View Full Version : The Ten Commandments
firegod
08-23-03, 04:02 AM
I don't think The Ten Commandments should be in local or national government buildings because I don't believe our government should favor specific religions. I have one question. What the hell is up with all of the recent claims that The Ten Commandments are what our laws are based upon? As far as I can tell, there are only 2 or 3 of the commandments that have anything at all to do with our laws: do not murder, do not steal and perhaps do not lie. The ideas that we should not murder, steal or lie were popular ones long before someone came up with The Ten Commandments. I'm having a hard time following the logic of this somewhat popular claim.
I think what the claim boils down to, more or less, is that regardless of whether or not you're a Christian (or even religious at all), you'd be hard pressed to oppose most of the morality that the Ten Commandments espouse.
I don't think the issue is one of Constitutionality, as some have suggested; the only real danger is in a state-sponsored or "official" religion, as I doubt anyone believes that having "Thou Shalt Not Kill" plastered on the wall of a public high school will lead to fascism, theocracy, or much of anything at all. I suppose it's a matter of principle for some, but in my mind it isn't all that different from posting a notice on a school bulletin board.
firegod
08-23-03, 04:39 AM
I think what the claim boils down to, more or less, is that regardless of whether or not you're a Christian (or even religious at all), you'd be hard pressed to oppose most of the morality that the Ten Commandments espouse.
No. The claim tends to boil down to certain people trying to get other people to believe that our laws are actually based on these commandments, which seems pretty ridiculous to me.
"You shall have no other gods before Me."
I doubt many people other than Christians would agree with this "morality".
"Thou shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them."
Oh yeah; THAT great morality.
"Thou shall not use The Name of The Lord your God in vain; for The Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His Name in vain."
VERY important. :rolleyes:
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a Sabbath to The Lord your God."
Everyone I know follows this.
"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which The Lord your God gives you."
Ok; enough sarcasm. :) This one isn't bad.
"Thou shall not kill."
Excellent one, but we didn't need a list; the vast majority of people would believe in it without this commandment ever existing.
"Thou shall not commit adultery."
Good one.
"Thou shall not steal."
Another good one.
"Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."
Yup yup.
"Thou shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's."
Really? I guess I should give back all of those things I bought because I saw someone else who had them and wanted them for myself.
The fact is that most people don't follow this list. Except for murder and theft, most people -- most Christians included -- have several morals put way ahead of all of The Ten Commandments. And this list certainly has very little in common with the law, wouldn't you agree?
Henry The Kid
08-23-03, 05:01 AM
There isn't much wrong with them being up there, in my opinion. But then again, I don't see why it's such a big deal to just take them down. Some people are making this case be a much bigger deal than it has to be, really. If no one had ever made a case up about it, I would likely just let him keep them up there as long as he wanted. But now that one person has spoken up, it's really not a good idea to keep them up for long.
Even as a nonChristian, or nonspiritualist of any kind, most of America's laws were founded on Christian morals. However, I think that if this judge is really desperate to keep them up there, he should be required to post similar passages from the Korran and all the other many religions around the world(forgive my ignorance of their books and things of that nature, Korran was the only thing to come to mind).
No. The claim tends to boil down to certain people trying to get other people to believe that our laws are actually based on these commandments, which seems pretty ridiculous to me.
I'm not sure what "certain people" say. Frankly, I've never in my life heard anyone suggest that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments, because the idea is so easily disproven. I have heard people suggest that Christian morality has heavily influenced American law, however.
I think, at worst, very few people believe what you're talking about, and at best, they're merely misphrasing.
The fact is that most people don't follow this list. Except for murder and theft, most people -- most Christians included -- have several morals put way ahead of all of The Ten Commandments. And this list certainly has very little in common with the law, wouldn't you agree?
Yes, I would. Most people do not follow that list. But most people agree that most of it, ideally, should be followed, which is rather my point.
r3port3r66
08-23-03, 01:29 PM
I always thought that the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" commandment was interesting, politically anyway. How many right-wing (religious) politicians support the death penalty?
Henry The Kid
08-23-03, 02:12 PM
Yes, I would. Most people do not follow that list. But most people agree that most of it, ideally, should be followed, which is rather my point.
I think that point is pretty irrelavent, in the end. I think the crux of the argument is, does this show government favortism of one religion over another? I'm still not quite sure if it does or not. I'm starting to lean toward it being favortism, but I'm still not quite convinced yet.
Other than taking the lords name in vain, these are pretty safe ideas to live by. It would be best if they could replace it with a secular list, but that, I'm sure, is out of the question.
I'm afraid i wouldn't be comfortable with such a strong endorsement of one religion by my state [the links between state and church in Britain are a joke and not taken seriously by the majority].
The fact that the commandments are there COULD be used by some foolish people to claim their validity and place in enshrined law (but as Yods says, anyone one with a smidgen of info should be able to disprove their points)
The probs for me are with the other all-purpose/secular moralities which everyone agrees on as life-guidelines getting tied up with these commandments:
"You shall have no other gods before Me." and "Thou shall not use The Name of The Lord your God in vain; for The Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His Name in vain."
-As Fire says, these aren't universals. They're Christian/monotheistic specific.
"Thou shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them."
-I actually see this as being broken in some ways through the "worship" of technology that some partake in i.e. the idea that all scientific/technological "advances" are good per se etc etc. I sort of agree with it in that i don't think any ONE segregated thing should be the object of worship as such. Although these things are more in the territory of ideas than things, they have physical representations, which SOME people consider as flawless as long as they're functioning within their own parameters.
-"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a Sabbath to The Lord your God."
This one is fairly spurious to me. Why not worship "god" through your actions every day??
Interesting point on the killing thing by the way r3 :yup:
For those that claim these guide-lines are absolute that's a bit of a conundrum ;)
I think that point is pretty irrelavent, in the end. I think the crux of the argument is, does this show government favortism of one religion over another? I'm still not quite sure if it does or not. I'm starting to lean toward it being favortism, but I'm still not quite convinced yet.
I think it shows favoritism to a certain set of morals. At most, they're showing tolerance and acceptance -- not favoritism -- of a certain religion. They're not stating that schools must have the Ten Commandments posted, after all...just that they can. Erring on the side of freedom.
Other than taking the lords name in vain, these are pretty safe ideas to live by. It would be best if they could replace it with a secular list, but that, I'm sure, is out of the question.
It'd be rather silly to replace the Ten Commandments with a near-identical list just so that it could be, technically, "secular."
This one is fairly spurious to me. Why not worship "god" through your actions every day??
Why not do both? This isn't, to use a favorite phrase of yours, an "either-or" situation. I don't see what's "spurious" about setting aside a special day of rest to honor God.
Interesting point on the killing thing by the way r3 :yup:
For those that claim these guide-lines are absolute that's a bit of a conundrum ;)
Not really. I'm fairly certain that the actual translation is "thou shalt not murder."
It'd be rather silly to replace the Ten Commandments with a near-identical list just so that it could be, technically, "secular."
Erm, why? What's wrong with having a secular set of morals that all can agree on?
Why not do both? This isn't, to use a favorite phrase of yours, an "either-or" situation. I don't see what's "spurious" about setting aside a special day of rest to honor God.
Oops - guilty. But what i'm interested in is: why the unnecessary focus? It seems strange to give it equal credence as "thou shalt not murder" for example. Shouldn't it be a sub-commandment or something? ;)
Not really. I'm fairly certain that the actual translation is "thou shalt not murder."
Ok - but how is the death-penalty not murder?
Erm, why? What's wrong with having a secular set of morals that all can agree on?
Nothing's wrong with it. And there's nothing wrong with having a religious set of morals that we can all agree on, either. You honestly don't see what's silly about this? "Well, I agree with these rules, and so does everyone else...but they were written by a religious figure, so we need to reword them."
Oops - guilty. But what i'm interested in is: why the unnecessary focus? It seems strange to give it equal credence as "thou shalt not murder" for example. Shouldn't it be a sub-commandment or something? ;)
I see the focus as far from unnecessary. And I've no reason to believe that, because they are both "commandments," one is not a more serious offense than the other.
Ok - but how is the death-penalty not murder?
mur·der - The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
And there's nothing wrong with having a religious set of morals that we can all agree on, either.
Erm, the problem your skipping Yods is that I, and many others, DON'T agree with the ten commandments in total. That's where the problem lies. You see?
I see the focus as far from unnecessary. And I've no reason to believe that, because they are both "commandments," one is not a more serious offense than the other.
Ok, but listing them in the style that they are does lend a certain: here-are-the-ten-most-important-ones feel to it. What I'm disputing, as the sunday-thing is such a lesser "moral" (and indeed - not a moral at all to my mind - it's more of a vague guideline or extra preference - not a necesity by any means for a start) ....why is it there? Couldn't we just have the four or five really socailly necessary ones alone. Why do we need these other ones that people like me and many others don't agree with muddled up amongst them?
mur·der - The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
You're telling me the accepted translation of the bible's intent is that...
(a) the death must be "lawful"? i.e. under God's law only surely - not under state law for a start. State law can't have anything to do with it surely. In which case - how does the bible clarify what these "laws" are that murder crosses. i.e. when is killing "murder"?
(b) ok - if "premeditated" and "malice" are also demonstrably concepts intended in the bible's original wording/language: at least one is true of the death penalty. And the malice thing is debateable in both cases. What about people who don't care about their victims? Is that malice?
Erm, the problem your skipping Yods is that I, and many others, DON'T agree with the ten commandments in total. That's where the problem lies. You see?
I don't think that's where the problem lies at all. Would you have no objection to the idea if not for the one or two commandments you don't agree with? Regardless, the primary objection for most is the document's source, and not its content.
Ok, but listing them in the style that they are does lend a certain: here-are-the-ten-most-important-ones feel to it.
Yes, that is the implication. But that doesn't tell us that one is necessarily as important as another. They're not listed in any specific order of importance, that we know of.
What I'm disputing, as the sunday-thing is such a lesser "moral" (and indeed - not a moral at all to my mind - it's more of a vague guideline or extra preference - not a necesity by any means for a start) ....why is it there? Couldn't we just have the four or five really socailly necessary ones alone. Why do we need these other ones that people like me and many others don't agree with muddled up amongst them?
What an odd thing to ask. :) It boils down to "why can't the list be just like the one I would write?" The answer is that the other commandments, whether they strike your particular fancy or not, are valuable and serve a purpose. I don't see why they should have to answer for the fact that some people don't like them. Disagreement is inevitable.
You're telling me the accepted translation of the bible's intent is that...
(a) the death must be "lawful"? i.e. under God's law only surely - not under state law for a start. State law can't have anything to do with it surely. In which case - how does the bible clarify what these "laws" are that murder crosses. i.e. when is killing "murder"?
(b) ok - if "premeditated" and "malice" are also demonstrably concepts intended in the bible's original wording/language: at least one is true of the death penalty. And the malice thing is debateable in both cases. What about people who don't care about their victims? Is that malice?
It doesn't matter if it's malice, because the definition does not REQUIRE its prescence. And no, the Bible does not define the word "murder" for us, but it really doesn't have to: we're given loads of context. We're talking about a statement that could go one of two ways, and one of the ways contradicts virtually everything that was taught before it.
Throw in the fact that nobody scrutinizes statements like "killing is wrong" in day to day life (the exceptions to the rule are always implied), and the issue is really a no-brainer.
I don't think that's where the problem lies at all. Would you have no objection to the idea if not for the one or two commandments you don't agree with? Regardless, the primary objection for most is the document's source, and not its content.
It doesn't really matter what you see as the objections as you don't object. It's the people who object who can tell you best why. In my case it's coz:
(a) there's morals i agree with (but not 100%) and morals i don't agree with bundled up together
(b) the fact that the source is a fixed-text (which ironically has changed to suit the time, but is still considered fixed by some) is an added problem, but fairly extraneous here. Only in that it brings in this 100%-true idea does it add to the problem of the ten commandments.
Yes, that is the implication. But that doesn't tell us that one is necessarily as important as another. They're not listed in any specific order of importance, that we know of.
