American Wahabbis and the Ten Commandments

[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.

[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

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus109

It's amusing to hear this coming from someone who so eloquently chastisted others on picking and choosing from Christian doctrine.

Thanks. I think...

Anywho, you can't take out the law against murder just because it says "thou shalt not kill". More to the point was that over time you could show people that not killing each other is just, generally, a good idea for everybody because it is sound reasoning not just because your invisible entity(ies) say so.

[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........