Yes! No more murdering babies! Now which candidate supports mandatory murder charges for women who elect to get an abortion?

The wording of Commandments 1 and 10 worries me, DJ. They could be twisted by those who advocate the nebulous "Social Justice" to justify redistribution of wealth.

That's nice if you believe in that kind of thing.

Fave, only a troll thinks "social justice" is the same thing as "Justice". But you are right, the need to defend Reality from the Utopians never ends. And #8 stands against the whole Socialism thing.

"that His opinion cannot be considered in electing those leaders who will direct the nation's decisions on moral issues"

That has got to be the epitome of arrogance...the very notion that one "who talks to God" has a good idea of what God approves.

Tghere would be as many versions of what God wants as there would be voters.

You ignored the Bible, CDL. It's plain enough when you ASK God what He wants, instead of pretending you ARE God.

So God isn't a Republican or a Democrat, He just happens to support the Republican political platform 100%. You should talk to your pastor about that if you truly believe it.

You ignored the Bible, CDL. It's plain enough when you ASK God what He wants, instead of pretending you ARE God.

What is God's view on the Estate Tax?

Look it up, Blue.

And you are truly playing the troll, if you think God is 100% Republican.

But, I guess you have to follow the LefTroll playbook, they don't seem to allow their sheep much independent thought.

How about this one:

Thou shalt find a way to respect freedom of religion whilst following the Judeo-Christian theology.

That might be an important addition to your list, considering the fact that the United States was supposedly founded upon the idea that the freedom to choose one's religion is the right of all citizens.

Christianity, and a belief in the Judeo-Christian God in general, is a strong force here in the USA--and a valuable part of the national culture. But it's important to remember that it's not THE ONLY religious system, let alone the only valid one.

Look it up, Blue.

Look what up? Does God have a position on the Estate Tax?

And you are truly playing the troll, if you think God is 100% Republican.

You are the one who wants to play Moses and tell us all what God truly believes. If you don't understand how arrogant that is then you really should speak with your pastor.

But, I guess you have to follow the LefTroll playbook, they don't seem to allow their sheep much independent thought.

Sorry. I know you guys have no response to our playbook. I will take it easier on you next time.

To that, I think it is well past time to voice dissent, indeed to oppose and suppress those who think that Freedom of Religion still disallows a person from voting their conscience by listening to the voice and will of God. It is time for us all to exercise our rights, not lay them down because someone is a boor about how we voice our opinion.

Freedom of Religion does not, or should not disallow anybody from voting based upon their worldview or belief system. Politicians have to be considerate of the fact that they cannot make decisions for others simply based upon a religious belief, since many of their constituents may not follow that same belief--in that way it's a little unfair for a Judeo-Christian to be making social and political choices for a group of, say, Buddhists. That's the whole problem.

If a Buddhist President was elected (I know, I know) I have a feeling that American Christians wouldn't want him/her to base all policy decisions upon Buddhist ideals/beliefs/doctrines.

What Freedome of Religion should do, in my opinion, is make it so that people of differing beliefs can act according to their faith systems, and still be treated respectfully by the rest of the nation. The whole Freedom of Religion thing is basically about not allowing religious monopolies.

I don't know DJ. I'm thinking God is a liberal.
lets look at your points of interest:

Thy nation shall promote Justice above all else. (So give people even in gutanamo a fair trial before you torture them)

Thy nation shall not suppress those who believe in God and live in faith. (Freedom of religion in consituition check, I wonder if he meant in schools. He might lean to the right on this issue.)

Thy nation shall promote Freedom for all people as individuals, except that Justice must always come first. (Don't see how this one is either left or right)

Thy nation shall not murder babies.
(So pass the childrens health benefits)

Thy nation shall deal fairly with other nations in commerce, respecting other nations while protecting thine own providers and resources.

(Maybe should avoid bombing Iran and fighting a war on three fronts)

Thy nation shall not mock marriage.
(By making it a cheap political issue)

Thy nation shall honor thy history and its lessons (Avoid getting bogged down in senseless conflicts like vietnam taught us)

Thy nation shall not deny individual rights in order to increase the government. (Meaning warentless wiretapping should be knocked off)

Thy nation shall respect, supply, honor, fund, and listen to thy soldiers (So when 70% disaprove of the way things are being run pay attention.)