I'm not saying it does. But we can clearly say that things like murder and theft are morals respected with more prevelance thoughout the world to one extent or another (there are exceptions i understand, but normally in small isolated communities that come up with very non-world-checking theories, it seems). And surely there are lots of other sub-morals other than setting Sunday aside etc i.e. turn-the-other-cheek etc. Why aren't they in there? Why isn't the sunday one and other non-"universal" ones removed? I think they should be then - if this is supposed to be a list of morals acceptable to all as you say (and by acceptable i mean secular. That's what we've been talking about: morals that don't introduce one-religion-specific criteria. That's the emphasis.)
What an odd thing to ask. :) It boils down to "why can't the list be just like the one I would write?" The answer is that the other commandments, whether they strike your particular fancy or not, are valuable and serve a purpose. I don't see why they should have to answer for the fact that some people don't like them. Disagreement is inevitable.
Not so.... it's more: why can't the list be one we can reach a consensus view on?
Disagreement is inevitable, but in the case of creationists etc, so is assertion of 100% truth. Most annoying. Glad you accept some of the ten commandments aren't valuable and don't serve a purpose :p
It doesn't matter if it's malice, because the definition does not REQUIRE its prescence. And no, the Bible does not define the word "murder" for us, but it really doesn't have to: we're given loads of context. We're talking about a statement that could go one of two ways, and one of the ways contradicts virtually everything that was taught before it.
So why introduce unrelated definitions then dictionary-boy? And MUST you do the it's-either-my-right-way or the-obviously-wrong-way thing again? It's so tiresome. Let me demonstrate why it's not so clear cut...
Throw in the fact that nobody scrutinizes statements like "killing is wrong" in day to day life (the exceptions to the rule are always implied), and the issue is really a no-brainer.
Where are they implied? Murder CAN be ok. Theft CAN be ok. In the right circumstances. You admit this then? Yet these exceptions are NOT implied when people, like yourself, with a tendancy to apply things 100% (especially when it's God's truth ;)) when they believe they have a definition of "wrong".
(look at the "evil" thread you just replied to.)
So are you now saying that "thou shalt not murder" is only 90% right?
Please tell me it's so ;) :) :eek: :p :rolleyes: :D ;D
firegod
08-23-03, 07:11 PM
I'm not sure what "certain people" say. Frankly, I've never in my life heard anyone suggest that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments, because the idea is so easily disproven. I have heard people suggest that Christian morality has heavily influenced American law, however.
I think, at worst, very few people believe what you're talking about, and at best, they're merely misphrasing.
Chris, I've heard it many times, especially the last week or so. With this whole Judge Moore thing, lots of people are making this claim, including Allen Keys. I've also had 2 religious friends say it to me in the last few days.
Henry The Kid
08-23-03, 07:23 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Ten Commandments Jewish as well as Christian? I still have my doubts about this really being favortism.
firegod
08-23-03, 07:30 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Ten Commandments Jewish as well as Christian? I still have my doubts about this really being favortism.
Then ask yourself how this Judge Moore would feel if a huge sculpture of rules from the Quran were placed in his building. Ask yourself how he would respond to the notion of placing rules from Secular Humanism right next to The Ten Commandments.
From Kong's point of view it doesn't matter if we agree with the morals of the Ten Commandments or not. The fact is that it is a religious text, and its being displayed in government buildings is an endorsement of that text, and since that text is representative of a religion(s) it comes off as an endorsement of that religion(s). It might not be a particularly strong endorsement, but it's an endorsement none-the-less.
Henry The Kid
08-23-03, 09:16 PM
Then ask yourself how this Judge Moore would feel if a huge sculpture of rules from the Quran were placed in his building. Ask yourself how he would respond to the notion of placing rules from Secular Humanism right next to The Ten Commandments.
Probably not so well. I said it should be replaced with something secular, but Yoda called it silly.
It is an endorsement of religion, no doubt, but I just don't feel like it's strong enough to warrant removal. Then again, I also still don't see why it's such a large deal to remove it anyway, we're not telling this judge he can't follow the Ten Commandments, just that he should follow them on his own.
I'm still going back and forth on this issue, a lot. My guess is that it will be removed, sooner or later.
It doesn't really matter what you see as the objections as you don't object. It's the people who object who can tell you best why. In my case it's coz:
(a) there's morals i agree with (but not 100%) and morals i don't agree with bundled up together
(b) the fact that the source is a fixed-text (which ironically has changed to suit the time, but is still considered fixed by some) is an added problem, but fairly extraneous here. Only in that it brings in this 100%-true idea does it add to the problem of the ten commandments.
Now there's a silly idea...I can't recognize people's objections because I'm not one of the ones objecting?
The overwhelming bulk of people I've talked to on this matter agree that the Ten Commandments are, overall, morally advisable. Kong put it best: it's their source, not their content, that spurs the primary contention. I'll ask again: would you approve of the idea if the "offending" commandments were omitted?
I'm not saying it does. But we can clearly say that things like murder and theft are morals respected with more prevelance thoughout the world to one extent or another (there are exceptions i understand, but normally in small isolated communities that come up with very non-world-checking theories, it seems). And surely there are lots of other sub-morals other than setting Sunday aside etc i.e. turn-the-other-cheek etc. Why aren't they in there? Why isn't the sunday one and other non-"universal" ones removed? I think they should be then - if this is supposed to be a list of morals acceptable to all as you say (and by acceptable i mean secular. That's what we've been talking about : morals that don't introduce one-religion-specific criteria. That's the emphasis.)
I never said this was supposed to be a list of morals acceptable to all. Whether or not everyone finds them acceptable is up to them. The only thing it's supposed to be is true. Besides: a list of morals that everyone already found fully self-evident wouldn't serve a whole lot of purpose, now would it?
Not so.... it's more: why can't the list be one we can reach a consensus view on?
Because there will inevitably be people with differing viewpoints (like yourself)...and the only way to please them all would be to write something untrue. Your question assumes that The Bible was written with a specific agenda in mind, rather than simply written because it was true. You're presupposing that your beliefs are correct.
Disagreement is inevitable, but in the case of creationists etc, so is assertion of 100% truth. Most annoying. Glad you accept some of the ten commandments aren't valuable and don't serve a purpose :p
What?
So why introduce unrelated definitions then dictionary-boy? And MUST you do the it's-either-my-right-way or the-obviously-wrong-way thing again? It's so tiresome. Let me demonstrate why it's not so clear cut...
You asked why the death penalty did not constitute murder, so I produced the definition of the word so answer your question. If you meant to ask whether or not the death penalty constituted murder in the way The Bible describes it, I'd say no, for the same reasons detailed in my last post.
Where are they implied? Murder CAN be ok. Theft CAN be ok. In the right circumstances. You admit this then? Yet these exceptions are NOT implied when people, like yourself, with a tendancy to apply things 100% (especially when it's God's truth ;)) when they believe they have a definition of "wrong".
What do you mean "where are they implied?"? If there was a specific place, they wouldn't really be implied at all. They're implied in the absurdity of the alternative. It's rather like saying "this thing weighs a ton." You know the person saying it is exaggerating because no book weighs a ton. Similarly, you know that The Bible is not condemning killing in all forms because there are instances in which not killing leads to more death than killing, so that refraining from the act would be contrary to the rule's purpose, and also because it contradicts the context around it.
(look at the "evil" thread you just replied to.)
So are you now saying that "thou shalt not murder" is only 90% right?
Please tell me it's so ;) :) :eek: :p :rolleyes: :D ;D
You're far too hung up on these made up percentages. It is not "90% right" because it's not "10% wrong." It's a sound principle, but it cannot defy logic...that is, if failing to kill/murder will result in more kills/murders, a potential exception can be made. The fact that certain rules can have exceptions if and when they conflict with their own purpose, or other rules, does not make them partially valid.
Chris, I've heard it many times, especially the last week or so. With this whole Judge Moore thing, lots of people are making this claim, including Allen Keys. I've also had 2 religious friends say it to me in the last few days.
Not to imply disbelief, but when did Alan Keyes say that?
Regardless, I've heard things similar to it (as in, the same statement, qualified by a "most of" opening), but I've yet to hear anyone claim exactly what you're describing. I don't know that's it matters at this point, though, because I think all here agree that it's a hollow claim if not at least refined somewhat.
From Kong's point of view it doesn't matter if we agree with the morals of the Ten Commandments or not. The fact is that it is a religious text, and its being displayed in government buildings is an endorsement of that text, and since that text is representative of a religion(s) it comes off as an endorsement of that religion(s). It might not be a particularly strong endorsement, but it's an endorsement none-the-less.
Very true...though I do have a semantic gripe. I think there's a fine line between approval and endorsement, and seeing as how we have no state-sponsored religion, and are very strict about such things for the most part, I really don't think leaving the Ten Commandments up qualifies as the latter. In my mind it's just one notch above a prayer meeting notice on the bulletin board of a government lobby.
Sexy Celebrity
08-23-03, 11:33 PM
I don't know why our government buildings would want to have The Ten Commandments posted when there are Jennifer Lopez posters available.
firegod
08-23-03, 11:34 PM
Not to imply disbelief, but when did Alan Keyes say that?
I certainly hope not. :) I heard him say it on Hannity and Colmes. I heard it on another news network as well; it might have been CNN.
Edit: Sorry. You said WHEN. It was either Thursday or Friday night.
Very true...though I do have a semantic gripe. I think there's a fine line between approval and endorsement, and seeing as how we have no state-sponsored religion, and are very strict about such things for the most part, I really don't think leaving the Ten Commandments up qualifies as the latter. In my mind it's just one notch above a prayer meeting notice on the bulletin board of a government lobby.
Kong doesn't really see it as being that casual. A courtroom is a pretty formal place, and its walls are not anything like public bulletin boards where the average joe can post upcoming event fliers.
When the judge is on duty he is representing a branch of our government, the courtroom is constantly representing our government, and religion isn't the government's business. It's our business, and we should keep it that way.
This isn't a huge breach of church and state seperation, but being diligent about preserving and protecting that seperation is the best way for us to ensure our rights as citizens who are able to choose their beliefs without any sort of government interference.
Maybe it is just a little thing, but little things count too.
I'll ask again: would you approve of the idea if the "offending" commandments were omitted?
It would be better yes. But that doesn't mean i want them there at all. The question of morality should no longer be in the hands of current religions IMO. Monotheistic religons, for example, focus all intentions on an abstract idea of God that ends up becoming more important than the world they are supposed to "regulate" in my opinon.
Reductionism on this scale is a tricky business - i prefer "cooperation-where-possible balanced-with competition-where-necessary" as a central reduction for judging "quality" in moral actions. It covers many things. But i still don't want it that "enshrined" in a law court either at the moment. A consensus effort to establish "morals" in that area is necessary, if we are to replace the inflexible tenets of religious decrees with more mutable constants. If "law" wasn't so about power/money influence, then possibly this could be established - but it looks unlikely at the mo.
I never said this was supposed to be a list of morals acceptable to all. Whether or not everyone finds them acceptable is up to them. The only thing it's supposed to be is true. Besides: a list of morals that everyone already found fully self-evident wouldn't serve a whole lot of purpose, now would it?
Yes - but where do you get your non-self-evident truths from Yods? What's in your magic bag? God i suspect. That omnipetent rabbit that keeps popping up to supposedly back up your arguments by decreeing them "true". Non-evident to the uniformed, but true non-the-less. The difference between you and me is i don't claim my claims might not have flaws. You claim the ones you support are true no-matter-what. It's implied here and stated else-where.
Because there will inevitably be people with differing viewpoints (like yourself)...and the only way to please them all would be to write something untrue. Your question assumes that The Bible was written with a specific agenda in mind, rather than simply written because it was true. You're presupposing that your beliefs are correct.
God you're frustrating. You're back in total "you're wrong coz i'm right" territory. How am i supposed to have a reasonable debate with that??
