American Wahabbis and the Ten Commandments

[Happy Monkey]

He would be labeled as a nut and ridiculed on the 24 hour news networks.

[Undertoad]

"Tom, your union held. It took another three generations and a civil war to free the slaves, but it expanded and developed over pretty much the entire known useable land mass. By 150 years later, through the freedom found by the nature of government you proposed, and the ingenuity of its people, it has become the strongest nation on earth. In fact it helped save England from Prussian takeover by joining on its old foe's side. Now its currency is the most traded, its culture the most copied, its incorporations the most valued, and its military completely without equal."

OK TS, you give him the bad news.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

"Tom, your union held. It took another three generations and a civil war to free the slaves, but it expanded and developed over pretty much the entire known useable land mass. By 150 years later, through the freedom found by the nature of government you proposed, and the ingenuity of its people, it has become the strongest nation on earth. In fact it helped save England from Prussian takeover by joining on its old foe's side. Now its currency is the most traded, its culture the most copied, its incorporations the most valued, and its military completely without equal."

OK TS, you give him the bad news.

While I'm certainly no stranger to sarcasm, you needn't be so heavy handed with it.

I don't think that our accomplishments to date are as important as our current direction. I'm hoping that things will be smoothed over when we take the average down the road, but I'm rather sure that our current vector would not please him as they are now.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

"Tom, your union held. It took another three generations and a civil war to free the slaves, but it expanded and developed over pretty much the entire known useable land mass. By 150 years later, through the freedom found by the nature of government you proposed, and the ingenuity of its people, it has become the strongest nation on earth. In fact it helped save England from Prussian takeover by joining on its old foe's side. Now its currency is the most traded, its culture the most copied, its incorporations the most valued, and its military completely without equal."

OK TS, you give him the bad news.

We're starting to act like England.

[lookout123]

absolutely not. we still visit dentists.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by richlevy

God either exists or does not.

Random thing I noticed... you used to write it as G-d. Did you have a change of heart about that rule as it applies to digital writing, or did you just forget? Just curious.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Random thing I noticed... you used to write it as G-d. Did you have a change of heart about that rule as it applies to digital writing, or did you just forget? Just curious.

It was a conscious decision. In my mind at least the idea of using G-d is not to 'use the Lord's name in vain'. In Orthodox Judaism, I believe that they limit themselves, in both Hebrew and English, to using G-d or a Hebrew equivalent for everything outside of prayer. In addition, when reciting a prayer for practice or scholarly purposes, they will change the normally recited name of God, which is itself not a direct phonetic translation of the word as it is written. The word used for non-religious purposes is Hashem "the name". The word used in synagogue translates as 'Lord'. The word actually written in text and never used is the "Y" word, thought to be the proper name of God.

IMO, discussing religion and advancing knowledge in general are not light pursuits and so I am moving away from worrying about it being 'vain'.

P.S. I just did a fact check and found this link which gives two of the names discussed above, along with others I had never heard. "Hashem" is not listed, possibly because it is a spoken convention. I also found that I was wrong about the 'Y' word never being used. There is one exception in English, but I am pretty sure I have never heard it used in synagogue.

[jaguar]

Oh dear.

Time for a recap because it's getting lost in the noise and there's come serious cognitive dissonance and cross talking going on.
A very, very long time ago you stated, incorrectly:

The code of Hannuarabi got it's punch from the fact that the king was descended from God.

I've been trying to get that though and you've been dodging the point ever since. The only other point I made, etymology & definition of divination aside, was that the code was not meant to be changed by future kings - it was meant to be a fundamental legal construct beyond their power. I mean this is the thing, I'm well aware the King got his mandate of sorts from the gods but regents and vice regents aren't normally related are they? (we're not talking prince-regents here obviously)

What I don't get, is where you got the idea I was denying the King's authority came from god. It has no bearing on whether the code itself was largely secular, which is what I posted to start this. You seem to have problems with separating the two, maybe we're talking at cross purposes. I obviously feel that the code can be secular in a theocratic governmental structure and that while the code may have been obeyed for religious reasons it was still a largely secular system of laws. Do you disagree? To save hunting around:

Couldn't one say modern law dates back to Hammurabi's Code which was in essence (It's not a subject I've taken but I'm led to beleive) largely secular? Babylon was a theocracy to be sure but the code of laws itself...

