Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:50:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1741 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Good suggestions all. I’d like to disclaim, though, that my original
formulation of the
question made a few stipulations, among them the following:
Values predating Judeo-Christianity must not be included (ie, “do unto
others...”)
|
First of all, just because it might or might not predate Judeism (technically,
by virtue of the fact that Adam is cited as talking to the same God that Abraham
talked to, the informal roots of Judeism can be claimed to extend back to the
dawn of mankind, even though the core of the formal religion was credited as
being developed from the days of Abraham to the days of Moses) doesn’t mean it
wasn’t annexed into that religion (“eye for an eye”, at one extreme, and “do
unto others” at the other). Also, I don’t believe there are any laws in the US
that actually enforce that ideal, though that general idea is often used as an
excuse to vote against passing a particular law (on the basis of not elevating
one person’s freedom over another’s). Indeed the whole seperation of church and
state concept fits perfectly into this ideal (don’t force another man to convert
to your religion if you wouldn’t like him to force you to convert to his).
| |
Values not manifest in secular law (ie, no shellfish) must not be included
|
That “unclean foods” bit predates formal Judeism (first mentioned in the Bible
during the Flood story), was included in such non-related religions as Hinduism
and the Egyptian faith, and was dropped from Christianity largely on the basis
of Peter’s experience with the tarp full of “unclean” animals. There are,
however, a few Christian offshoots that reverted to the core unclean food laws,
and there are those who beleive the laws weren’t originally put forth for
religious purposes, but for health purposes.
Besides, nothing is truly manifest in secular law. Murder isn’t (look at
medieval Japan, where samurai could strike down peasants at will, and slaves
were used to test the quality of a new katana blade). Theft isn’t (the concept
of personal property as we understand it was introduced to Native Americans by
Europeans, where before noone claimed ownership of the land, and if you
expressed a desire for an item “owned” by someone else, he was expected to give
it to you).
| |
Values present in Judeo-Christianity (ie, slavery, which is repeatedly
endorsed in scripture) but antithetical to our secular law must not be
included (I would add to this that such currently-antithetical values must
be accounted for; specifically, why are these certain values okay to exclude
while we are somehow required to accept other values as fundamental.)
|
Slavery was originally legal in the US, so it wasn’t antithetical to the law as
created by the Founding Fathers. Much of US law has changed since those days (I
wonder what they would have thought of prohibition), so you can’t use the
current state of law as a means of arguing that the original constitution wasn’t
laid out according to Judeo-Christian ideals.
| |
I don’t even question that many of our politicians have been devout
Christians. However, except where their values have no precedent outside of
Judeo-Christianity, I don’t think it’s accurate to claim that those values
are part of a Judeo-Christian foundation. That would be like claiming that,
because Ford trucks use interchangeable parts, therefore Ford Motor Company
invented the notion of interchangeable parts. Sure, they may use them, but
the idea predates them. So it is with many Judeo-Christian notions and
values.
|
No, it would be like claiming that Ford put together that particular set of
interchangable parts. And since a Ford door won’t fit on a Chevy truck, that’s
accurate, though some of the parts (like nuts and bolts) might be used by both.
If you scratch-build a truck using Ford parts, isn’t it effectively a Ford?
| |
If we must include those values in our discussion, can we not instead
identify them appropriately according their origins, rather than ascribing
them to a convenient stopping-point (Judeo-Christianity) along the way?
|
We could, but the fact remains that they wouldn’t have been the basis of US
government if they weren’t part of the Judeo-Christian faith.
| |
I suppose I’ve been kind of unclear on this point in the past. It would be
foolish to insist that public officials wholly divorce themselves from their
faith or sectarian beliefs when making public policy decisions; those
officials are clearly informed by their own value systems, which in turn may
be based on faith.
|
It would be impossible to force them to do so (and unconstitutional, even).
That was actually one of the big fears of electing JFK, since many believed it
would put the US under the direct control of the Pope.
| |
That’s part of the melting pot, and IMO it’s fine as long as no faith-based
(or nonfaith-based) group attempts to criminalize another group’s beliefs
(or nonbeliefs).
|
Again, it’s entirely legal to do so, as long as it’s done properly, and it
serves the valuable purpose of preventing religious institutes from being able
to circumvent the law by incorporating illegal activities into their belief
system. Or would you prefer that we return to the days of witch-burning? Maybe
you’d like to see people get their hands cut off for stealing from a Muslim?
Religions are protected by the constitution. Their practices are not.
| |
However, there was a case recently (I’ll try to find it--it shouldn’t be
difficult) in which members of a jury consulted the bible during their
deliberations for advice re: punishment. That is, IMO, an unforgiveable
encroachment of religion into public law, and such intrusions should be
resisted at all costs.
|
There is no constitutional basis for forbidding them to do so. In fact, the
constitution forbids the legislature from creating laws to do that very thing.
Freedom of religion is a two-edged sword. The government can’t require you to
follow one specific faith, but it also can’t prohibit you from considering the
values of your faith in the creation or application of laws.
| |
Speaking as 25% of the club.
|
:)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