I DO assume that human-psychology interferred with the writing of the bible. What a peculiar belief on my part :rolleyes:
Oh, i forgot, it's just true :rolleyes:
I'm presupposing my beliefs are correct?? No, again, i'm saying mine can be mistaken, and yours too - different thing. Your the only one stating your ideas are 100% correct - and making debate impossible.
What?
The answer is that the other commandments, whether they strike your particular fancy or not, are valuable and serve a purpose
Yes, the other ones - about murder and theft etc, are valuable and do serve a purpose (when taken as strong but not "infiinte" truths). You've admitted in this statement that the ones that pertain soley to monotheistic/Christian perceptions therefore are at the very least, are less valuable, and serve less of a purpose i.e. they are only of meaning to those who are Christian etc.
You asked why the death penalty did not constitute murder, so I produced the definition of the word so answer your question. If you meant to ask whether or not the death penalty constituted murder in the way The Bible describes it, I'd say no, for the same reasons detailed in my last post.
Exactly: the context was: the bible-justifying-murder. So the dictionary definition, that extrapolates beyond what the original biblical wording could be perceived to say, was pointless. You can't use it to justify your belief that capital punishment is not murder in biblical terms. And in what way DID you justify your belief that the death penalty was not murder other than thru that dictionary definition?? Please repeat.
Similarly, you know that The Bible is not condemning killing in all forms because there are instances in which not killing leads to more death than killing, so that refraining from the act would be contrary to the rule's purpose, and also because it contradicts the context around it.
But this is not the only contradiciton of the killing rule. What about killing someone who's going to kill more people. There are so many contradictions. Luckily - it's not one i think NEEDS establishing as a seperate "moral" - as we should be judging each case on it's own merits. Therefore - to say "to kill is wrong" is a phrase that: (a) isn't necessary to say to those who know - and (b) won't have any effect on those who don't care.
What i'm ultimately saying here is: cut the bible out of the equation. It's not necesaary - we know murder can be both right and wrong - both better by it's presence or its absence. The only "God" that should come into it for me is the quality-assessing "god" of best and worth-while action judged holistically and logically. Very, very, very, very similar to your take: but based around a more flexible judgement system than your one-true-unobservable-unknowable god who is "100% right" and whose "100%" rightness can be 100% known known... i.e... based on the "knowable" god of the observable world - and the principle of the "unknown", instead. Very similar - just no over-simplified "God" to attach other silly principles to. Focus on what we have around us - not on some abstract ideal.
You're far too hung up on these made up percentages. It is not "90% right" because it's not "10% wrong." It's a sound principle, but it cannot defy logic...that is, if failing to kill/murder will result in more kills/murders, a potential exception can be made. The fact that certain rules can have exceptions if and when they conflict with their own purpose, or other rules, does not make them partially valid.
Qualatively assessed thank you ;)
I don't defy your "logic"(as in posit the opposite) - i moderate it towards reasonableness.
i.e.
Your still seeing it as murder or not-murder. I'm saying there's bad-murder, good-murder, and no-murder. Different. I do indeed claim that a definitive statement can be partially valid. That last statement may be partially valid ;) :p
This is all about a state of mind. I have no idea why i've just wasted 40 minutes writing what i know won't convince you. Our beliefs and actions might be similar - the difference is: when it comes down to be-all-and-end-all: the world in front-of-me, and the world-around-me which i can't see are both the fundamentals which i focus on.
I don't know exactly what it is you focus on when you draw your decisions, love and authority from "God", but it seems to me the world would be a better place if....the world was that focus/source - not an abstract idea [potentially of a bearded man ;)]. Having an abstract idea of the world is at least alright - you can keep comparing it to the real thing. Having an abstract idea (of God) based on an abstract idea (of absolute truth) is just too uncheckable abd uncomparable to be the basis for all our decions.
Sigh - i'll never change you - and it's not even fun trying - but i just want to shift your focus that tiny, important bit that doesn't allow you to attach all importance to an entirely uncheckable idea. Most impractical.
i spent some time skimming thru this thread. admittedly, i didnt read every word of every post... but enough to formulate an opinion.
firstly, i dont understand why people are up in arms about this. Religous beliefs are personal, no prescribed. If you belong to a 'christian state', that doesnt make you a christian.
I can understand that someone could be upset because they feel like religious beliefs are being cast on them, by having the ten commandments up in courtrooms or whatever, but honestly, is the really a threat to your beliefs?
If someone is so brainless that they thoughtlessly follow things they read on walls, then good luck to them trying to adhere to the ten commandments!
For those that arent so thoughtless, good luck in generating your own beliefs and set of values to live by, and be thankful for your freedom to do that.
perhaps ive completely misconstrued this thread, but those are my thoughts...
j
Henry The Kid
08-24-03, 01:24 AM
Kong doesn't really see it as being that casual. A courtroom is a pretty formal place, and its walls are not anything like public bulletin boards where the average joe can post upcoming event fliers.
When the judge is on duty he is representing a branch of our government, the courtroom is constantly representing our government, and religion isn't the government's business. It's our business, and we should keep it that way.
This isn't a huge breach of church and state seperation, but being diligent about preserving and protecting that seperation is the best way for us to ensure our rights as citizens who are able to choose their beliefs without any sort of government interference.
Maybe it is just a little thing, but little things count too.
I actually agree now. I do think it should be removed. Well put.
Csido....
your thoughts seem fairly pertinent to me except for one thing: placing those words in a place of law (which is the social determinant of "morality" on official, line-drawing levels) sets a bad precedent.
i.e. personally i feel the current idea of God as understood by many people has too many dogmatic sentiments attached to it to be placed into such an arena. Making it religion-specific is even worse. Even if these things don't get reflected in the letter of the law - there's the risk of the rhetoric of the court starting to reflect them in practice.
That's the short version anyway ;)
r3port3r66
08-24-03, 01:34 AM
I just love these discussions. You guys debate so well. So smart you are.
I'd like to make a few points:
1) Whatever happened to the separation of Church and State idea. If it's un-Constitutional--it's just plain un-Constitutional.
2) The monument in question is just not very nice to look at. It's just a block of stone with the bible carved into it, and opened to the page with the Ten Comandments (way off scale BTW). The Christ figure in Rio de Janeiro, at Sugar Loaf, you know the massive one on the mountain that has his arms spread out as if blessing the world, well that's just beautiful. I don't agree with Ten Comandments statue being where it is, but a nicer one may have met with a few more votes in its favor.
3) Also why does the statue have to be where it is, I mean why didn't the Chief Justice just install the statue on his own private property? Also Moore has been charged with 6 ethics violations, he's been suspended. This could be a case where someone isn't practicing what they're preaching eh...?
Ahhh, some blessed practicalities amonst the abstract analities ;)
Nice one r3 :yup:
I'm going to keep this short, as I've put too much of my time off into this as it is, and most of these arguments are utterly off-topic.Yes - but where do you get your non-self-evident truths from Yods? What's in your magic bag? God i suspect. That omnipetent rabbit that keeps popping up to supposedly back up your arguments by decreeing them "true". Non-evident to the uniformed, but true non-the-less. The difference between you and me is i don't claim my claims might not have flaws. You claim the ones you support are true no-matter-what. It's implied here and stated else-where.
You're making things up. While I believe in God's Word, I fully recognize my own shortcomings in interpreting it. I've said this more than once, but you seem intent on ignoring it.
God you're frustrating. You're back in total "you're wrong coz i'm right" territory. How am i supposed to have a reasonable debate with that??
I DO assume that human-psychology interferred with the writing of the bible. What a peculiar belief on my part :rolleyes:
Oh, i forgot, it's just true :rolleyes:
I have never, ever, ever, EVER, EVER made the argument that what I believe is "just true." Nor have I ever made any argument whose validity was contingent on the presupposition that I'm right. Not once.
You asked why the Ten Commandments couldn't be different. The problem is the question, not the answer. I believe they are the way they are for the same reason a historical text book is the way it is: because to be otherwise would make it false. Your question is presupposing that the Ten Commandments were arbitrarily chosen.
On a side-note, Your constant misunderstandings wouldn't be such a big deal if they didn't always spark page-long diatribes. Toss in the denial of logic as a fully reliable deductive tool, and it ain't me that's impossible to debate with, bud. :)
Yes, the other ones - about murder and theft etc, are valuable and do serve a purpose (when taken as strong but not "infiinte" truths). You've admitted in this statement that the ones that pertain soley to monotheistic/Christian perceptions therefore are at the very least, are less valuable, and serve less of a purpose i.e. they are only of meaning to those who are Christian etc.
You've got it completely backwards. They're MORE valuable, not less valuable, because they would not be otherwise evident.
But this is not the only contradiciton of the killing rule. What about killing someone who's going to kill more people. There are so many contradictions.
Actually, that's the exact same exception I used as my example.
I don't know exactly what it is you focus on when you draw your decisions, love and authority from "God", but it seems to me the world would be a better place if....the world was that focus/source - not an abstract idea [potentially of a bearded man ;)]. Having an abstract idea of the world is at least alright - you can keep comparing it to the real thing. Having an abstract idea (of God) based on an abstract idea (of absolute truth) is just too uncheckable abd uncomparable to be the basis for all our decions.
Round and round we go. I'll elaborate on the myraid of flaws in your standard of "the world" in the other, more appropriate thread sometime in the next couple of days. In short response to the above, though, I'll say this: if we all more or less followed the teachings in The Bible, the world would be an infinitely better place to live for one and all, and as such, I don't see from what grounds you can make claims like the one above.
Sigh - i'll never change you - and it's not even fun trying - but i just want to shift your focus that tiny, important bit that doesn't allow you to attach all importance to an entirely uncheckable idea. Most impractical.
Far more practical than a never-ending loop of ambiguousness which contradicts itself at every turn. Sorry Gol...I think you're a nice guy, but I suspect I'll be fighting worldviews like yours for most of my life.
Far more practical than a never-ending loop of ambiguousness which contradicts itself at every turn. Sorry Gol...I think you're a nice guy, but I suspect I'll be fighting worldviews like yours for most of my life.
The quick reply: likewise
I wish both of our mind-sets could find a way of getting the best out of each other in a constructive way.
EDIT: okay- i'll reply to the other stuff on the "orthodox christian..." thread ;) Might as well...
OTHER EDIT: And apologese for the "just true" slur then. It's true that you don't claim that of your application/appreciation of "god's truths"
I certainly hope not. :) I heard him say it on Hannity and Colmes. I heard it on another news network as well; it might have been CNN.
Edit: Sorry. You said WHEN. It was either Thursday or Friday night.
I'll take your word on that, though I think it's a safe bet that everyone here agrees that the idea has little to no merit.
Kong doesn't really see it as being that casual. A courtroom is a pretty formal place, and its walls are not anything like public bulletin boards where the average joe can post upcoming event fliers.
When the judge is on duty he is representing a branch of our government, the courtroom is constantly representing our government, and religion isn't the government's business. It's our business, and we should keep it that way.
This isn't a huge breach of church and state seperation, but being diligent about preserving and protecting that seperation is the best way for us to ensure our rights as citizens who are able to choose their beliefs without any sort of government interference.
Maybe it is just a little thing, but little things count too.
That's true, the little things do count, and props for recognizing that it is, in fact, a little thing. No matter how vehement the Atheist, this is an issue of principle rather than of plausible concern.
That said, I think I'd be of the mind that if such a plaque or monument is already in existence, it'd be a terrible waste to go out of our way to tear it down, but I can certainly see the case against erecting new ones. I think that's about where I'd draw the line. I'm not sure, though...I think I'll solicit a few more opinions from around the office.
i.e. personally i feel the current idea of God as understood by many people has too many dogmatic sentiments attached to it to be placed into such an arena. Making it religion-specific is even worse. Even if these things don't get reflected in the letter of the law - there's the risk of the rhetoric of the court starting to reflect them in practice.
I disagree. A non-religious judge isn't likely to have his or her decision making swayed by some plaque outside of the courtroom, and any religious one that would compromise the law for their religious beliefs would almost definitely do so without the "aid" of such a monument.
