Replacing the Constitution.

[Ramon]

I think the Constitution should be replaced with the Ten Commandments. Then maybe we would need no amendments. What do you say?

 

[InitialConditions]

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

Despite my derogatory and snide text-laughter, I will now tell you why this is REALLY not the best idea ever.

1) Not everyone is Christian, and we have no right to say that every law they follow must be of Christian origin.

2) The 10 Commandments by no means keep order in entire nations. Have you actually thought that maybe the Constitution is the way it is, because its intended design was to keep order?

3) The 10 commandments don't have the answer to everything. I suppose noone has to pay taxes, or go to work, according to this. How then, do people even survive?

4) Since the first 4 commandments are more about relationships with God, how do you think the rest of the country would react? I don't have to remind you that America is made up of citizens from EVERY culture with ALL diversity possible. Why do we determine what their laws are?

 

[Red_Tory]

I'm not American, but I say no.

First off, as far as I know the Ten Commandments don't cover some very important issues (i.e. equality or freedom from oppression). They may be found elsewhere in scripture, but not in the commandments...

Secondly, it demands that everyone be of the same religion. If people don't believe in God, they don't. They should not be forced to believe by the state, and a person who makes an insincere conversion soley for the purposes of conforming is only bringing judgement upon themselves.

 

[Ramon]

HAHAHA. I LOVE YOU TWO!

I think I am going to make a thread challenging this issue. Actually the Ten commandments trumps both of your comments.

The Ten commandments doesn't require religion. As a matter of fact what people call religion today has nothing to do with the Ten commandments.

But the Ten Commandments does offer equality and freedom from oppression. They do answer everything also. Should we explore this: I would be happy to explore this with you two if you would like, right here in this thread even.

 

[InitialConditions]

Okay, the first 4 commandments sum up to say that you have to have God as your one and only faith. Where is the equality? Are you saying everyone has to conform to the will of a single demographic? Try telling an atheist that. If you get out without a black eye, you're lucky.

 

[Ramon]

Haha. That is proof of the ignorance firstly. If they hear the word God automatically they are offended, but who is biased then? But let us look at the latter part.

THOU SHALT NOT KILL
THOU SHALT NOT STEAL

Now, is this good or not? Tell me which government on this earth has objected to these two and I will show you a corrupt government. Go ahead, find one.

But as the Constitution has a projected purpose so do the Ten Commandments. The purpose is to show people how to love each other. Do you think Murder and stealing is loving another person. Well what if I killed and stole from you, is that love (no double standards please)

Now we can continue:

THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY
THOU SHALT NOT COVET OF YOUR NEIGHBORS HOUSE NOR OF ANY OF HIS POSSESIONS
THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS OF YOUR NEIGHBOR

So, does one act in love if they commit adultery? Okay get a wife and let me sleep with her then, and see will you not break THOU SHALT NOT KILL which is showing not showing much love.

And what if I stole something and framed you, surely you would say that is good then? Okay so i could tell someone some dirty information that is not true about you and be justified in doing it? Nope!

Tell me, what does common sense have against this?

 

[InitialConditions]

"If they hear the word of God and are offended, who is biased then?"

Both Christians and non-Christians. Don't go saying you aren't biased. You're suggesting we throw out a Constitution that's very existence marks an attempt at order and peace in a nation of diverse cultures. What right do you have to throw it all away for the selfish desire of mass conformation to an ideal that only a fraction of the world carries?

As for common sense, of course that makes sense, but again, you haven't answered the fact that you can't force a nation of diversity to believe what you believe in. The first 4 commandments are, by far, the most ridiculous to an atheist. I'm Christian, and even I see the flaws of it.

Next, how the heck do you think the nation would support itself? 'Thou shalt not kill' says goodbye to the national military. 'Thou shalt not bear false witness of your neighbor'. Name me one human who has never lied in his life. Even you are guilty of lying at some point. If you'd never lied, you'd be 1 out of 7 billion, so the odds are against you.

You think some moral guidelines are enough to keep 300 million people happy? Fat chance. Your narrowminded idealistic views of right and wrong is misguided. For, no matter how righteous your intention, you can't apply that to a government. It eventually degrades into nothingness and anarchy, or worse, an autocracy. If you'd ever taken a Government class (I have, very recently in fact), then you'd know that 10 simple rules about how to be a good person won't keep a nation intact. Open your eyes to the conditions of the world, not just the conditions of your moral ego.

