American Wahabbis and the Ten Commandments

[Undertoad]

The pledge and coins are irrelevant. The founding document of the country and the document that determines how things operate is the Constitution. The establishment clause tells us that it has no official religion. The words of Jefferson and Washington on the matter are clear. Here's what Washington wrote, just after the Constitution was accepted, to a bunch of Jews in RI who were worried about the nature of the new country, that it may shut them out like they had been before:

Originally Posted by Gen. Geo Washington in 1790

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

He spoke OF religion, but wanted to ensure that the nation would never be bigoted, never promote persecution.

[jaguar]

see, i told you other people who know their shit better than me would chime in

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by jaguar

see, i told you other people who know their shit better than me would chime in

I'm glad somebody noticed. If OC didn't actually quote me every now and then I'd think she had me on ignore.

[Brown Thrasher]

Religion has been said to coincide with morality. We live in difficult times. Where is morality in the political arena we live in today. I keep hearing our country was founded by religious views. History reinforces these facts. However, religion has no place in politics today. George washington rode a horse. George Bush does not. We live in a religious society, as well as a secular one...... Religion has it's place. Church, mosk,etc....politics given it's roots must steer clear of religion today. We have enough problems now. We live in a very diverse country, with many religious groups. When our forces leave Iraq, what do you think is going to happen between the different religious factions; especially after being run by a secular dictator for so many years. We don't want to go there. Leave it where it belongs, in the history books, such as the study of western civilization......Religion is fine, but don't force it on me, and citizens who have their own beliefs.... Someone said each man is equal. Let him have his beliefs.
"Religion can can be an opiate for the pains created by society."-Marx

[iamthewalrus109]

It's all well and good to compartmentalize like that, no religion in politics, but secualrism isn't enough, I'm sorry. It's literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. State sponsored religion is one thing, but not to acknowledge the existence of something above man's world is narrow. The simple fact that GW rode a horse, and George Bush drives around in a bulletproof Cadilac means nothing, what does that have to do with anything. Both share death. Both need and needed to take a shit at least 3-5 times a week too. These types of details are irrelevant. I think it's wrong to strafe America just for it's economic system, it removes the underlying forces that created it and fostered it's growth. This ardent move toward overt secularism is a shift wrought at the hands of humanist slime willing to deep six the spirit of this country for there pocket book and they're plithy world view. Politics must be guided by some moral conscious, the will of secular law is not enough, and never will be. Fine remove more organized religious idealology, ie. evangelical Chrisitainity, from the core of political motivations, but never allow the belief that something created us all, be tampered with. Whether it be fate, science, or Hashem, there needs to be a recognition of a higher power. That's the core of all of our legal documents, unalieable rights, given from up on high, not by man!

-Walrus

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus109

the will of secular law is not enough, and never will be.

Secular law is enough for government and always wil be. Religious law is for individuals. If the government starts to think that its actions are the will of God, it becomes a theocracy.

This ardent move toward overt secularism is a shift wrought at the hands of humanist slime willing to deep six the spirit of this country for there pocket book and they're plithy world view.

The move toward overt secularism is ONLY TARGETED AT GOVERNMENT. Government is for all the people, not only for the "spiritual". There is no movement to shut churches or prevent kids from going to Sunday school.

[iamthewalrus109]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Secular law is enough for government and always wil be. Religious law is for individuals. If the government starts to think that its actions are the will of God, it becomes a theocracy.
The move toward overt secularism is ONLY TARGETED AT GOVERNMENT. Government is for all the people, not only for the "spiritual". There is no movement to shut churches or prevent kids from going to Sunday school.

This type of rhetoric is a prelude to a new tyranny. Furthermore, if you read my reply I came out against religion and government, a general spirtuality engenders compassion, we are not androids here. In addition western secular law is based on religious teachings, laws, and philosophy. Without it there would have been no secular law as we know it. Without the concept of inherent rights there would be no United States, or great modern republics to speak of. Rights given by man, can be taken away by man, it's a simple as that. To move towards a completey secular government is dangerous, and contrary to the history of the US. A government devoid of concious going forward is anterior to humanist aims as well. The seperation of church and state was intended to thwart undue influence of clerics in government as well as religous persecution. What is to guide government in the future without a higher order. Government can't guide itself, governments then would become a religion un to itself. Government is meant to protect the rights of the people, spirtual or not, but to have a mentality that reflects all or nothing in government is illogical. Because there is a small quotient of people who don't not belive in anything, governemt should bend to they're whim? Hogwash! Government must be steered by something other than itself. If not than the federal government should stop being in the business of tax collection and intrusion into the lives of the inhabitants of this continent and serve itself. I decry overt mentioning by our fearless leader about Christ directly, but I don't disagree with trying to bestow a blessing on this land in public speeches. To ask for providence to bestow it's better graces on us is to recognize how lucky we are to even have a government like this, or how lucky all of us are to have food or housing. Government for government's sake is self-serving and illogical.

-Walrus

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus109

In addition western secular law is based on religious teachings, laws, and philosophy. Without it there would have been no secular law as we know it.