Any case to be made against it is on technical grounds, rather than realistic concern, in my opinion.
r3port3r66
08-24-03, 02:16 AM
Ahhh, some blessed practicalities amonst the abstract analities Nice one r3
Thanks Gg. I try. ;)
That's true, the little things do count, and props for recognizing that it is, in fact, a little thing. No matter how vehement the Atheist, this is an issue of principle rather than of plausible concern.
That said, I think I'd be of the mind that if such a plaque or monument is already in existence, it'd be a terrible waste to go out of our way to tear it down, but I can certainly see the case against erecting new ones. I think that's about where I'd draw the line. I'm not sure, though...I think I'll solicit a few more opinions from around the office.
Kong assumes that you are referring to the legal proceeding involved in taking down the plaque rather than the physical aspect of it when you say "it'd be a terrible waste to go out of our way to tear it down". Kong isn't necessarily in agreement, but he can see your point. Kong hasn't really thought about all of this very much.
That said, by going through the trouble of legal proceedings we have at least made it official and set a precedent for other judges and generations. It might be a lot of trouble for just this one case, but the final verdict's ramfications will cover more than just this solitary courtroom.
firegod
08-24-03, 02:41 AM
I'm pretty sure it's not going to be torn down, but removed intact. Moore was ordered to remove it himself, but now it's going to be done for him.
Piddzilla
08-24-03, 06:50 AM
I basically agree with everything Kong has allready said about this thing. Just my opinion :D :
I think that in a nation that is seperated from the church, or any other religion, and that supports the right to exercise your own religion, there is no question about that all buildings and authorities belonging to the government administration should be free from all religious symbols. It is not a question about offending atheists but a question about segregation of people belonging (religious or non-regligious) to other religions than christianity. Christianity is, no matter how you turn it around or how seperated it is from the state, part of "the dominating ideology" of America. The religion of the ruling class, if you want to be bombastic about it.
I have never been to an american courtroom. Well, not to a swedish either... Anyway. Do they really solemnly swear upon the bible or is that only on Perry Mason?
firegod
08-24-03, 07:33 AM
I have never been to an american courtroom. Well, not to a swedish either... Anyway. Do they really solemnly swear upon the bible or is that only on Perry Mason?
Some don't, but most still do; it's up to the judge. You can, however, choose to "affirm" rather than swear on a bible. I've heard that there are still a few courts in this country where you will be held in contempt if you refuse to swear on the bible; if so, that is a problem (and a few judges) that needs to be handled right away.
I disagree. A non-religious judge isn't likely to have his or her decision making swayed by some plaque outside of the courtroom, and any religious one that would compromise the law for their religious beliefs would almost definitely do so without the "aid" of such a monument.
Any case to be made against it is on technical grounds, rather than realistic concern, in my opinion.
Ok, well, my turn to disagree. If the ten commandments were everywhere lawyers could use it in their rhetoric to convince juries ("But I ask you good people...Don't the words of the good lord outside this courtroom show that our law comes from God? Shouldn't this man be judged in the eyes of God as much as thru our attempts to dictate his will in law?" etc etc - rhetoric that can't be countered at the time, except by the judge if they feel inclined, which might sway a jury. You can't deny lawyers use rhetoric to affect juries)
So it's not just about judges. It's also about the perceptions of the people walking into the court too. And seeing as we seem to have established that certain of the ten commandments have no place connecting themselves with the law etc, i still insist my concern is a realistic one, BECAUSE of the technicalities, you word-smith you. You might notice that Kong said it's a little thing, but it counts. To me that meant it's a little thing that could add-up to/add-to bigger things etc.
That's all i'm saying too (just with more words :rolleyes: )
Some don't, but most still do; it's up to the judge. You can, however, choose to "affirm" rather than swear on a bible. I've heard that there are still a few courts in this country where you will be held in contempt if you refuse to swear on the bible; if so, that is a problem (and a few judges) that needs to be handled right away.
Well there's an example of a religious item in a place of law/government affecting practice. Concerning.
Or is it just a technicality? I don't think so :p
Piddzilla
08-24-03, 10:24 AM
Some don't, but most still do; it's up to the judge. You can, however, choose to "affirm" rather than swear on a bible. I've heard that there are still a few courts in this country where you will be held in contempt if you refuse to swear on the bible; if so, that is a problem (and a few judges) that needs to be handled right away.
That sort of thing certainly should not have a place in a modern democracy.
The fact that you have to actively choose to affirm rather than swear on the bible only reinforces what I said about the dominating ideology. You shouldn't have to single yourself out as "different then the rest" when in court just because you belong to another religion or simply just don't believe religion belongs in the judicial system. What signals are that sending to the jury?
If a bible must be present in the courtroom, which is absurd in the first place since it contradicts the whole idea of freedom of religion, then people should have to actively choose to swear on that instead of the other way around. The best thing though would of course to exclude religion totally from the room where more than anywhere else decisions should be made impartially and based on objectivity.
Ok, well, my turn to disagree. If the ten commandments were everywhere lawyers could use it in their rhetoric to convince juries ("But I ask you good people...Don't the words of the good lord outside this courtroom show that our law comes from God? Shouldn't this man be judged in the eyes of God as much as thru our attempts to dictate his will in law?" etc etc - rhetoric that can't be countered at the time, except by the judge if they feel inclined, which might sway a jury. You can't deny lawyers use rhetoric to affect juries)
So it's not just about judges. It's also about the perceptions of the people walking into the court too. And seeing as we seem to have established that certain of the ten commandments have no place connecting themselves with the law etc, i still insist my concern is a realistic one, BECAUSE of the technicalities, you word-smith you. You might notice that Kong said it's a little thing, but it counts. To me that meant it's a little thing that could add-up to/add-to bigger things etc.
That's all i'm saying too (just with more words :rolleyes: )Of course lawyers use rhetoric to sway juries (that's rather their job)...but they could make the same speech whether that monument was there or not and probably have the same effect. I seriously doubt being able to add the words "outside this courtroom" will have any profound effect.That sort of thing certainly should not have a place in a modern democracy.
The fact that you have to actively choose to affirm rather than swear on the bible only reinforces what I said about the dominating ideology. You shouldn't have to single yourself out as "different then the rest" when in court just because you belong to another religion or simply just don't believe religion belongs in the judicial system. What signals are that sending to the jury?The signal that, Christian or not, most people are more hesitant to lie if they've sworn on a book that many consider so sacred. Let's not forget that the idea is to get them to tell the truth, and I've no doubt that both believers and staunch Atheists alike would feel more comfortable being dishonest if not for such an oath. Its purpose is rather pragmatic.If a bible must be present in the courtroom, which is absurd in the first place since it contradicts the whole idea of freedom of religion, then people should have to actively choose to swear on that instead of the other way around. The best thing though would of course to exclude religion totally from the room where more than anywhere else decisions should be made impartially and based on objectivity.Two things:
1 - It does not "contradict" the freedom of religion. The Bible being present in a courtroom does not prevent anyone from believing whatever they wish. Let's give the wise men who founded this country a tad more credit than that.
2 - The personal religion of the judge or jury is more likely to effect the outcome of a case than the fact that someone is sworn in on a Bible. Do you oppose Christian judges/jury members? How about race in trials where it comes into play? If the goal is to be as objective as possible, why stop at religion?
firegod
08-24-03, 12:43 PM
Let's not forget that the idea is to get them to tell the truth, and I've no doubt that both believers and staunch Atheists alike would feel more comfortable being dishonest if not for such an oath. Its purpose is rather pragmatic.
Good point with regard to believers, of whom the majority in this country are; not a good point with regard to atheists. I can't imagine a true atheist being less comfortable lying because she places her hand on a bible. I certainly wouldn't. My secular oath to tell the truth is enough, and no amount of swearing on a book which I believe to be a work of fiction will make any difference whatsoever.
ALL of the above points are "good points" if you were living in an entirely Christian nation. However, that's not the case, and here are some of the problems:
Church and State:
-enfranchised Christianity, unrealistically woven into the current law practices of a country (i.e. is there a law that says God must be worshipped on sunday for example?) projects the wrong image. It suggests to people, for a start, that they should use a Christian framework of reference when making decisions as jurors. No matter what you say about the good sides of Christian-perspective, we've established that there are areas of its thinking that clash with the morals of many - and so should not be used in judgement of them.
-Overall, the State is not run by the Church, so what place has the Church in these affairs?
The Bible in Court:
-As Fire says, it makes no difference to atheists/agnostics/mystics etc if they swear on a bible or a cookery book. They might even be MORE likely to lie if they strongly oppose it (which i don't - just its application by people etc)
-Add to that: how must a Muslim, Sikh, Jew (if it's the New Testament) etc etc feel if they're forced to swear on a religious work they do not recognise? If their religion does not permit worship of other Gods (and i believe they do, as Christianity does), then it must be very demeaning for them to be forced to (when they are). It's very presence is also a clear signal that the said country "considers itself" christian (even if that's in no way true across the board)
-Christian jurors and judges may well feel endorsed by the bible's presence - hence the probs stated at the top. But Yoda, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE HAS SAID JURYS AND JUDGES CAN'T/SHOULDN'T BE ALL CHRISTIAN. That's an entirely different matter that you've plucked out of the air. Why try to extend opposition to Christianity/monotheistic-religions in one area to all areas? It doesn't help debate.
I'm afraid, on balance, you really can't accuse those opposing this notion of being less-objective than yourself. Sorry, but coz you can't see there's a problem here (or so you claim repeatedly), perhaps it's you who's not trying to look at all the angles?
:shrugging-smilie: (we need one of these - it's the only way i get any real upper-body exercise - shrugging all the time ;))
Beale the Rippe
08-24-03, 01:39 PM
http://www.sandh.com/keyes/PORTRAIT.JPG
=
:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:
firegod
08-24-03, 01:46 PM
http://www.sandh.com/keyes/PORTRAIT.JPG
=
:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:
Sometimes he's a jackass, but other times he's ok. I wish he would stop smiling so much after he talks; it looks really, really goofy!
Who is he? A famous religious guy? The only ones we have in Britland are a crazy guy with a hook for a hand who got kicked out of a london mosque, and the new and shrewed chief bishop-style-character in the Church of England [owners of our echoey church collection] (he's a canny thinker - that's about all i know. Definitely don't know his title. Archbishop of Canterbury perhaps :shrug: )
Beale the Rippe
08-24-03, 02:14 PM
Sometimes he's a jackass, but other times he's ok. I wish he would stop smiling so much after he talks; it looks really, really goofy!
I think he is a very good and honorable man.
Piddzilla
08-24-03, 04:32 PM
The signal that, Christian or not, most people are more hesitant to lie if they've sworn on a book that many consider so sacred. Let's not forget that the idea is to get them to tell the truth, and I've no doubt that both believers and staunch Atheists alike would feel more comfortable being dishonest if not for such an oath. Its purpose is rather pragmatic.
This is not the issue, and I also think it is incorrect. If people are telling the truth in court even though they don't want to it is because, in most cases, because they know it is a criminal act to lie in court. Not because there is a slight possiblity they will go to hell if they lie.
The real issue is that people who do not believe in the bible for various reasons are being forced to swear upon it. If they do not, in some cases they will be held in contempt and even if they are not, they are still risking to be viewed as outsiders and "weird" by the jury.
Two things:
1 - It does not "contradict" the freedom of religion. The Bible being present in a courtroom does not prevent anyone from believing whatever they wish. Let's give the wise men who founded this country a tad more credit than that.
2 - The personal religion of the judge or jury is more likely to effect the outcome of a case than the fact that someone is sworn in on a Bible. Do you oppose Christian judges/jury members? How about race in trials where it comes into play? If the goal is to be as objective as possible, why stop at religion?
1 - I didn't say that either. It singles out "the others" from the christians and is therefore discriminating and works against all that is the purpose of freedom of religion. And I am absolutely sure that the wise men who founded your country were convinced that christianity was by far superiour to all other religions. Times changes. Those men were wise, but not that wise.