Judding by:

and that this code was constructed to see that goodness and greatness of God bestowed on all his people.

I'd say yes. This is the core of the whole thing, I think he was a wise bloke that realized that a separate code of laws was key to stable and just government, you think it was a religious thing.

you chose to view it as only the king's authority, that's your problem.

I did? I said that the king was not descended from the Gods, that's all.

On the issue of my use of divination, my usage of the word was in reference to what Hammurabi felt was his calling. My usage was as such: Example: Oxford English Dictionary: "the practice of divining or seeking knowledge by supernatural needs" Example : American Heritage Dictionary: "Something that has been divined"

That is (Oxford at least, not sure about that crappy American dictionary since you didn't post how it defines divined) the same as the Cambridge one. It however makes no sense contextually.
You stated:

and kings are afforded their rule through divination

.
So you think so the kings were afforded their rule though seeking knowledge by supernatural deeds? Rightyo.

Men carrying on man made tradition is fool hearty and ill-advised, but as exhibited by the ruin of Babylon.

Yea, secular liberal democracy is a silly idea, let's go back to a dark-ages theocratic government, that rocked. And you wonder why I think you're a halfwit, it's pompous, ludicrous twaddle like this.

If I tell you that you are never again allowed to put salt on your food and my authority to make that decree comes from God, then of course you will stop using salt because it is God's will. Right?

Well if you believe god will smite you down with a whacking great thunderbolt for doing so, yea. Cultural paradigms and all that anthropological claptrap.

[Undertoad]

I wasn't being sarcastic at all. I think Mr. Jefferson would be utterly pleased with the outcome AND the direction. I wanted to put a fine point on it by telling the story of what happened in the big picture. And with the lack of any truly negative narrative offered so far I have to assume I was right.

[jaguar]

Wouldn't the old boy be a touch pissed about the federal government gradually grabbing power?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by jaguar

Wouldn't the old boy be a touch pissed about the federal government gradually grabbing power?

Basically, Jefferson coming back to encounter the modern US would have the same net result as Jesus coming back to encounter the modern church. Something along the lines of "The Man in the Iron Mask" comes to mind.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Quote:If I tell you that you are never again allowed to put salt on your food and my authority to make that decree comes from God, then of course you will stop using salt because it is God's will. Right?

Well if you believe god will smite you down with a whacking great thunderbolt for doing so, yea. Cultural paradigms and all that anthropological claptrap.

I was being sarcastic, Jag. Anyone can set down rules and claim it's god"s will. Don't make it so.

Look at surveys of public opinion and you see that lists of the "most important issues" change constantly. One year the economy is the most important issue. Next year the war is the most important issue. Next year the environment is the most important issue. Next year crime is the most important issue.

Which is why Bush stonewalls knowing the public will lose interest shortly and move on to the next subject at the water cooler. Also why Nixon would have succeeded had it not been for people like TW with the tenacity to beat the drum till the public took notice.

The real question is ARE we safe, not do we FEEL safe.

I disagree. The truth is we are never safe, be it a terrorist, rabid mailman of diseased mosquito. But feeling safe has a great deal of effect on our quality of life. People in jail have much less chance of being killed in a car crash but I think they'd rather be driving.

[Undertoad]

I think he would find the modern world different from the post-colonial one, in ways that make federalism less of a concern. The main issues would be whether the government remains representational and the country free and productive. Check check and check.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I think he would find the modern world different from the post-colonial one, in ways that make federalism less of a concern. The main issues would be whether the government remains representational and the country free and productive. Check check and check.

He would approve of international kidnapping? Unilateral invasion of sovereign nation without one valid reason and without even a declaration of war. Mandating the principles of one religion on all other people? Running up debts at record levels using accounting that would be fraud anywhere else. Government free access to a person's home and of personal papers without even a court order (Patriotic acts). Government approved torture as long as the body damage is not permanent. And a people who would even encourage this - with veins hanging from their teeth. Clearly Jefferson would be happy?

[jaguar]

The difference in perspective between you two is intersting. I don't knwo nearly enough to know who is right but while UT has a point, he always seemed to be jolly pragmatic surely the erosion of lot of rights would have been....unwelcome.