All law is rooted in religion. Religion was the first political structure that could outlast the lifespan of a secular ruler.

The trick is to weed out the specific religious aspects that protect or aid one religion for a broader secular/philosophical structure that protects and aids all.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus109

...
a general spirtuality engenders compassion,

I've seen no evidence of this.

In addition western secular law is based on religious teachings, laws, and philosophy. Without it there would have been no secular law as we know it.

That's insane. There simply is no way to support the concept that without religion there would be anarchy. I even will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you would not start murdering people if you lost your faith - likewise, even in the absence of religion, murder would remain illegal.

Without the concept of inherent rights there would be no United States, or great modern republics to speak of. Rights given by man, can be taken away by man, it's a simple as that.

The exercise of all rights can be abridged by man, no matter where you claim the rights came from. Hopefully, other men will attempt to prevent the abridgement of those rights, but there are no divine guarantees of that. In the end, what we call inalienable rights are rights that we do not believe the government is ever justified in abridging. If the government disagrees, it is up to the people to stop it.

In fact, if religious people believe the government has a religious basis, they will be less inclined, not more inclined, to dispute any abridgement of rights, as is evident under kings and George W Bush.

What is to guide government in the future without a higher order. Government can't guide itself, governments then would become a religion un to itself.

Only if they are considered to be infalible. Governments should be secular and suspect. When a government gains a sheen of divine basis, that discourages suspicion.

Government must be steered by something other than itself.

It must be steered by compassion and the people. Not all of us require God's orders in order to be compassionate, and I suspect that even most people who believe that morality comes from God would have still been moral if raised as atheists.

If not than the federal government should stop being in the business of tax collection and intrusion into the lives of the inhabitants of this continent and serve itself.

Well, that's a non-sequitur. Government isn't a corporation, it is the mechanism to regulate the smooth operation of society.

Government for government's sake is self-serving and illogical.

True. Government isn't for government's sake, it is for the sake of doing things collectively that we can't do individually.

[Brown Thrasher]

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus109

It's all well and good to compartmentalize like that, no religion in politics, but secualrism isn't enough, I'm sorry. It's literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. State sponsored religion is one thing, but not to acknowledge the existence of something above man's world is narrow. The simple fact that GW rode a horse, and George Bush drives around in a bulletproof Cadilac means nothing, what does that have to do with anything. Both share death. Both need and needed to take a shit at least 3-5 times a week too. These types of details are irrelevant. I think it's wrong to strafe America just for it's economic system, it removes the underlying forces that created it and fostered it's growth. This ardent move toward overt secularism is a shift wrought at the hands of humanist slime willing to deep six the spirit of this country for there pocket book and they're plithy world view. Politics must be guided by some moral conscious, the will of secular law is not enough, and never will be. Fine remove more organized religious idealology, ie. evangelical Chrisitainity, from the core of political motivations, but never allow the belief that something created us all, be tampered with. Whether it be fate, science, or Hashem, there needs to be a recognition of a higher power. That's the core of all of our legal documents, unalieable rights, given from up on high, not by man!

-Walrus

Come on now, I think you know what my analogy mean't concerning Gw And Gb. I think you chose to oversimplify my point purposely. You know, this country was founded on christian theology. At that time, secularism was not prevalent. I agree politics should be guided by basic morality. However, that does not mean religion. We have a president, that based his election on morality. He was backed by the likes of Jerry Faldwell and other right wing religious groups with money as well as public media attention. I don't ever remember seeing the word "higher power" in the constitution. Also, I have never heard that term used by GB. I have seen the word God used in the pledge of allegiance. I have heard our president speak of God, But I have never heard him say the word "higher power". You did not address the rest of my post. We are promoting democracy in Iraq. What happens when one sect of the Islamic faith rules the country. Will that be democracy. I don't think so
I think it will be closer to cival war, which in the long road will lead back to a dictatorship of some kind. I hope not. However, societies appear to be cyclical........

[jaguar]

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...

[Undertoad]

Walrus, HINT: just because YOU can't think of a valid secular approach to natural law doesn't mean there ISN'T one.

[iamthewalrus109]

Please enlighten us Toad. What's yours?

-Walrus

[Undertoad]

I'm not going to branch the thread that direction; it should be enough to say I've developed one, and it's sophisticated and deep, and so have many others.

And to claim that it's invalid and that I should be *governed* by a take on natural rights based on the teachings of what I believe to be rumor and fairy tale? Sounds like worse than tyranny to me.

[jaguar]

Fuck, you're in need of a while on the whetstone aren't you? The whole goddamn point of the code of Hammurabi was that is NOT from the fact he was king, until then that's what a law meant - a king's edict, he changed all that. Fundamental to the code was the idea that some laws were too fundamental for even the king to change! Learn how to spell Hammurabi before you mouth off too. Hammurabi didn't believe he was descended from the gods either. Divination is what you're doing when you look for water with a forked stick or spend too long looking into your green tea, pick up a dictionary while you're looking for the history book.

Beestie - I seem to remember there was evidence that Roman law was descended from the code of Hammurabi, can you confirm/deny?