2 - If you put the Ten Commandments and force everyone to swear upon the bible, then the court is christian rather than non-religious. It is supposed to be non-religious. The point is that in theory we are all supposed to be equal before the court but if you are forced to emphasize that you are somewhat different even before the questioning has even started, then we are not equal in theory. And if we are not equal in theory it is a possibility that we are not equal in practice either. And don't you think it is kind of absurd for a muslim to swear on the bible? In all fairness, there should be a copy of the quran available but that is absurd too. Why not just lose the bible instead? That would be the only right thing to do in a country that is supposed to have freedom of religion. It is impossible to hide your race but your religion is your own personal business unless you choose it not to be.
Henry The Kid
08-24-03, 04:39 PM
I think he is a very good and honorable man.
He's about as far right as they go.
Piddzilla
08-24-03, 05:03 PM
So who is he?
Henry The Kid
08-24-03, 05:23 PM
So who is he?
It's a politician name Alan Keyes. He ran in the primaries in 2000 but didn't get through. He went on an admirable platform of no income taxes, but overall most of his issue positions were not very intelligent. He doesn't seem like a bad guy, I haven't seen much from him lately, although, I haven't been watching much of the news.
Piddzilla
08-24-03, 05:41 PM
He's about as far right as they go.
Oh, I thought you said he is about as right as they come, or something like that. I was pretty :confused: when I read your other post.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1028758,00.html
Here are a few little snippets of facts and extrapolations (that I find flabbergasting, familiar and pertinent in equal measure)
This is a country where 11 states, including Alabama, refuse to give government money to students who major in theology because it would violate the constitution, and where nativity plays are not allowed in primary schools. It is also a country where, a Harris poll showed, 94% of adults believe in God, 86% believe in miracles, 89% believe in heaven, and 73% believe in the devil and hell.
But the influence of religion goes beyond domestic politics or social issues such as abortion and gay rights to crucial areas of foreign policy. Another Pew poll revealed that 48% of Americans think the US has had special protection from God for most of its history. Moreover, 44% believe that God gave the land that is now Israel to the Jewish people, while 36% think that "the state of Israel is a fulfilment of the biblical prophecy about the second coming of Jesus".
At this point America's internal contradictions become an issue on the world stage: the nation that poses as the guardian of global secularity is itself dominated by strong fundamentalist instincts. There are two problems with this. The first is that, as became clear in Montgomery last week, there is no arguing with faith. Fundamentalists deal with absolutes. Their eternal certainties make them formidable campaigners and awful negotiators - it is difficult to cut a bargain with divine truth.
The second is that America's religiosity is not something it shares with even its few western allies, let alone the many countries that oppose its current path. Yet another poll shows that among countries where people believe religion to be very important, America's views are closer to Pakistan's and Nigeria's than to France's or Germany's.
These differences go all the way to the top and explain much of the reason why the tone, style, language and content of America's foreign policy has been so out of kilter with the rest of the developed world, particularly since September 11. For these fundamentalist tendencies in US diplomacy have rarely been stronger in the White House than they are today. Since George Bush gave up Jack Daniels for Jesus Christ, he has counted Jesus as his favourite philosopher. The first thing he reads in the morning is not a briefing paper but a book of evangelical mini- sermons. When it came to casting the morality play for the war on terror he went straight to the Bible and came out with evil. "He reached right into the psalms for that word," said his former speech writer, David Frum.
Looks like the contitution has been under threat for a long long time. And, on the big picture, the contitutitons/sovereignty/independance of others around the world too.
A very interesting focal point this. And god, but aren't those defenders-of-the-stone block embarrassing to good christians?? That's how I'd feel if my belief-structure was aiding such fundamentalist thinking anyway.
firegod
08-26-03, 09:14 AM
Yoda,
I don't know if you care or not, but Mancow just called The Ten Commandments "the basis for all laws" this morning.
r3port3r66
08-26-03, 02:33 PM
"Thou shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them."
Does anyone see irony of this commandment and the importance we are placing on this hunk of stone in front of a courthouse...hmmm?
"Thou shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's."
Well, what if he has a really nice ass? Yes Yoda, we liberals sometimes have a viceral sense of humor;)!
Caitlyn
08-26-03, 02:52 PM
Does anyone see irony of this commandment and the importance we are placing on this hunk of stone in front of a courthouse...hmmm?
I did… and for some reason, Elvis pops in my head every time I read that particular commandment… ;D
Well, what if he has a really nice ass? Yes Yoda, we liberals sometimes have a viceral sense of humor;)!
:rotfl:
Golgot… I wrote a response to your last post yesterday and then lost the darn thing… :mad: ... anyway, I did some checking on the Pew Poll and the Harris Poll…turns out they only polled 2000 people for the Pew Poll and around 15,000 for the Harris Poll… :indifferent:
Sir Toose
08-26-03, 03:48 PM
This country was founded on christian judeo principles. We swear on the bible in court to tell the truth... we enjoy those god given 'unalienable rights' and our constitution carries many references to god and christian principles. In part, those principles are what made this a great country.
If you remove the foundation, the rest of the building will fall.
firegod
08-26-03, 04:00 PM
This country was founded on christian judeo principles. We swear on the bible in court to tell the truth... we enjoy those god given 'unalienable rights' and our constitution carries many references to god and christian principles. In part, those principles are what made this a great country.
If you remove the foundation, the rest of the building will fall.
I've been in the quoting mood lately, so here are some more:
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." - James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785
"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785
"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" - John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" - John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson
"What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are the forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because suspected of heresy? Remember the 'index expurgatorius', the inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine." - John Adams, letter to John Taylor
"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." - John Adams, letter to John Taylor
"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." - Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814
"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." - Thomas Jefferson, from "Notes on Virginia"
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787
Sir Toose
08-26-03, 04:22 PM
"If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a Nation gone under." Ronald Reagan
"I believe that the next half century will determine if we will advance the cause of Christian civilization or revert to the horrors of brutal paganism." Theodore Roosevelt
"But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own." - President Abraham Lincoln
"All must admit that the reception of the teachings of Christ results in the purest patriotism, in the most scrupulous fidelity to public trust, and in the best type of citizenship." - President Grover Cleveland
"The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other." - Alexis de Tocqueville
"History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline." - General Douglas MacArthur
Faith is a continuation of reason. William Adams
To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty... this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. Albert Einstein
firegod
08-26-03, 04:34 PM
Yes, everyone realizes how religious this country is and was; not everyone realizes how many of our forefathers were free thinkers when it comes to religion, and how much many of them were very concerned about us taking religion too far in our government.
I did… and for some reason, Elvis pops in my head every time I read that particular commandment… ;D
:rotfl:
Golgot… I wrote a response to your last post yesterday and then lost the darn thing… :mad: ... anyway, I did some checking on the Pew Poll and the Harris Poll…turns out they only polled 2000 people for the Pew Poll and around 15,000 for the Harris Poll… :indifferent:
Phew - thanks for checking C - do you know if they did the poll in the bible belt??? Scared the **** out of me ;)
(come, come to secular britain y'all - the church-state thing is a national joke - and quite a good one. The Anglican's are so sweet and wooly and open. They're mystics like me ;))
firegod
08-27-03, 05:30 AM
Last night Bill O'Reilly said that the Ten Commandments are what our laws are based on... Bill, Bill, Bill. I don't know Chris; it seems like a pretty common opinion to me.
Piddzilla
08-27-03, 05:54 AM
This country was founded on christian judeo principles. We swear on the bible in court to tell the truth... we enjoy those god given 'unalienable rights' and our constitution carries many references to god and christian principles. In part, those principles are what made this a great country.
If you remove the foundation, the rest of the building will fall.
Remove the bible from the court room and America will be destroyed? Don't think so.
You could also put it this way: If you want to build something new and strong and modern, you first have to tear down the old building - foundation and all.
That is of course if you really want to build something new, which I am pretty sure you don't.
Caitlyn
08-27-03, 01:22 PM
Phew - thanks for checking C - do you know if they did the poll in the bible belt??? Scared the **** out of me ;)
They didn't say where they did the polls but they did say each one was conducted in one specific area and not country wide.
Sir Toose
08-27-03, 03:37 PM
Remove the bible from the court room and America will be destroyed? Don't think so.
You could also put it this way: If you want to build something new and strong and modern, you first have to tear down the old building - foundation and all.
That is of course if you really want to build something new, which I am pretty sure you don't.
You would be correct in that assumption. There are things wrong with America. There are more things right with America. I like the old girl as she is.
r3port3r66
08-28-03, 01:19 AM
There are things wrong with America. There are more things right with America. I like the old girl as she is.
I'm with Sir Toose. I like America the way she is too. A place where Constitutional rights prevail, and a religious icon is not permitted upon the foyer of a government courthouse. Go America!
firegod
08-28-03, 01:31 AM
You would be correct in that assumption. There are things wrong with America. There are more things right with America. I like the old girl as she is.
But Toose, don't you think it is better to move forward than to keep all the old stuff? Don't you think that the fact that our racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, xenophobia and other bigotries being so much worse a couple centuries ago (or even 50 year ago) than now has something to do with the fact that we might be moving in the right direction? Don't you think the fact that the extent that we believe slavery, torture, superstition, and many other ideas and acts are ok has diminished as much as it has means that we might be moving in the right direction? Whenever someone acts like everything was better a couple generations ago (or however many generations) I wonder what planet that person is living on. I happen to believe that this world is moving in the right direction, including with regard to religion.
Edit: Very well put, Reporter.
Here's to a reduction in religious (or other perspectives of) intolerance/blinkardness/insistence-on-superiority where they occur - and a more hand-in-hand appraoch to differences where possible (ain't i such a hippy ;))
Sir Toose
08-28-03, 10:50 AM
But Toose, don't you think it is better to move forward than to keep all the old stuff? Don't you think that the fact that our racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, xenophobia and other bigotries being so much worse a couple centuries ago (or even 50 year ago) than now has something to do with the fact that we might be moving in the right direction? Don't you think the fact that the extent that we believe slavery, torture, superstition, and many other ideas and acts are ok has diminished as much as it has means that we might be moving in the right direction? Whenever someone acts like everything was better a couple generations ago (or however many generations) I wonder what planet that person is living on. I happen to believe that this world is moving in the right direction, including with regard to religion.
Edit: Very well put, Reporter.
Of course.
I'm all for progress, don't mis-understand my lack of eloquence for empty-headedness. I'm saying that I don't think we should junk the foundations of this country. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are deliberately 'loose' and they allow for change and growth. IMHO,the US is the greatest nation to have ever evolved. This country is great because of that foundation.
All those things you mention, Jer, happened under the current set of rules. There's no reason to think progress won't continue.
R66, you sly devil. Point taken.
IMHO,the US is the greatest nation to have ever evolved.
Eww, don't use THAT word on a religious thread ;)
Good point with regard to believers, of whom the majority in this country are; not a good point with regard to atheists. I can't imagine a true atheist being less comfortable lying because she places her hand on a bible. I certainly wouldn't. My secular oath to tell the truth is enough, and no amount of swearing on a book which I believe to be a work of fiction will make any difference whatsoever.
I disagree. Believer or not, you surely recognize the importance most people ascribe to it, and therefore you must recognize the intense stigma attached to lying under such an oath. I find it highly unrealistic that swearing on The Bible has no effect, conscious or otherwise...even on yourself.
Yes, everyone realizes how religious this country is and was; not everyone realizes how many of our forefathers were free thinkers when it comes to religion, and how much many of them were very concerned about us taking religion too far in our government.
True. But it's just as true that many "free thinkers" try to gloss over the fact that the overwhelming bulk of them believed in God, that most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were religious, and recognized that the concept of unalienable rights needs to be grounded in such an idea.
Last night Bill O'Reilly said that the Ten Commandments are what our laws are based on... Bill, Bill, Bill. I don't know Chris; it seems like a pretty common opinion to me.
