself).

Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top

So basically you're saying that the reporter shouldn't ask a public figure that makes it publicly known that he is a Christian how his beliefs match up with his actions? That sounds like a pretty dangerous road you'd have us all walk down: don't question your public officials, especially if it's of a moral or religious nature?


The question wasnot asked of Bush, it was asked of his PRESS SECRETARY. I think he handled it badly, but that doesn't make the reporter's approach right.

Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
Which gets back to the real question in all of this - Was Iraq an imminent threat that we needed to defend ourselves against? Without any WMDs and a decade without a viable weapons program and a decade without any aggressive action towards his neighbors or the Kurds and no connections to 9/11, I'd have to say no.

This has repeatedly been beaten to death. I don't accept either your question or your criteria, neither does the President.

Asking Bush the question is still legitimate. He should have simply responded the way you did, Bunnahabhain. At least that is a legitimate answer.

There are two points to be made here. One, this is a press conference and not a debate. The question was asked in such a way that there is no winning answer. A variation of the old, "still beating your wife?". The second is that this was the Press Secretary (McClellan), not the President speaking.
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah. Nice Loophole.

No loophole, no loophole at all. If God does not allow man to kill under any circumstance, then man is sentenced to immediate death as he cannot even eat. In fact, he would be killing himself by honouring the Commandment, which would be breaking the Commandment. More like a feedback loop.

First off it is unprobable and untrue that every person that was killed in the bombing before the war was in the act of attacking the united states. Even the worst of them, it appears, were in no position to strike us. Secondly, the thousands that were killed in the bombing, the disease caused by the water and power systems that were destroyed in the bombing, and those that died afterward..

Yes, war is ugly, but the alternative is even worse.

Now if you believe in the Bible, all of those thousands were made in God's Image, therefore shedding their blood was a direct attack on him.

I call that hypocracy.

How about you coming up with some concrete, workable solutions to the situation? Telling everyone that what they are doing is wrong without suggestion decent alternatives is what I call hypocrisy!
Reply #57 from PolMach Forums Top
Dang, You walk away for a few days and the crazys sure come out of the woodwork:

First Gideon. Gideon, you are an intellectual coward. When you posted a message "Is there an objective main stream news source" about how the liberal media calls terrorists "freedom fighters," a blatant lie, I challenged you to post the name of one single prominent american liberal journalist who has called al-queda "Freedom Fighters".

Your response? You deleted my post, presumably because it made you look like a fool, rambled on about your father and some islamist blogs that have nothing to do with the american liberal media, and you prevented me from posting to your blog, the ultimate act of cowardice on this web site. You obviously can't take intellectual challenges.

DR Miller tried to help you by pretending he could find lots of examples to back you up, and posting two lame links, one of which showed a dictionary definition of "freedom fighter" and the other one was a news article by a foreign reporter that QUOTED some pakastani extremist as saying that bin laden was a "freedom fighter". Well nice try drmiller, I guess you couldn’t back up Gideon's lame lie either.

I won't ban you from my blog because my arguments stand up for themselves, so keep trying, or you can just blacklist everyone who embarrasses you with logic and the truth and soon you'll be blogging all by yourself.


Now DR Miller:

So are you now a translator? Can you offer *proof* that what gideon says is false? If not how can *you* say it's a load of bunk? In other words this is just *your* opinion. And your swearing is not needed, nor required, nor apprciated! So knock it off!


Ok. First off nobody can offer proof about anything in the bible, unless they find noah's ark or something. I can say it's a load of bunk by looking at the actions of Jesus as documented in the bible. Assuming they're true, he would not approve of killing EVEN FOR SELF DEFENSE, look how he healed that soldier that Peter cut. Did He ever kill anyone in the bible? He certainly had just cause for self-defense.

On the issue of "SWEARING", Gideon posted the following:

Greggbert, congratulations. You have, in remarkably short time shown yourself to be an arrogant, ignorant individual who blindly and irrationally holds to leftist propaganda, whether or not it has merit.