Thy nation shall not create elite classes with special privileges. (End the corparate welfare and tax cuts for the wealthy!)

In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus proclaims that how you treat the hungry, the thirsty, the sick and other "least of these," is how you treat Jesus himself. And if you fail to help the "least of these," Jesus promises, he will send you to Hell.

Here goes the business vote.

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Of course I suppose if you believe otherwise it is fair to vote your own consience.

I'm not even going to get involved in this discussion. It took all of 13 minutes to descend into hyperbole.

Then it went down from there.

No Ned, God is a Republican, Santa Claus is a Democrat, or so says P.J.

Now, to your points:

Your lie about Guantanamo is noted, especially as you have chosen to believe Al Qaeda rather than the troops Clear enough there;

Socialized medicine is a waste of money, not taking care of children. I guess you missed where Stossel explored all that.

Iran is a terrorist state in every sense of the word. Glad you made it clear you side with against the U.S. ;

Not defending the nation is wrong and stupid. So if you want to let teh terrorists operate without detection, go move to France.

The troops support the war, the mission, and the people of Iraq, not the guys killing troops and civilians. Sucks for you that your fantasy is so at odds with the facts.

And one lst time, you lying moron, tax cuts for everyone, indeed more for the lowest class cannot hoestly be called "tax cuts for the wealthy", but there again, at least your colors are loud and clear.

Context and responsibility are lost on you.

Thy nation can murder non babies and suppress those who don't believe in God. Which other people can be murdered? The ones God deems unworthy? What kind of suppression should be used? How about just not murdering and suppressing?

Well you are lying on virtually everyone of your responses, but why waste time?

If there is one thing I\'ve learned since 9-11 it is that you can\'t argue with a religious fanatic who thinks they have god on their side.

So keep beleiving god votes your way and I\'ll keep beleiving you\'re a religious nut.

I understand your point of view, ted. Every time you look at a mirror, you think you see God.

Here's a free clue, Suhnami:

If someone is trying to kill innocent people and you shoot him first, it's not murder.

Now back to France, you hippie.

Wow, nothing like a Christian topic to really bring out the trolls. They really hate this stuff.

Great post, DJ.

It was inevitable that such a stupid topic would devolve into such a stupid discussion.

Recall the crux of Plato's Euthyphro: is a thing good because God desires it -- or does God desire a thing because it is good? As the answer is the latter, divine command theory is shown to be horse shit. Right and wrong are separate from the will of God, although much of what God wills is certainly good. What is good is not what God decrees, though, but what reason shows us to be the case. When people accept that morality needn't be dressed up in spooky metaphysical trappings, life becomes a lot simpler and more enjoyable.

"It was inevitable that such a stupid topic would devolve into such a stupid discussion."

You started it with your own stupid remark. And then you complain that it got more stupid?

You're so right, WordyGirl, they hate this stuff.

hyperbullshit seems to be some new ager that thinks we cannot know anything about God.

Fact is, if we don't get to know God (and extremely well) through the Bible, and prayer, and applying Biblical wisdom to the world, then we will be up shit creek (I'm paraphrasing).

So if you don't think we can know God's intentions, you're a clueless ass that is serving a negative purpose to the world. God is not some goodly grandfather figure. As C.S. Lewis has allegorized, he is "not a tame Lion". He'll kick your ass. In the Old Testament, he instantly struck Uzzah down dead just because he touched the ark of the covenant in order to keep it from falling off the ox cart (2Samuel 6). He'll do much more than kick your ass.

My initial comment wasn't stupid, Oyster. Claiming that abortion is murder, but lacking the courage of conviction (or understanding of your own principles) to suggest that women who have an abortion are thereby guilty of murder, is a failure of intellectual and/or intestinal fortitude of right-wing Christians. Either it's murder and those women need to be in jail, or it's not murder and there's no issue.

More generally, this is a stupid topic, Oyster, because right-wing Evangelicals, far-left hippies, Zionists, anti-Semites, racists, vegetarians, communists, libertarians, those who favor the legalization of prostitution, and anybody else with an opinion, can support their beliefs with some sort of religious text. Now determining whose interpretation of the text is correct seems like an intractable problem (not to mention figuring out which text we should be reading in the first place!). The problem is only intractable, though, for people who think religion ought to inform our legal principles.