Hold up there, bud. :) What "our laws are based on" or "what all our laws are based on"? The former really isn't worth complaining about. It's rather like saying "EVERYONE has a television!" The fact that The Ten Commandments strongly coincides with American morality and, to a significant degree, with American law, makes it a reasonable statement if not taken in an unusually literal sense.
But Toose, don't you think it is better to move forward than to keep all the old stuff? Don't you think that the fact that our racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, xenophobia and other bigotries being so much worse a couple centuries ago (or even 50 year ago) than now has something to do with the fact that we might be moving in the right direction? Don't you think the fact that the extent that we believe slavery, torture, superstition, and many other ideas and acts are ok has diminished as much as it has means that we might be moving in the right direction? Whenever someone acts like everything was better a couple generations ago (or however many generations) I wonder what planet that person is living on. I happen to believe that this world is moving in the right direction, including with regard to religion.
If memory serves, one of the earliest American proponents of the abolition for slavery was devoutly religious. Seems to me that, if you regard religion as a deterrent at least comparable to slavery and torture, you'll be cutting off the branch you're sitting on if you try to dismantle it.
The danger in this thinking is that it's generally supposed that everything new is therefore good...but there are new evils just as there are new goods. The fact that things like slaverty tend to be shunned over time is a sign that we are improving OVERALL, yes, but for every new thing we introduce or old idea we toss out, there are hundreds we keep.
I disagree. Believer or not, you surely recognize the importance most people ascribe to it, and therefore you must recognize the intense stigma attached to lying under such an oath. I find it highly unrealistic that swearing on The Bible has no effect, conscious or otherwise...even on yourself.
Good god Yoda - how many times must non christians tell you that swearing on the bible means NOTHING to us as a broad and varied group before you accept it [and stop telling this broad gropu of affiliates what they think] - the point is - it's even more likely to have a NEGATIVE effect in some ways i.e. "i don't believe in any of this so why should i care if i lie now?" ;) - that is the CONSCIOUS stand-point of plenty of non-christians, whether you like it or not.
Hold up there, bud. :) What "our laws are based on" or "what all our laws are based on"? The former really isn't worth complaining about. It's rather like saying "EVERYONE has a television!" The fact that The Ten Commandments strongly coincides with American morality and, to a significant degree, with American law, makes it a reasonable statement if not taken in an unusually literal sense.
Soz Yods - but that's a daft and specious analgoy - based (it seems) on your idea that all morals are comparable to christian morals. Are you including the ten commandments in what are considered christian morals. Wouldn't that quote have been made with regard to this current issue? Haven't we established that the ten commandments do not pertain to non-christians? Yes - we have. How is "our laws" different from "all our laws" anyway? "Some of our laws" would have been a valid differentiation perhaps, given the history - but without this qualifier "our laws" means "all our laws". Let's not bring inaccurate rhetoric into the debate now ;) :p
If memory serves, one of the earliest American proponents of the abolition for slavery was devoutly religious. Seems to me that, if you regard religion as a deterrent at least comparable to slavery and torture, you'll be cutting off the branch you're sitting on if you try to dismantle it.
From what i know of american history, it was more the increasingly un-economic nature of slavery[and associated torture then] that forced the nation-wide change of heart.
Personally - i regard stand-alone-religions as having been the perpetrators/causes of many forms of torture and slavery over the years - something that can't be claimed of secular societies in any comparable way ;)
The danger in this thinking is that it's generally supposed that everything new is therefore good...but there are new evils just as there are new goods. The fact that things like slaverty tend to be shunned over time is a sign that we are improving OVERALL, yes, but for every new thing we introduce or old idea we toss out, there are hundreds we keep.
Although i agree not everything new is good - it's also true that not everything old is good either.
ALL of the above points are "good points" if you were living in an entirely Christian nation. However, that's not the case, and here are some of the problems:I don't see how any of the claims I've made are contingent on the nation being 100% Christian.-enfranchised Christianity, unrealistically woven into the current law practices of a country (i.e. is there a law that says God must be worshipped on sunday for example?) projects the wrong image. It suggests to people, for a start, that they should use a Christian framework of reference when making decisions as jurors. No matter what you say about the good sides of Christian-perspective, we've established that there are areas of its thinking that clash with the morals of many - and so should not be used in judgement of them.No argument there. Religion, by its very nature, needs to be voluntary. -Overall, the State is not run by the Church, so what place has the Church in these affairs?Just because the State is not run by the Church, it doesn't mean it should ignore its existence. We're not talking about treating The Pope like The President.-As Fire says, it makes no difference to atheists/agnostics/mystics etc if they swear on a bible or a cookery book. They might even be MORE likely to lie if they strongly oppose it (which i don't - just its application by people etc)I find this very hard to believe. See post above.-Add to that: how must a Muslim, Sikh, Jew (if it's the New Testament) etc etc feel if they're forced to swear on a religious work they do not recognise? If their religion does not permit worship of other Gods (and i believe they do, as Christianity does), then it must be very demeaning for them to be forced to (when they are). It's very presence is also a clear signal that the said country "considers itself" christian (even if that's in no way true across the board)Agreed on the issue of compulsion. The idea that anyone should be "forced" to swear on The Bible is outrageous. There should be alternatives for those who wish to employ them.-Christian jurors and judges may well feel endorsed by the bible's presence - hence the probs stated at the top. But Yoda, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE HAS SAID JURYS AND JUDGES CAN'T/SHOULDN'T BE ALL CHRISTIAN. That's an entirely different matter that you've plucked out of the air. Why try to extend opposition to Christianity/monotheistic-religions in one area to all areas? It doesn't help debate.You just spent an entire paragraph doing everything BUT answering the question. Yes, I know that no one has said they can't/shouldn't be Christian. Which is why I'm raising the question. Surely a Christian judge (or juror) is far more likely to let their religion interfere with their decision than the mere prescence of some hunk of stone outside. So, tell me: if the ultimate goal is objectivity, why is the greater of these two compromises allowed? It's a simple question.I'm afraid, on balance, you really can't accuse those opposing this notion of being less-objective than yourself. Sorry, but coz you can't see there's a problem here (or so you claim repeatedly), perhaps it's you who's not trying to look at all the angles?Or maybe it's because there's not a problem. I ultimately see things from as many points of view as you do: one. This is not the issue, and I also think it is incorrect. If people are telling the truth in court even though they don't want to it is because, in most cases, because they know it is a criminal act to lie in court. Not because there is a slight possiblity they will go to hell if they lie. The real issue is that people who do not believe in the bible for various reasons are being forced to swear upon it. If they do not, in some cases they will be held in contempt and even if they are not, they are still risking to be viewed as outsiders and "weird" by the jury.I don't believe I will "go to hell" if I lie. Please try not to caricaturize Christianity. You might as well paint Lucifer as a man in a red jumpsuit with a pitchfork.
That said, I'm rather shocked at how easily people here are dismissing the power of social stigma. It's easily one of the most potent forms of behavior-prevention out there.
And yes, I agree in regards to "forcing." I don't particularly think it's harmful or bad if it's offered up...but I do think it's ridiculous and inexcusable to deny someone an alternative if they should request it.1 - I didn't say that either. It singles out "the others" from the christians and is therefore discriminating and works against all that is the purpose of freedom of religion.You said it "contradicts freedom of religion." "Freedom of religion" is about having the freedom to choose your own religion -- nothing more, and nothing less. It's really shocking to me how people psychologically broaden their perceived rights over time.And I am absolutely sure that the wise men who founded your country were convinced that christianity was by far superiour to all other religions. Times changes. Those men were wise, but not that wise.How so? What special knowledge has your 200 years of hindsight given you that they did not have access to? And how, pray tell, has history done anything other than bore their ideals out, through the rapid growth and influence of this country? 2 - If you put the Ten Commandments and force everyone to swear upon the bible, then the court is christian rather than non-religious. It is supposed to be non-religious. The point is that in theory we are all supposed to be equal before the court but if you are forced to emphasize that you are somewhat different even before the questioning has even started, then we are not equal in theory. And if we are not equal in theory it is a possibility that we are not equal in practice either. And don't you think it is kind of absurd for a muslim to swear on the bible? In all fairness, there should be a copy of the quran available but that is absurd too. Why not just lose the bible instead? That would be the only right thing to do in a country that is supposed to have freedom of religion. It is impossible to hide your race but your religion is your own personal business unless you choose it not to be.I agree with most of what you're saying here, but not with your conclusion. Which is more important: the lack of any religious prescence, or the court's effectiveness? Because it seems to me that the prescence of the former generally enhances the latter.
Good god Yoda - how many times must non christians tell you that swearing on the bible means NOTHING to us as a broad and varied group before you accept it [and stop telling this broad gropu of affiliates what they think] - the point is - it's even more likely to have a NEGATIVE effect in some ways i.e. "i don't believe in any of this so why should i care if i lie now?" - that is the CONSCIOUS stand-point of plenty of non-christians, whether you like it or not.
I'm not telling them what they think: I'm expressing disbelief that it has no effect on them...and scoffing at the idea that it would have the OPPOSITE effect for anyone with any common sense in them. I really don't see how the above is much more than a contradiction. Are you really trying to tell me that something as clearly powerful as social stigma plays no role whatsoever in these matters?
Soz Yods - but that's a daft and specious analgoy - based (it seems) on your idea that all morals are comparable to christian morals. Are you including the ten commandments in what are considered christian morals. Wouldn't that quote have been made with regard to this current issue? Haven't we established that the ten commandments do not pertain to non-christians? Yes - we have. How is "our laws" different from "all our laws" anyway? "Some of our laws" would have been a valid differentiation perhaps, given the history - but without this qualifier "our laws" means "all our laws". Let's not bring inaccurate rhetoric into the debate now ;) :p
Most morals are indeed comparable to Christian morals. You'd be hard-pressed to deny that you agree with the overwhelming majority of the morality Christ taught. Ditto for fire and most people of any (or no) religious persuasion.
As for the rest...I thought I'd already addressed that? When someone says "our laws are based on it," they're not necessarily saying "ALL of our laws are based on it." For two reason: 1) virtually no one speaks that literally, yourself included, and 2) it's highly unlikely that intelligent men like Alan Keyes and Bill O'Reilly, regardless of whether or not they get on your nerves, are so mixed up so as to actually believe that. The tiniest shred of critical thought shows that we're not talking absolutes here.
Isn't this singular, literalist approach something you usually despise if it comes from religion?
From what i know of american history, it was more the increasingly un-economic nature of slavery[and associated torture then] that forced the nation-wide change of heart.
I'm referring to some of the earliest advocates of abolition, not of national opinion. The nationwide change of heart is another matter, and was likely effected by a great many things.
Personally - i regard stand-alone-religions as having been the perpetrators/causes of many forms of torture and slavery over the years - something that can't be claimed of secular societies in any comparable way ;)
Someone mentioned something similar on another forum awhile back. Here was my response:
"Pol Pot killed off a fifth of his own country while simultaneously abolishing religion. Aleksander Solzhenitsyn claimed that 'Atheism is the core of the whole Soviet system' -- and consequently at the core of Stalin's 40+ million plus body count. Mao Tse-tung, who was only really religious in the sense that he thought of himself as God, killed well over 30 million people.
But let's set that aside: the total number of people killed isn't particularly relevant...MOST people are religious in some sense, and as such it's inevitable that they'll have more crimes to their name than their Godless counterparts. As such, what REALLY matters is the ratio between the two."
As I've stated in the past, societies founded on the rejection of God have been nothing short of tremendous failures. It seems to me that even the staunchest Atheist would have to acknowledge that religion is of use to mankind, if not also true.
Although i agree not everything new is good - it's also true that not everything old is good either.
True. But the old often has an edge on the good: it's withstood the test of time. Traditions are often in place for good reasons. New ideas are untested and potentially hazardous. That's not to say they should not be an option...but they, unlike the old, have yet to prove their worth.
I don't see how any of the claims I've made are contingent on the nation being 100% Christian.
They are coz you are arguing for christian rituals and beliefs to be given greater representation in the lawcourts that represent 100% of your country.