 

[LaylieCalmMind]

Pointing out that the 10 commandments say a few good things, such as don't kill or steal, doesn't mean a thing for why they should replace the US Constitution. What benefit would it bring? Murder and theft are already highly illegal and the US does everything it can to enforce these laws. It's not like they'd bring those things to the table, they've already been there the entire time. No good would come of this. That and the US is built upon freedom of religion and separation of church and state... Do you want to throw those excellent freedoms away?

I'm not a big fan of the US government at the moment, but I think the US Constitution and the framing of the US government is absolutely and near entirely excellent, it's arguably the best basis for any nation. Replacing the US Constitution is a terrible idea, that's my opinion.

 

[Ramon]

"If they hear the word of God and are offended, who is biased then?"

Both Christians and non-Christians. Don't go saying you aren't biased. You're suggesting we throw out a Constitution that's very existence marks an attempt at order and peace in a nation of diverse cultures. What right do you have to throw it all away for the selfish desire of mass conformation to an ideal that only a fraction of the world carries?

As for common sense, of course that makes sense, but again, you haven't answered the fact that you can't force a nation of diversity to believe what you believe in. The first 4 commandments are, by far, the most ridiculous to an atheist. I'm Christian, and even I see the flaws of it.

Next, how the heck do you think the nation would support itself? 'Thou shalt not kill' says goodbye to the national military. 'Thou shalt not bear false witness of your neighbor'. Name me one human who has never lied in his life. Even you are guilty of lying at some point. If you'd never lied, you'd be 1 out of 7 billion, so the odds are against you.

You think some moral guidelines are enough to keep 300 million people happy? Fat chance. Your narrowminded idealistic views of right and wrong is misguided. For, no matter how righteous your intention, you can't apply that to a government. It eventually degrades into nothingness and anarchy, or worse, an autocracy. If you'd ever taken a Government class (I have, very recently in fact), then you'd know that 10 simple rules about how to be a good person won't keep a nation intact. Open your eyes to the conditions of the world, not just the conditions of your moral ego.

Well my friend you just proved the case for Jesus Christ. HURRAY!! Indeed anyone who has offended in one point has offended in all.

You don't prove that the law isn't good then, you prove that people are evil and cannot, for the evil in them, uphold such a high standard. AHHH. Now doesn't the Gospel of Jesus make so much more sense?

But I wonder, what if people COULD uphold this standard, would it not be an easy world to live in? (No double standards please)

 

[Ramon]

Pointing out that the 10 commandments say a few good things, such as don't kill or steal, doesn't mean a thing for why they should replace the US Constitution. What benefit would it bring? Murder and theft are already highly illegal and the US does everything it can to enforce these laws. It's not like they'd bring those things to the table, they've already been there the entire time. No good would come of this. That and the US is built upon freedom of religion and separation of church and state... Do you want to throw those excellent freedoms away?

I'm not a big fan of the US government at the moment, but I think the US Constitution and the framing of the US government is absolutely and near entirely excellent, it's arguably the best basis for any nation. Replacing the US Constitution is a terrible idea, that's my opinion.

HAHAHAHA. That is the funniest thing EVER! Do you really believe the US government is near excellent. Really? WOW!

Again, the Ten Commandments have nothing to do with religion. Just plain ol' goodness.

 

[LaylieCalmMind]

Also, in addition to my last post... We can see what comes of nations that base themselves upon a religion... Look at the nation of Uganda, which came within a hair of passing a death penalty for all homosexuals, because they were basing laws on the Bible, gays are lynched by the public there still. Look at many of the Islamic nations which enforce Sharia, how a woman is often stoned to death on charges of adultery when she was really just raped, but only being worth half a man she can't win against the charge.

You can believe what you want in terms of spirituality and religion, but things get very messy when we start bringing those beliefs into our governments, forcing them upon everyone. Terrible terrible things happen, it's a dangerous path and I don't think anyone should be fighting for it.

 

[LaylieCalmMind]

HAHAHAHA. That is the funniest thing EVER! Do you really believe the US government is near excellent. Really? WOW!

Again, the Ten Commandments have nothing to do with religion. Just plain ol' goodness.

I said I'm not a big fan of the US government right now. However I think the Constitution and the framing of the nation itself is excellent. I made this distinction clearly, please don't twist my words like that.

