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
28,357 views 89 replies
Reply #26 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?

If Bush never wanted to be questioned on faith, he never should have brought it up. I think greggbert's point in the original posting is that this administration uses faith when it wants to, and then moves along when it becomes uncomfortable. That and they consistently just don't answer the question when it doesn't suit their needs.

Also as far as bearing false witness, I'd say the reporter was just doing his job. Besides, the reporter's ethics / religion aren't what are important here, it's the guy running the countrys.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top


Juxtaposition,

Hitler was as evil as they come. His actions were sickening. I say that having visited Mathausen Concentration camp and having known survivors of the Holocaust. I have been friends with people that survived the Holocaust only to find that their entire family was gone. A Vienese jew that I know has no living relatives, and to make it worse, he is now dying.

That said, I would have still opposed World War II. My beliefs simply do not allow me to participate in any way in the killing of another human being. However, I think the topic here is the President's beliefs, not mine. So let's stick to that instead.
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #29 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?


No, I'm not saying that at all, in fact I told you where in the Bible it says that "The Lord is a Man of War" when it fulfills His purposes. Nice how you just skipped all that and went right to the part where I'd turn the challenge back at the reporter. I guess my answer to the question didn't fit your agenda, so you just threw it out.

Christ never meant for us to placate tyrants, give in to rapists or suffer fools. That's all I am saying.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top


I answered your earlier question with this answer.

Well, if you're a Christian, the New Testament and teachings of Christ supercede all of the Old Testament (J.C. even points this out when asked, "Which of the Commandments is the Greatest"). He says that "Love thy neighbor as yourself" and specifically states that is more important than all of the commandments.


Exodus is in the Old Testament if you weren't sure.


Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
That said, I would have still opposed World War II. My beliefs simply do not allow me to participate in any way in the killing of another human being.


Then you are the living embodiment of the line, "the quickest way for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing".

If you choose to be a pacifist, that is your right, and I would kill or die defending that right. But at least be grateful that there were people before you willing to do what it took to secure those rights for you.

It would be a great world if we could all be pacifists. Unfortunatly there are people who are willing to kill to deprive others of their rights. If there were no one willing to face them, then murderers would never be stopped.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ergo, that's why I'm a pacifist. I've had several relatives serve as career military, I've had relatives work their lifetimes for major defense contractors developing nuclear weapon delivery systems. I simply don't believe in it.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
So basically what moderatorman and drmiller are saying is that the 6th commandment is BS.

I didn't hear them say that, or allude to it either.

"Thou Shalt Not Kill." Period, end of commandment. Not "Thou Shalt Not Kill, Unless Iraq shoots at your planes over their country."

The correct translation is, "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder". Killing to defend oneself, or one's country is not murder.
Reply #34 from PolMach Forums Top
Reply #8 By: latour999 - 2/2/2005 6:27:33 PM
Thou shalt not kill*

*not including victims of holy wars, fags, witches, Jews, scientists, Muslims, people who don't believe the earth is the center of the universe, abortion doctors, convicts in Texas, people we blacklist as heretics, and people who pray to a different supreme being or beings



An EYE FOR AN EYE! This post includes yours sqrrldrw! So which is right? By any and all assumptions this would mean you kill one of mine, I kill one of yours. BTW this is also from the bible.


What did those scientists ever do to you?
Reply #35 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.

Asking Bush the question is still legitimate. He should have simply responded the way you did, Bunnahabhain. At least that is a legitimate answer.
Reply #36 from PolMach Forums Top
My point exactly latour,,, men are predators and we kill,,, and it's wrong wrong, wrong,


Exactly. If people of all faiths were to actually FOLLOW the 6th commandment, this would be a much better world.
Reply #37 from PolMach Forums Top
The correct translation is, "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder". Killing to defend oneself, or one's country is not murder.


Yeah. Nice Loophole.

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.