Now obviously he is an intellectual weakling (as demonstrated above) who uses insults and attacks to mask the fact that he has no coherent point. I think that my response:

OK, Well that's just nasty. I want to tell you something special but unfortunately, it's a violation of the rules. Fill in the blank. ________ you also.


Is pretty tame in comparison with his outrageous tirade, and it WAS necessary.



Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now DR Miller:

So are you now a translator? Can you offer *proof* that what gideon says is false? If not how can *you* say it's a load of bunk? In other words this is just *your* opinion. And your swearing is not needed, nor required, nor apprciated! So knock it off!


Ok. First off nobody can offer proof about anything in the bible, unless they find noah's ark or something. I can say it's a load of bunk by looking at the actions of Jesus as documented in the bible. Assuming they're true, he would not approve of killing EVEN FOR SELF DEFENSE, look how he healed that soldier that Peter cut. Did He ever kill anyone in the bible? He certainly had just cause for self-defense.


So once again this boils down to this is *your* opinion. You should say as much. As to saying Gideon is an intellectual weakling? I'd be willing to bet anything that he is more of an intellectual than either one of us. I personally (my opinion) find *your* arguements to be specious at best. So I would be more willing to call into question *your* intelligence level.
Reply #59 from PolMach Forums Top
So once again this boils down to this is *your* opinion. You should say as much


When we are talking about events that supposedly happened thousands of years ago and involve burning bushes, plagues, and food falling down from the sky, it pretty much stands to reason that everyone's view is an opinion, until they find the tablets. I stand by my statement that the attempts to soften the kill commandment as "murder" is the insertion of a giant loophole which is belied by the actions and words of Jesus as recorded in the books of the new testatment by those who want to violate it when it suits them.

In my OPINION, there is a resurgence in America of the fundamentalist belief that our God is an "ANGRY GOD" and approves of killing and war. This resurgence is as dangerous to the world as much as the Islamist extremists who claim that the Koran commands them to kill non-believers. The reason it's more dangerous, IN MY OPINION, is because the "Angry God" christians in this country have access to destructive firepower far greater than the Islamists do.

The "shock and awe" collateral damage caused by the pre-war pre-emptive bombing of Iraq was not self defense. I believe that it was a sinful act perpetrated by those who wrongly think God is ambivalent to the deaths of those who were in his image. It is and has been justified by a morally corrupt justification their deaths prevented some sort of nuclear, biological or chemical attack on our country, which we now know could never have taken place because the weapons, capability, and nuclear programs were not there. Maybe that's why the commandment told us not to KILL in the first place!
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
What's funny is that greggbert won't answer my question, because perhaps he does see that there is a time when killing is necessary, or maybe he too opposed the violent actions taken against Nazi Germany.
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
the commandment on killing is pretty clear. It gives no excuses, no "they hit me first' type of clauses out of it.

You are not suppossed to do it and that is the final word. The realities of this world might at times bring you to a place where you will do so, but then this act is now on YOUR RECORD and when judgment comes you better have a good reason.

The Iraq war and supsiquent 'peace' is a result of decisions being made to try to protect the future lives of other people, but the one who can really say that "It was ok and you are forgiven' is God. There are some who believe that the New Testimant makes the Ten Commandments a little BC (before christ) and the new testament makes situations like killing your attacker somewhat ok (just as long as it is in defence and not of malice).
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top

First Gideon. Gideon, you are an intellectual coward. When you posted a message "Is there an objective main stream news source" about how the liberal media calls terrorists "freedom fighters," a blatant lie, I challenged you to post the name of one single prominent american liberal journalist who has called al-queda "Freedom Fighters".

Your response? You deleted my post, presumably because it made you look like a fool, rambled on about your father and some islamist blogs that have nothing to do with the american liberal media, and you prevented me from posting to your blog, the ultimate act of cowardice on this web site. You obviously can't take intellectual challenges.