Also, the first 4 commandments have only to do with your god specifically, it's very much about religion. And the good things the 10 commandments DO have are already put into use. We already enforce that thou shalt not kill or steal, why do we need to replace the excellent US Constitution with 10 commandments that we have no need for?

 

[InitialConditions]

Again, the Ten Commandments have nothing to do with religion. Just plain ol' goodness.

1st commandment.
2nd commandment.
3rd commandment.
4th commandment.

Problem?

You say that a nation governed by 10 rules will thrive... well, do you really think that? Have you ever heard of propoganda? Your 10 rules don't offer freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from torture, freedom of quartering of troops...

No police, no beaurocracy, no military. The nation won't thrive. It will be consumed. You shine a beacon of purity, but your beacon is dimmed by your narrowminded ideals.

 

[Ugly]

2 points here. First, i'm no OT scholar, but if memory serves me correct weren't the 10 Commandments given to the Jews as simple guidelines to live by before they even settled & needed a full government? And as a result they wandered for 40 years? They were not able to keep the commandments, even as a group of like minded people. So how could multiplying those numbers & number of beliefs be effective?
Point 2, 'separation of church and state' is NOT a constitutional issue. it appears no where in the constitution. the phrase was coined 13 years AFTER the constitution was written, by Jefferson. And he was not talking about keeping 'church out of gov't', he was talking about 'keeping gov't out of church'.

 

[InitialConditions]

If we've learned anything from the past, it's that the Church should not control the government. Look at England over the past millennia. The Church made it a nightmare of a place to live. They blackmailed the autocracy, and enforced their guidelines on everyone.

 

[Ramon]

2 points here. First, i'm no OT scholar, but if memory serves me correct weren't the 10 Commandments given to the Jews as simple guidelines to live by before they even settled & needed a full government? And as a result they wandered for 40 years? They were not able to keep the commandments, even as a group of like minded people. So how could multiplying those numbers & number of beliefs be effective?
Point 2, 'separation of church and state' is NOT a constitutional issue. it appears no where in the constitution. the phrase was coined 13 years AFTER the constitution was written, by Jefferson. And he was not talking about keeping 'church out of gov't', he was talking about 'keeping gov't out of church'.

It is obvious you are no bible scholar.

The reason these people were GIVEN kings is because they did no want to be ruled by God. So God gave them Saul and Saul fell. So God gave them David, a man after his own heart. And he blessed them through David, yet David fell.

I will tell you the reason people create government laws as opposed to the Ten Commandments, it is so that they can justify their OWN pitfalls.

As for Church and State, the Church that Jesus established rules the government anyhow. Go figure.

 

[LaylieCalmMind]

Point 2, 'separation of church and state' is NOT a constitutional issue. it appears no where in the constitution. the phrase was coined 13 years AFTER the constitution was written, by Jefferson. And he was not talking about keeping 'church out of gov't', he was talking about 'keeping gov't out of church'.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." - The First Amendment

They were meant to stay out of each other. The framers of the constitution elaborated on this quite a bit, Jefferson simply explained with the term "separation of church and state" what the constitution already said in a catchy and easy to understand way.

 

[Ramon]

I said I'm not a big fan of the US government right now. However I think the Constitution and the framing of the nation itself is excellent. I made this distinction clearly, please don't twist my words like that.

Also, the first 4 commandments have only to do with your god specifically, it's very much about religion. And the good things the 10 commandments DO have are already put into use. We already enforce that thou shalt not kill or steal, why do we need to replace the excellent US Constitution with 10 commandments that we have no need for?

I suppose you think you are good then? Tell me how you are good.

 

[InitialConditions]

I suppose you think you are good then? Tell me how you are good.

Are you saying she is evil? Tell me how she is evil. She's voicing an opinion you don't agree with. Is that evil?

 

[Ramon]

1st commandment.
2nd commandment.
3rd commandment.
4th commandment.

Problem?

You say that a nation governed by 10 rules will thrive... well, do you really think that? Have you ever heard of propoganda? Your 10 rules don't offer freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from torture, freedom of quartering of troops...

No police, no beaurocracy, no military. The nation won't thrive. It will be consumed. You shine a beacon of purity, but your beacon is dimmed by your narrowminded ideals.

Hey man. You said it!! People are evil and yet you honor them? Hmm. Can't have peace, must assemble armies.