No argument there. Religion, by its very nature, needs to be voluntary.
Just because the State is not run by the Church, it doesn't mean it should ignore its existence. We're not talking about treating The Pope like The President.
You're polarising/either-or-ing again. Who said anything about ignoring the church's existence? We said the bible or not-bible oath technique is slanted. And that applies to having the ten-commandments connected to the legal body too.
I find this very hard to believe. See post above.
Yods, we are talking about what OTHERS believe - and it's fascinating when you just doubt what representatives of those people tell you. In britain there's no stigma of the type you mention. In fact there's more stigma in believing in the bible than not believing in it [and we're vaguely horrified to hear about the abuse/persecution agnostics/athiests/mystics etc etc seem to feel themselves to be under in the US].
Still, i can only imagine that a non-christian in the US doesn't care what Christians think over-all when deciding whether or not the bible has any bearing on their being truthful or not in court i.e. to them the bible is nothing special - that's the definition of them being non-christians. Why can't you accept this?
Agreed on the issue of compulsion. The idea that anyone should be "forced" to swear on The Bible is outrageous. There should be alternatives for those who wish to employ them.
That's preferable, yes.
You just spent an entire paragraph doing everything BUT answering the question. Yes, I know that no one has said they can't/shouldn't be Christian. Which is why I'm raising the question. Surely a Christian judge (or juror) is far more likely to let their religion interfere with their decision than the mere prescence of some hunk of stone outside. So, tell me: if the ultimate goal is objectivity, why is the greater of these two compromises allowed? It's a simple question.
You put it in an accusatory way originally as if someone had said it or suggested it. It was you universalising this "attack" on christianity's place in the law-infrastructure from my POV (as you do above)
The ultimate goal is secularity/acceptance-of-reasonable-difference, not objectivity. Besides, what could reasonably be done about stopping people being creationists etc? I'd quite like their do be less dogma/100%-creeds in all areas - but as reasonable discussion of the points never gets anywhere - i think i'll just go into anti-monotheistic-subliminal-kiddie-advertising and get 'em while they're young ;)
Or maybe it's because there's not a problem. I ultimately see things from as many points of view as you do: one.
Okay, so loads of people say there's a problem (as this debate across your country has shown), but you say their isn't. Within subjectivity we can still IMAGINE and empathise with other points of view. They are distinct (at least - with most reasonable people ;))
I'm not telling them what they think: I'm expressing disbelief that it has no effect on them...and scoffing at the idea that it would have the OPPOSITE effect for anyone with any common sense in them. I really don't see how the above is much more than a contradiction. Are you really trying to tell me that something as clearly powerful as social stigma plays no role whatsoever in these matters?
Yes you are - and you do it again below (MOST frustratingly). Will you believe ME then if i talk just about myself and say that IF I SWORE ON THE BIBLE I WOULD FEEL NO COMPULSION AT ALL TO KEEP MY WORD. Say for example i swore on it out of a law court about something that didn't effect anyone etc (i.e. if it affected someone my debt to them to keep my word would affect me)- it would mean nothing to me. Let's say i swore to the air, on a bible, never to eat muesli. I would have no problem about eating muesli after that (except that it's muesli ;))
The only reason i would keep my word in court is coz i would be involved in a court case. It would have absolutely nothing to do with the bible. Alright sunshine?
Now if you're suggesting i should respect peer pressure to attribute more weight to the bible (i.e. - if i was in america), then surely that's Christians forcing me to conform to christian principles?
Most morals are indeed comparable to Christian morals. You'd be hard-pressed to deny that you agree with the overwhelming majority of the morality Christ taught. Ditto for fire and most people of any (or no) religious persuasion.
Well, i'd disagree with him in the moments where he backs up commandments like: that i should worship only the "one true god" (and on a sunday) etc. And that's not all that's in the bible anyway - or in christian practice. I don't remember Jesus ever saying there should be no sex before marriage (and i'm assured the bible doesn't actually say it either) - so why has that become a social rule? The point is that my personal morals coincide with some but by no means all of christian morality.
As for the rest...I thought I'd already addressed that? When someone says "our laws are based on it," they're not necessarily saying "ALL of our laws are based on it." For two reason: 1) virtually no one speaks that literally, yourself included, and 2) it's highly unlikely that intelligent men like Alan Keyes and Bill O'Reilly, regardless of whether or not they get on your nerves, are so mixed up so as to actually believe that. The tiniest shred of critical thought shows that we're not talking absolutes here.
Isn't this singular, literalist approach something you usually despise if it comes from religion?
You've made declarations, you haven't addressed it. And i work with language and i can tell you that people DO speak like that all the time to represent absolutes.
PERSONALLY, when i see that phrase i assume it means ALL laws. Why else wouldn't it?? "Our laws" - very basic english - the word "our" -in this case meaning all americans - therefore what he basically said was "american laws". Fairly straight-forward. What i object to in christian-interpretation is not so much literalism as twisting-of-interpretation to lead to the desired conclusion. However, this two-word-phrase is highly deceptive if what he meant to say was "SOME of our laws". How can you not see the difference between "SOME of our laws" and "OUR laws". The second, to me, clearly indicates all american laws. It's hardly a complex phrase of paragraph that can be interpreted multiple ways. You believe what you want tho.
There you go again telling myself and those other guys what we believe (i may have done this to you once or twice but i apologised. - you only BELIEVE in absolute truths apparently, you just don't absolutely act on them ;) :p )
I'm referring to some of the earliest advocates of abolition, not of national opinion. The nationwide change of heart is another matter, and was likely effected by a great many things.
It was this universalisation that followed immediately afterwards i was objecting to: "Seems to me that, if you regard religion as a deterrent at least comparable to slavery and torture, you'll be cutting off the branch you're sitting on if you try to dismantle it."
That was a very socratic-universalising-ridiculous-rhetorical jump that put words into people's mouths.
Someone mentioned something similar on another forum awhile back. Here was my response:
"Pol Pot killed off a fifth of his own country while simultaneously abolishing religion. Aleksander Solzhenitsyn claimed that 'Atheism is the core of the whole Soviet system' -- and consequently at the core of Stalin's 40+ million plus body count. Mao Tse-tung, who was only really religious in the sense that he thought of himself as God, killed well over 30 million people.
Yes, yes, but they replaced it with a doctrine that wasn't communally generated/adapted but top-down generated instead (even if happily enacted by unquestioning citizens) So - if we didn't have christianity we'd all be mass-murdering Communists, is that what you're saying? Very old-school american of you. And equally - despite the nominal presence of the Anglican church in England (i.e it's link to the state etc is a joke), this is not a christian country - it is a secular one. We don't run our lives by Christian principles - are we therefore raving communist mass-murderers?
[/i]As I've stated in the past, societies founded on the rejection of God have been nothing short of tremendous failures. It seems to me that even the staunchest Atheist would have to acknowledge that religion is of use to mankind, if not also true.
Founded yes. Grown-away-from-religion (i.e. EUROPE as a whole) - no. And were you trying to say at the end there that atheists should think religions are "true"?? Very poor phraseology if you weren't.
True. But the old often has an edge on the good: it's withstood the test of time. Traditions are often in place for good reasons. New ideas are untested and potentially hazardous. That's not to say they should not be an option...but they, unlike the old, have yet to prove their worth.
Why have religions faded away in many ways in Europe then? I agree with many of your points - but there is the valid counter-argument that those parts of old habits, let's say religions for example, that are no longer valid - or inhibit valid adaptions - shouldn't be clung to.
I'd say the best thing about modern life is extended multiplicity, variety (when not being destroyed by certain scientific applications), AND A DESIRE TO ADAPT CONSTANTS TO FIT NEW KNOWLEDGE - as much as the the old advantages of religions were the social stability they brought. The two need to meet in the middle again - relgion needs to be adaptable, as it always used to - but now it needs to adapt some of its core tenets to fit with the modern world. That's my view from a secular country anyway.
r3port3r66
08-28-03, 02:54 PM
This discussion is great! You guys are awsome.
I don't want to create a wedge within the flow of this conversation, but I have a few points. Gg, you live in the UK correct? How old is the oldest church (estimate if ness.) in your country? Yoda, you happen to live in one of America's states richest with history. In fact Yoda some of the US's bigget historical events have taken place in your state. Yoda take a guess (if you don't know already) at how old the oldest church in America is. My point: there is a bigger history beyond the US. Yoda you will love Europe--I think it might change the way you feel about certain issues. When I went to Spain the first time I saw places of worship 4000 years old! Yes we all know about world history, but to actually touch, smell and hear a Gregorian chant within the walls of a 800 year old church, sort of makes you understand what exactly a place of worship is there for, and that preaching from the bible is best heard at a place of beauty and inspiration, not out in the streets of everyday life--it just gets lost there, nobody listens to a sermon unless it's at a church.
Also, I'm afraid. Yes the religious right has me scared. They carry signs that say "f*gs go to hell". They shoot doctors in the name of the lord. They preach a good sermon, I mean some preach from the Bible--a book I feel is filled with great lessons--but they only do this to make money, take advantage of the poor, promising to send them a cloth blessed by the Pope or an amulet sworn to bring luck into your life--just check inside any lesser quality periodicals for these ads. Yes, these people scare me. Whereas, when I went to church in Europe you could actually feel the honesty emitting from the sermons(of course the donation box was located at the rear of the building).
One other point. Perhaps the 10 Commandments are just inherent ethics we are all born with, but someone was smart enough to write them down. For instance, say you never even heard of the Bible. You probably wouldn't want to kill someone because it's not in our nature to kill--unless our life threatened, or we're hungry. Inherently we know not to lie because if we have ever been lied to, we know how it feels, therefore we as thinking, feeling beings know what's good or bad already.
I mean the 10 commandments don't say "Thou shalt not eat our own excrement", but we know not to do it.
Gg, you live in the UK correct? How old is the oldest church (estimate if ness.) in your country?
I think that there are churches or ruins of them that date from the end of the roman occupation. [not sure exaclty when that was] there was one that was estimated to be from around 1100-ish, i think, near my uni. I used to enjoy going into the cathedral as well, for a hangover-recovery-orange juice and mull/meditate too ;)
Erm, the oldest places of worship are monuments like Stonehenge and the ones that seem to pre-date it (all found to have sound-resonance properties recently that set up a self-replicating soundwave, when enough people make a certain "baritone" consistant sound, which in turn can affect/vibrate the body. This ads to our appreciation of the type of worship that went on there [and why all the druids were male it seems ;)] - incidently, the same properties were found in some positioned stones which native-south-americans used to paint [with the hallicinogenic paint they sprayed on by mouth])
Yeah, in Spain there are some amazing worship sites. Tho modern habits are more about social bonding than actual religion it seems - in the ritualistic-south where i was. Some of the crazed-coke-kids i taught had little chains of gold that had: the Maria de Socorro [if someone had died in their family], jesus on the cross, and the sheild of one of the two local football teams!! [all in the same gold-ish material]. They love their glitz-n-ritual - but there's lots of positive bonding done through it [and some negative social-dogma too unfortunately]
Perhaps the 10 Commandments are just inherent ethics we are all born with, but someone was smart enough to write them down.
Yeah, your points are cool above. I'm not sure the ten commandments are the best example of comparable-christian/secular/non-religious morality tho, coz of the "sunday" commandment and stuff like that.
r3port3r66
08-28-03, 03:49 PM
Also, on a side note, Jesus, in certain parts of Spain is alot darker than our US version. He has tight curly hair and brown eyes! I must admit I was taken aback the first time I witnessed a Crucifixion statue in Spain. I had only seen Jesus as a blond, long-haired, blue-eyed "hippie" in the US, and to see him portrayed as black was a surprise. But if you actually think about it, knowing where Jesus is from, it makes sense. That makes me think that the Jesus we know in America is false logically. Could we possibly be worshiping a false representation of The Man in the US? I mean think about where Jesus is from, think about what people look like--their skin tones and eye color--from there. There are certain inconsistancies.