Your first paragraph is basically a load of cattle manure. If you read the article IN CONTEXT, I did not state ANYWHERE that the mainstream media called the terrorists "freedom fighters". I made a glib aside to the left who DOES label the terrorists "freedom fighters" (My father, a preeminent liberal theologian was one example I gave you).


I deleted your post because it was infantile and you resorted to the same puerile name calling that typifies your ilk and is the reason why I would rather bathe in hot shards of broken glass than associate with the Democratic Party EVER AGAIN. You might want to read more of my blogs, and you will quickly note I am NOT a Republican; I am a Libertarian and a defector from the left.


My blog is NOT a democracy, never claimed to be. I have written too many articles justifying why I choose delete and blacklist options; in your case, greggbert, it is because you lack the ability to objectively analyze an argument, but rather you "snipe" fragments out of context in hopes of setting up numerous "red herring" distractions from the article's main argument. This is disruptive, irrelevant, and, frankly, disrespectful of the article's author.


You don't win people to your side through ad nauseam name calling, greggbert. I suggest you take a look at some other leftist bloggers (myrrander and kingbee would be good examples) to see how to reasonably discuss issues with those of opposing viewpoints.


Back to the article at hand: Personally, I would like to hear Bush's answer to that, as I think there are serious issues with a Christian being too eager to embark on warfare (as I believe the Bush administration is). I also question, though, whether there isn't an issue with a dedicated Christian being a politician in the first place (the whole God/mammon thing, but I digress). In short, gregg, there was some validity to the basic question you were asking. The problems were: 1, it was asked of the wrong person; 2, it was asked in a combative fashion; 3, your presentation of it was a clear gloat and showed a very juvenile outlook.


If you consider to dismiss all opposing viewpoints as being made by idiots, gregg, I guarantee you will not win many converts to your way of thinking.

Reply #63 from PolMach Forums Top
Being a pretty liberal guy myself, Gideon, Moderateman, and the other right wingers have an incredibly good point. Anyone can say we have to be above this, above killing. The truth of the matter is that we're killing to prevent more killing. This is beyond an eye for an eye. I'm against the Iraq war as much as the next Democrat, but these people can't defend themselves. They couldn't before, they can't now, and I doubt they ever will. Anytime America has ever stepped into a military situations, its been to protect ourselves and innocents, no matter what you think the reasons are. The War on Terror, The war in Iraq, The War in Afghanistan; all part of a plan to stop people from hurting people. It's unfortunate, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire so you can get your point across. You don't talk to a Mexican in French and expect them to understand; thus you can't be peaceful with terrorists and expect them to stop. It's a desperate times calls for desperate measures situation. We'd all enjoy a world that's without violence, but realistically, its a necessary evil. If God can't understand that, who can?
Reply #64 from PolMach Forums Top
You don't win people to your side through ad nauseam name calling, greggbert. I suggest you take a look at some other leftist bloggers (myrrander and kingbee would be good examples) to see how to reasonably discuss issues with those of opposing viewpoints.


Hmm. Let's see now: Ad Nauseam Name calling is the thing you think is bringing these blogs down. Let's review some of your comments about me recently:



(I am, as stated on another blog, a defector from the left because of jerks like yourself).


I deleted your post because it was infantile


You have, in remarkably short time shown yourself to be an arrogant, ignorant individual who blindly and irrationally holds to leftist propaganda,


In answer to your question, "what drmiler said" (I didn't feel the idiot deserved the points).



your presentation of it was a clear gloat and showed a very juvenile outlook.



Conclusion: You are either full of crap or your have the worst memory ever.


And to negate your second point:

I deleted your post because it was infantile and you resorted to the same puerile name calling that typifies your ilk and is the reason why I would rather bathe in hot shards of broken glass than associate with the Democratic Party EVER AGAIN.


