Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:34:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1736 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
| |
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).
|
If the claim is made that our state charter is founded on ideals dating to the
birth of humanity, then evidence must be given to support that claim, or else it
is a doctrine of religious faith (and an attempt to unite the state and
religion).
Also, just because a religion claims to date to mankind’s birth, there is no
reason to accept that this is so. Any faith can claim, even retroactively, to
have invented value systems predating Adam or Eve or even the Judeo-Christian
God. Such claims are articles of faith, and the state’s endorsement of that
faith would likewise equate to the establishment of religion.
| |
| |
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.
|
Big chunks of Leviticus are still used to justify current cultural mores, so the
burden is upon apologists of that text to document why certain bits are
acceptable in the discourse of modern secular law, while certain other bits have
been omitted. And if someone chooses to invoke the NT as a defense, then the
invoker has rejected the Judeo- part of our “Judeo-Christian foundation.”
| |
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).
|
By “nothing is truly manifest” in this context, do you mean that “nothing is
truly inherent”? If so, then I’m on record agreeing with that point. If not,
could you clarify?
| |
| |
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 can certainly argue that we’ve grown beyond the founding principles of the
country, and I applaud this evolution, just as Jefferson did. What, then, is
the value in clinging to the foundation as if it were some kind of immutable
bedrock without which our society will implode? Every time a legislator cites
“the Judeo-Christian foundation” of our values, he should disclaim that we as a
society have evolved beyond that foundation. Otherwise, he is making an appeal
to a transcendent religious ideal and thereby advocating the establishment of a
religion.
| |
| |
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?
|
Whoa! The “what is a set” question! That’s my
favorite!
But what I’m getting at is that if the basic tenets of Judeo-Christian belief
are themselves beholden to prior beliefs, then it is inaccurate to claim that
values descended from Judeo-Christianity are founded on Judeo-Christianity. It
would be like claiming that the fourth floor of a building has its foundation on
the third floor. It may be connected to the third floor, but its foundation is
lower (earlier).
| |
| |
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.
|
How so? 18-century Enlightenment informed about as much of our founding policy
as Judeo-Christian tradition. Why don’t we trumpet our current culture as
“founded in the Enlightenment” instead?
| |
| |
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.
|
I’m not sure what this question is asking, because few people in this forum have
condemned the unchecked practice of religion as strongly as I have. I’m even
willing to say that it would be illegal to outlaw the belief that witches should
be hanged, but it is correct to outlaw the practice of witch-hanging.
| |
| |
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.
|
But my understanding is that the jurors are thought to have consulted the bible
as a legal reference book separate from texts of secular law. To that end, it
is entirely appropriate to exclude the extraneous sourcebook without even
addressing the issue of religion in this context. I mean, if a juror had
consulted Harry Potter for sentencing guidelines, would those guidelines have
been accepted?
Dave!
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