Henry The Kid
08-28-03, 04:01 PM
Also, on a side note, Jesus, in certain parts of Spain is alot darker than our US version. He has tight curly hair and brown eyes! I must admit I was taken aback the first time I witnessed a Crucifixion statue in Spain. I had only seen Jesus as a blond, long-haired, blue-eyed "hippie" in the US, and to see him portrayed as black was a surprise. But if you actually think about it, knowing where Jesus is from, it makes sense. That makes me think that the Jesus we know in America is false logically. Could we possibly be worshiping a false representation of The Man in the US? I mean think about where Jesus is from, think about what people look like--their skin tones and eye color--from there. There are certain inconsistancies.
I think it's a given that Jesus was likely a darker skinned person, given the area in which he lived. It's nearly impossible that he was white, like he is constantly represented around here.
Either way, I have found religion to be more of a hindrance to my life than a help. I won't deny that I am happy to see the statue gone.
Revenant
08-28-03, 04:02 PM
Also, on a side note, Jesus, in certain parts of Spain is alot darker than our US version. He has tight curly hair and brown eyes! I must admit I was taken aback the first time I witnessed a Crucifixion statue in Spain. I had only seen Jesus as a blond, long-haired, blue-eyed "hippie" in the US, and to see him portrayed as black was a surprise. But if you actually think about it, knowing where Jesus is from, it makes sense. That makes me think that the Jesus we know in America is false logically. Could we possibly be worshiping a false representation of The Man in the US? I mean think about where Jesus is from, think about what people look like--their skin tones and eye color--from there. There are certain inconsistancies.
I saw a programme a year or so back that covered the ground of Jesus' race. Can't rememeber any of it but the gist was that Jesus was born in Jersulam so therefore should naturally be of the typfied looking native. The caucasian of Jesus is more then likely a wishful thinking or adapted given of his features. I think what Jesus represents is more importantly the message and less the looks of the messenger. I'm not religious, more closely agnostic if anything so don't take my knowledge of Christainity as certifiable.
r3port3r66
08-28-03, 04:04 PM
Either way, I have found religion to be more of a hindrance to my life than a help. I won't deny that I am happy to see the statue gone.
Me too Henry, me too.
Revenant, I agree the message is a powerful one, but I must also refer you to the following Commandment:
"Thou shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them."
So, if Jesus is in fact darker skinned, then is it wrong for us to "worship" Him as we see him in the US according to that Commandment?
Woa - i knew the representation of J was pretty caucasian-ised in america - but bbbblonde?? And bbbblue eyes? What the h..? Mind you - go to south america and the three kings are shown as native-indian looking etc etc etc - Christianity has always been a very adaptive religion - whether it's the days of festivals (almost all the core ones are based on old pagan/seasonal celebrations. The comprehensive [7 volume original!!] "Golden Bough" breaks down all the original ones - the condensed version is a v.interesting if overly-thourough/repetitive read)...or the bible itself.
Caitlyn
08-28-03, 04:29 PM
Also, on a side note, Jesus, in certain parts of Spain is alot darker than our US version. He has tight curly hair and brown eyes! I must admit I was taken aback the first time I witnessed a Crucifixion statue in Spain. I had only seen Jesus as a blond, long-haired, blue-eyed "hippie" in the US, and to see him portrayed as black was a surprise. But if you actually think about it, knowing where Jesus is from, it makes sense. That makes me think that the Jesus we know in America is false logically. Could we possibly be worshiping a false representation of The Man in the US? I mean think about where Jesus is from, think about what people look like--their skin tones and eye color--from there. There are certain inconsistancies.
What you see here and elsewhere are just artistic interpretations of what Jesus looked like… most of them reflect the period in which the painter/sculptor lived and his own ethnic background… when you really think about it, not only would Jesus have had to be a lot darker but he was supposed to be a carpenter too... and as such, in my opinion, would have been a lot more muscular then he’s normally portrayed...
Anyway, I don’t have a lot of time to weigh in on this topic right now but I would like to comment on the use of a Bible in the courtroom… the majority of the people I’ve seen lately choose to “Affirm” rather then to swear on a Bible and the courts/jurors seem to have no problem with that… and in fact seem to prefer it simply because it means a person wants to tell the truth to the best of their ability…
"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992.
Piddzilla
08-28-03, 07:08 PM
I don't believe I will "go to hell" if I lie. Please try not to caricaturize Christianity. You might as well paint Lucifer as a man in a red jumpsuit with a pitchfork.
What does he look like then? :devil:
I am not trying to caricaturize christianity. What is the purpose of swearing on the bible from a religious point of view if it doesn't mean anything else for a christian than swearing on your mother's grave (which might mean a hell of a lot to some but crap to others - just like the bible)? You might as well do that. Or just swear to tell the truth or you will be held in contempt.
That said, I'm rather shocked at how easily people here are dismissing the power of social stigma. It's easily one of the most potent forms of behavior-prevention out there.
Social stigma? What do you mean? That the mere presence of a bible in court leads to people straightening their backs and trying just a little bit harder to be good? I just don't believe it, not even in a fairly religious country as yours. If it was so and if that was the reason to why you think the bible has an undisputable place in the courtroom, then it shouldn't be no question about that all the holy scriptures of all the big religions represented in USA should be in the courtroom as well since it would improve the court's results in the same way. And we agreed on that that would be absurd.
And yes, I agree in regards to "forcing." I don't particularly think it's harmful or bad if it's offered up...but I do think it's ridiculous and inexcusable to deny someone an alternative if they should request it.
Sure, if someone really wants to swear on the bible, I don't have an objection against that.
You said it "contradicts freedom of religion." "Freedom of religion" is about having the freedom to choose your own religion -- nothing more, and nothing less.
Is that what it's telling you? To me it means (at least when state and church are seperated, which they are in this case) that no religion is favored over any other. This is not the situation in America today and the courtrooms are proof of that.
It's really shocking to me how people psychologically broaden their perceived rights over time.
Yeah, times change. Aint it a bitch? ;)
How so? What special knowledge has your 200 years of hindsight given you that they did not have access to? And how, pray tell, has history done anything other than bore their ideals out, through the rapid growth and influence of this country?
I believe that during the time of those wise men America was the leading country in the world when it came to things like freedom for its citizens and legal system and things like that (not counting native americans and slaves of course). Today, imo, that have switched to American being the leading country in the world when it comes to economy, trade and warfare, among other things. Your constitution, if I understand it correctly, leaves a lot of room for interpretations - and that is a good thing (it doesn't mean that it was perfect from the start and will always be perfect though). But does that mean that just because the constitution does not need to be changed - does that also means that nothing else needs to be changed?
I think religion does not have a place in courtrooms. How did you turn that around to be about wanting you to change the constitution? You said that I should give the men who created America more cred. What do they even have to do with this discussion?? You had freedom of religion then and you have freedom of religion now. That does not mean that everything has to be the way they were back then.
I agree with most of what you're saying here, but not with your conclusion. Which is more important: the lack of any religious prescence, or the court's effectiveness? Because it seems to me that the prescence of the former generally enhances the latter.
It is two complete different things. You have turned it into an issue about "court effectiveness", which this is not about. Do you have any statistics that back up your opinion that those trials where the accused swore on the bible instead of just "affirm" were more "effective"? That is absurd. I doubt that the being or not being of a bible in the courtroom effects the effectiveness in any way. If it do I would say that the absence of a bible in the courtroom (i.e. less rituals, more trial) would increase the effectiveness rather than decrease it.
As I said, it is not a "No Bible vs. Court Effectiveness" match. It is about letting all americans feel like 1st class americans no matter what religion they belong or not belong to. To alienate someone in a courtroom because of religion is just plain wrong. Especially in a country that calls herself "the greatest democracy in the world".
firegod
08-28-03, 09:53 PM
I disagree. Believer or not, you surely recognize the importance most people ascribe to it, and therefore you must recognize the intense stigma attached to lying under such an oath. I find it highly unrealistic that swearing on The Bible has no effect, conscious or otherwise...even on yourself.
If I pandered to people's beliefs in that way, I probably wouldn't call myself an atheist. I'm sorry, Chris, but you are just not correct here. I would probably take a secular oath MORE seriously than one where I put my hand on a bible and said, "so help me God", because the oath wouldn't contain anything that I thought was fictional.
True. But it's just as true that many "free thinkers" try to gloss over the fact that the overwhelming bulk of them believed in God, that most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were religious, and recognized that the concept of unalienable rights needs to be grounded in such an idea.
I agree with this, and I disagree with some of our founding fathers' ideas, but I think separation of church and state is a real good one.
Hold up there, bud. :) What "our laws are based on" or "what all our laws are based on"? The former really isn't worth complaining about. It's rather like saying "EVERYONE has a television!" The fact that The Ten Commandments strongly coincides with American morality and, to a significant degree, with American law, makes it a reasonable statement if not taken in an unusually literal sense.
This is some major backbedalling on what you said previously.
Frankly, I've never in my life heard anyone suggest that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments, because the idea is so easily disproven.
Edit: You also agreed with me that The Ten Commandments have very little to do with our laws. This is hardly consistant with, "The Ten Commandments strongly coincides with American morality and, to a significant degree, with American law".
I think you should stick to your guns, and admit that he was WRONG and STUPID, or take back what you said earlier. Nothing else makes sense. I like Bill too, but I'm not going to defend him when he says something dumb like this.
If memory serves, one of the earliest American proponents of the abolition for slavery was devoutly religious. Seems to me that, if you regard religion as a deterrent at least comparable to slavery and torture, you'll be cutting off the branch you're sitting on if you try to dismantle it.
Wrong. If someone back then believed that women should never be allowed in the work force, but believed in compassion, should I link the two together and say that my disaproval of sexism doesn't have a leg to stand on? Of course not. It's the same thing. Just because they were religious, does not mean they were wrong about slavery, and just because they were right about slavery doesn't mean that I'm wrong about religion. You're using some very faulty logic here, Chris.
The danger in this thinking is that it's generally supposed that everything new is therefore good...but there are new evils just as there are new goods. The fact that things like slaverty tend to be shunned over time is a sign that we are improving OVERALL, yes, but for every new thing we introduce or old idea we toss out, there are hundreds we keep.
Oh, I don't know. I think we're changing a bit more than THAT. But you make a good point.
There's a few too many things to respond to now, and I'm gonna be away from the computer virtually all weekend, so I'll try to reply next week. Until then, lemme just say that it's good to see fire back in the swing of things, as it were. :) You raise some good points, and I'll certainly be getting to them.
firegod
08-29-03, 12:25 AM
There's a few too many things to respond to now, and I'm gonna be away from the computer virtually all weekend, so I'll try to reply next week. Until then, lemme just say that it's good to see fire back in the swing of things, as it were. :) You raise some good points, and I'll certainly be getting to them.
Take your time; I know how time-consuming these kinds of things can become.
Caitlyn
08-29-03, 01:24 PM
Did anyone hear anything about the Governor of the state of Mississippi offering to place the statue of The Ten Commandants in their state capital building?
Having the Ten Commandments removed from government buildings is ALL about religious freedom.................... To think otherwise IS narcissistic..................... The right position is........."We as a government think that since most people in this nation are Christian, than ALL of us must follow this belief so here are the Ten Commandments, follow this"................ While it is a righteous moral code to follow individually, the government cannot establish it upon anyone who believes differently. No way........
It would be impossible to put every religious doctrine in all government buildings, so the solution is to remove all, and remain secular..........
I believe..............replace the Ten Commandments with the Constitution, since it much more relevant politically............. It is narcissistic for the Right to think that all believe like they do...................Yet they seek to exclude, by establishing Christian religion in government, with the purpose to exclude.................. As government officials, the Constitution should be their code, and the Ten Commandments should be solely for themselves as individuals.
firegod
09-04-03, 11:38 PM
Bump :)
Piddzilla
03-20-06, 03:00 PM
ah those were the days....
Hi there, Fire! It's been a while.... :yup:
[edit]... eh... talk about a while... That last post by Fire is almost 1½ years old....
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.