For the record, here is my "infantile post with purile name calling" in its entirety:


Reply #8 By: greggbert - 2/2/2005 3:02:26 PM
(of course, the liberals deem these terrorists "Freedom Fighters", but I digress).
Print an example of a prominent American liberal journalist referring to AlQueda as "Freedom Fighters".
Maybe when you say "Digress" you mean "Lie through my teeth".



WOW! That 2 line post was infantile and displayed purile name calling, and you felt you had to delete it? Dude, I hope you enjoy what your smoking!

PS: I'n this post, I'm not trying to win people over to my side, only to clearly point out and viciously mock obvious hypocracy. That can also be an effective way to get your point across.
Reply #65 from PolMach Forums Top
Being a pretty liberal guy myself, Gideon, Moderateman, and the other right wingers have an incredibly good point. Anyone can say we have to be above this, above killing. The truth of the matter is that we're killing to prevent more killing. This is beyond an eye for an eye. I'm against the Iraq war as much as the next Democrat, but these people can't defend themselves. They couldn't before, they can't now, and I doubt they ever will. Anytime America has ever stepped into a military situations, its been to protect ourselves and innocents, no matter what you think the reasons are. The War on Terror, The war in Iraq, The War in Afghanistan; all part of a plan to stop people from hurting people. It's unfortunate, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire so you can get your point across. You don't talk to a Mexican in French and expect them to understand; thus you can't be peaceful with terrorists and expect them to stop. It's a desperate times calls for desperate measures situation. We'd all enjoy a world that's without violence, but realistically, its a necessary evil. If God can't understand that, who can?


When the rich man told Jesus he had kept all the commandments and Jesus told him that he should give up all of his possessions to the poor and follow him, the man walked away sad because he couldn't do it. Now maybe the man told Jesus "Anyone can say they're above that, it's easy....", but I don't know if that would have made him right.

And the statement about any time america has stepped into a military situation is to protect ourselves and innocents is simply not true. I wish It were! The wars against the Indians, Mexico, (some would argue even the Civil War killed more people than it saved), The many wars we have fought in South America, the war in Veit Nam, the first military operations in Afghanistan against the russians, and the war in Iraq are examples of times that war was not declared to save innocents or prevent an imminent threat.

There are many situations where killing is rampant and innocents are being slaughtered even as we speak, including Sudan and Congo, in which we have done practically nothing militarily, although we have the capability.
Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
Speaking of giving to the poor ... what does anyone think of Bush's cuts to Medicaid and HUD, while keeping tax breaks for the rich? Apparently W. didn't read the verse "whatever you do unto the least of these you do unto me"

(or the earlier mentioned verse on the rich man giving up all he had to follow J.C.)



I don't doubt that there are some honest Christians on both sides of the political divide. I just wish they'd stop quoting Christ or alluding to the Bible when it suits them and then ignoring much of the basic teachings of the Bible when it doesn't suit their agenda.
Reply #67 from PolMach Forums Top
Matthew 5:38 is followed up by Matthew 5:39 where Jesus says "But I say, don't resist an evil person! If you are slapped on the right cheek, turn the other too! If you are ordered to court and your shirt is taken, give your coat, too. If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles, Give to those who ask, and don't turn away from those who borrow."


Rock on. It seems these Old Testament 'Christians' don't know Christ's teachings very well.

Just like they borrow for prosperity & torture for democracy. Short term dumb. Long term dumber.
Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top
Still waiting to see if it was wrong for American soldiers to kill Nazis and Japanese soldiers in World War II.
Reply #69 from PolMach Forums Top
Reply #68 By: Citizen Juxtaposition - 2/10/2005 1:12:46 AM
Still waiting to see if it was wrong for American soldiers to kill Nazis and Japanese soldiers in World War II.


According to what? The teachings of Christ or the teachings of Wolfowitz? !

And BTW, the WWII analogy for Iraq -- and even AQ -- is laughable.

