American Wahabbis and the Ten Commandments

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

Published in 1891, the original states, 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Here are two more that were added later on - hardly evidence one way or the other for "This country was founded on a belief in a creator god ".

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I did. That (and the pledge) was added later, so it says nothing about how the country was founded, just that there was a period of self-righteousness later on.

And then

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

And what then, do you make of the repeated inclusion of the idea of a creator in nearly all of the big US documents and coins?

If they really wanted complete and utter separation of religion and government, why put it in all those documents? The pledge? The coins?

Hopefully she won't bring up the pledge and coins anymore with regard to the founding of the country...

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Hopefully...

*tip of my hat*

Thank you sir.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

How many ways can you depict "two large tablets made of stone"?

Um...

[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.

[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.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

All law is rooted in religion.

The first written laws in Greece were set down by Draco in 620 BC and are not regarded to be inspired by religion (guess where the word Draconian came from).

The first Roman laws (the legal system of pretty much the entire western world is based on the Roman legal system) were written in 449 BC (The Twelve Tables) and there is no evidence that they were religiously inspired.

And while the Code of Hammurabi (1755 BC ±) did have sections devoted to regulating a class of citizens devoted to the service of God, it could hardly be considered to be theocratic as most of it dealt with matters of civil responsibility and ownership rights (even laws governing property leases and building codes).

Modern US law probably has more sections inspired by religion than the Big Three legal systems of the ancient world.

[Troubleshooter]

I was speaking more along the lines that before codification, it was the religious structure that maintained a running set of rules that were more long standing than those handed down by the changing list of rulers. As time would go by, the core components would become more concrete and eventually blur with the secular aspects of society. That's why when we have "Murder in the first degree" and "Thou shalt not kill" we get people screaming about how it was founded on religion.

[iamthewalrus109]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

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.

It's amusing to hear this coming from someone who so eloquently chastisted others on picking and choosing from Christian doctrine. The very act of aiding anybody comes from a sense of compassion, which is only fostered in a government operating with some sort of conscious. Without that it is just a apparatus, working without feeling, period. As far as Hammurabi's code, the man was a king, and kings are afforded their rule through divination, hence making his word law being that he was . When you look at the body of the law, many exemptions existed for the clerics of the empire, while taxing and punishing many of the lower classes. The code of Hannuarabi got it's punch from the fact that the king was descended from God. This was the basis for rule. The Hannurabi Code had secular applications but was based on the authority of the king. That's the only way something like that could be enforced.

-Walrus