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.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR PONT


I do not have a pont, but the point is yer full of crap.. if you do not think you able to kill. Your fooling yourself not me or anyone with 1/2 a brain
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #22 By: greggbert - 2/2/2005 7:53:27 PM


WMD anyone


As I used to say in the old days ....I got cher wmds right here!!!as I grab my crotch..jerk.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks Moderateman, that was both insightful and illuminating. I'm glad to see you contributing to the intelligent discussion taking place (that's sarcasm in case you didn't get it).
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #30 By: sqrrldrw - 2/2/2005 8:22:48 PM



I answered your earlier question with this answer.

Well, if you're a Christian, the New Testament and teachings of Christ supercede all of the Old Testament


Says who? If that was fact then all the christian religions would have gotten rid of the old testament long ago.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #35 By: sqrrldrw - 2/2/2005 8:49:27 PM



Which gets back to the real question in all of this - Was Iraq an imminent threat that we needed to defend ourselves against?


You guys seem to keep forgetting that they shot at us first. IE:US Navy and Airforce jets enforcing UN approved no-fly zones being shot at on a daily basis. Hate to tell you, but everyone forgets that by international law that is considered an act of WAR!
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
An EYE FOR AN EYE! This post includes yours sqrrldrw! So which is right? By any and all assumptions this would mean you kill one of mine, I kill one of yours. BTW this is also from the bible.


Says who? If that was fact then all the christian religions would have gotten rid of the old testament long ago.


You're taking it out of context. An eye for an eye was Babylonian law, and was never condoned by God. At least I think.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #43 By: NJforever - 2/3/2005 12:47:39 AM
An EYE FOR AN EYE! This post includes yours sqrrldrw! So which is right? By any and all assumptions this would mean you kill one of mine, I kill one of yours. BTW this is also from the bible.


Says who? If that was fact then all the christian religions would have gotten rid of the old testament long ago.


Your taking it out of context. An eye for an eye was Babylonian law, and was never condoned by God. At least I think.


Well NJ then you would think wrong. It's actually from the NEW testament.


Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Leviticus 24:17 And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.
18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.
19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.
21 And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.

Deuteronomy 19:16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;
17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;
18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;
19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.
21 And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
So them shooting at - though not shooting down planes - constitutes an imminent threat? Maybe to the pilots if the Iraqis were actually downing them in large numbers. Otherwise I don't see the imminent threat. I respect your point, but I don't see why I here should particularly care. Also, we were in their airspace. I'm sure if you saw F-15s over your house with a cresent on it being flown by Saudi's you'd be a bit angry.

Is a few failed pot shots really a reason for war? I'm sorry, I'm with the cooler heads on this. Though I'm glad you're keeping it on topic drmiler.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #44 By: sqrrldrw - 2/3/2005 12:51:19 AM
So them shooting at - though not shooting down planes - constitutes an imminent threat? Maybe to the pilots if the Iraqis were actually downing them in large numbers. Otherwise I don't see the imminent threat. I respect your point, but I don't see why I here should particularly care. Also, we were in their airspace. I'm sure if you saw F-15s over your house with a cresent on it being flown by Saudi's you'd be a bit angry.

Is a few failed pot shots really a reason for war?


A few failed pot shots? That would seem to me they were shooting at the planes with guns. Wrong answer! try MISSLES/ROCKETS. And like I said a UN approved no-fly zone. I am truly glad that you are not in charge of our military.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then you are the living embodiment of the line, "the quickest way for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing".


Another good line concerning such a pacifism at any cost mentality: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

For all of Bush's faults, I don't consider "able to have dangerous people killed rather than let the dangerous people murder and rape as they please" one.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler
Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

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."

Christ is saying that to be a Christian means to be better than the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" crowd. He's saying you have to give freely, up to the point of harming and giving more of yourself than would be expected. He is not saying to follow the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth mentality however. Christ goes on to end chapter 5 by teaching about loving your enemies. Clearly not the Eye for an eye, tooth for the tooth mentality.

Please read more than a line in a concordance if you're going to quote scripture. Besides, isn't this supposed to be a political posting? I don't agree with you on much on that drmiler, but at least your a little better at that than theology.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top

Yeah. Nice Loophole.


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


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.

Reply #50 from PolMach 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.