Face it: Sanctions, no-fly zones & inspections worked. Created within the UN system by GHWB & enforced within the UN system. Deal with it.
Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top
hew 5:38 is followed up by Matthew 5:39 where Jesus says "But I say, don't resist an evil person! If you are slapped on the right cheek, turn the other too! If you are ordered to court and your shirt is taken, give your coat, too. If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles, Give to those who ask, and don't turn away from those who borrow."


Rock on. It seems these Old Testament 'Christians' don't know Christ's teachings very well.


Seems YOU don't the old testament to well. I want you to quote chapter AND verse where christ is mentioned in the *old* testament.
Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top
Face it: Sanctions, no-fly zones & inspections worked. Created within the UN system by GHWB & enforced within the UN system. Deal with


YOU deal with it! If no-fly was working , then why were American aircraft being shoot at?
Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top
Being a pretty liberal guy myself, Gideon, Moderateman, and the other right wingers have an incredibly good point. Anyone can say we have to be above this, above killing. The truth of the matter is that we're killing to prevent more killing. This is beyond an eye for an eye. I'm against the Iraq war as much as the next Democrat, but these people can't defend themselves. They couldn't before, they can't now, and I doubt they ever will. Anytime America has ever stepped into a military situations, its been to protect ourselves and innocents, no matter what you think the reasons are. The War on Terror, The war in Iraq, The War in Afghanistan; all part of a plan to stop people from hurting people. It's unfortunate, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire so you can get your point across. You don't talk to a Mexican in French and expect them to understand; thus you can't be peaceful with terrorists and expect them to stop. It's a desperate times calls for desperate measures situation. We'd all enjoy a world that's without violence, but realistically, its a necessary evil. If God can't understand that, who can?


When the rich man told Jesus he had kept all the commandments and Jesus told him that he should give up all of his possessions to the poor and follow him, the man walked away sad because he couldn't do it. Now maybe the man told Jesus "Anyone can say they're above that, it's easy....", but I don't know if that would have made him right.

And the statement about any time america has stepped into a military situation is to protect ourselves and innocents is simply not true. I wish It were! The wars against the Indians, Mexico, (some would argue even the Civil War killed more people than it saved), The many wars we have fought in South America, the war in Veit Nam, the first military operations in Afghanistan against the russians, and the war in Iraq are examples of times that war was not declared to save innocents or prevent an imminent threat.

There are many situations where killing is rampant and innocents are being slaughtered even as we speak, including Sudan and Congo, in which we have done practically nothing militarily, although we have the capability.


The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hey Gang,

You can argue all you want about Old Testament telling Jews to kill in certain circumstances and all that jazz, but I dare you to find somewhere in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) wher Christ tells someone that war or killing is okay for one of his followers to participate in.

Also, as far as the Old Testament goes - and I explained this in an earlier posting - Christ states that he is the fulfillment of the Old Testament and his teachings override parts of it. That's also why a lot of Gideon Bibles that you see out there (including many given by the military to soliders) only have Psalms and the New Testament in them. So, if you're a Christian - as W. claims to be - the OT stuff about killing ain't so valid if Christ doesn't say it's so.

So, the point here is this: J.C. just doesn't condone killing. Scream and whine about it all you'd like, but it just ain't in there. Turn the other cheek gang, turn the other cheek.

As to "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing," I would say that there are plenty of nonviolent ways to create change (Ghandi anyone? Martin Luther King, Jr.?).

Take it easy,

sqrrldrw
Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top
As to "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing," I would say that there are plenty of nonviolent ways to create change (Ghandi anyone? Martin Luther King, Jr.?).

Take it easy,

sqrrldrw


Hey wiseguy.... where in my quote does it say ANYTHING about fight or kill? NOWHERE that's where! Now try again.
Reply #75 from PolMach Forums Top
Seems YOU don't the old testament to well. I want you to quote chapter AND verse where christ is mentioned in the *old* testament.


Um, that's exactly *MY* point. Jesus was against the eye for an eye standard of justice fake so-called 'Christians' use over & over.