As the past few elections have shown, neither party really pays much attention to social conservatives anyway, so I think this is stupid and moot.

"the Bible is a true and priceless book for consideration into human nature, as well as the fate of nations which obey or rebel against the Holy Will. Immoral nations fall and fail, of that there is no doubt. And God takes an active and direct interest in His people. Like it or not, if a national leader wants his country to prosper, he must uphold the laws of God and protect those who serve God".

I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse. Gen. 12:3 (NIV)

Now back to France you hippie.... awesome. I ask a simple question and get some schoolyard answer.
Still doesn't answer the suppression part, and pardon me for wanting clarification. Did I at all attack your position? Did I make fun of it? Did I 'Troll' it? Nope, simply asked for clarification and this is the response I get. You also didn't answer why we can't say thou shall not commit murder of ANY human. Isn't that like... better? I guess wanting such explanation requires that I leave this country. "Question me and you hate America". Classy.

" When people accept that morality needn't be dressed up in spooky metaphysical trappings, life becomes a lot simpler and more enjoyable."

Heroine addicts think life is a lot simpler and more enjoyable when they are under the influence of that drug, too. That doesn't mean they are in any way better off than those who are not addicted, however.

In much the same way leftists feel life would be simpler and more enjoyable under a communist government, but the reality is quite different.

nehemiah, I'm a former Catholic and current atheist. I think that means I'm not "new age", whatever that is. Anyway, read what you wrote about God in the Old Testament. THAT is a "creator" worth worshipping? What do you learn from reading that crap? That God is cranky and might at any time squish us for eating shellfish or being gay? The fact that that stuff is in there should be reason enough not to read it outside of a purely anthropological context.

As for knowing God's will, how come everybody on Earth who attempts to discover God's intentions arrives at a conclusion that fits their own cultural/economic/psychological prejudices? Nut job in Riyadh: "Allah says death to America!" Nut job in Salt Lake City: "God says marry a bunch of 14-year-olds and send me money!" Which one is right? Neither, obviously. How do we know that? Because people who claim to hear voices and talk to themselves at night are crazy people.

Is Christopher Hitchens a Communist, P. Bunyan? Sheesh...

I know very little about Christopher Hitchens, hyperbolist. I recognized his name but that was about it so I just read his wikipedia page.

Based on what I read there (even though that's not a very reliable source, at least it's quick and easy) I would have to say that yes, he was a neo-communist, but is much less so now.

THAT is a "creator" worth worshipping? What do you learn from reading that crap? That God is cranky and might at any time squish us for eating shellfish or being gay?

What I learn from that, hyper, is that God is holy. He's not like us. Uzzah was a Levite -- it was his life to know things about serving God and how to handle things that are holy. But you know, those kinds of things don't apply to us since about 2000 years ago. But in fact, more is required of us.

Truth is, the story of Uzzah makes me love and respect God all the more. I would have had less respect of His word if He said He would do something then didn't do it. He's wholly consistent and fair. He's different (holy). Also, He is unchanging (he hasn't changed one bit from the time of Uzzah).

I like mine better,

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

And I don't need to sell it, because it's already yours as well.

BTW, hyper, what the hell does Christopher Hitchens have to do with what I posted?

You two do seem to share some religious beliefs, but based on what you've posted here not much other than your belief that there is no deity. He seems to have rejected most of your religion.

And again, I basing this only on a short wikipedia article and your posts on this particular thread which I admit is very little to go on.

Hitchens is a militant atheist, P. Bunyan, but he's pretty right-wing otherwise.

nehemiah, don't you think compassion is a virtue? Uzzah makes a mistake, so he must die--that shows God to be fair? Also, God's chosen people were Jews (although history doesn't seem to support this). Nowadays, I don't think Christians or Muslims would accept this as true--was God initially mistaken about whom He loved, or did God change His mind?

I respect your personal convictions, but don't share your intuitions. I'm just trying to illuminate why translating religious belief into universal legal principles is a hopelessly problematic enterprise.

P. Bunyan, I mentioned Hitchens as an example of an atheist who is a neo-conservative and an atheist, whereas I'm a social democrat and an atheist. The rejection of belief in God does not make one a Communist, nor even a socialist.