Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:44:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2045 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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).
|
Can you prove that those ideals predate Judeism or the roots thereof? Show me
some documented proof, not scientific theories. Even the great Stephen Hawking
is recanting one of his most cherished theories today.
| |
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.
|
Just as the state’s fallback stance that none of them are true constitutes a de
facto endorsement of atheism, which also equates to an establishment of
religion. I wonder how court rulings would be affected if a formal Church of
Atheism existed...
| |
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.”
|
Christianity didn’t fully splinter off from Judeism until well after the NT, as
evidenced by the fact that they called themselves Christian Jews throughout.
Besides, non-Christian Jews were instrumental enough in the birth of this nation
to qualify its Judeo-Christian origins regardless of whether you think
Christianity can continue to claim the “Judeic” portion of the name.
| |
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?
|
That sounds about right. I’m basically just saying that you can pick out any
“universal” law, and still find at least one post-caveman culture that pointedly
did not ascribe to that value, thereby showing that there really aren’t any
truly universal laws. It’s not the individual laws that show the
Judeo-Christian inheritence of the early US legal system, but the combined
whole. Every rug is woven with thread of some sort, but it’s the pattern that
best reveals the culture that inspired it.
| |
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, you don’t ascribe to Franklin’s belief that the populace should rise up in
revolt every so often just to shake things up and prevent the government from
growing too powerful for its own good?
| |
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.
|
Whoa, when did I ever say that the truth of our government’s Judeo-Christian
heritage is justification to impose any of the various modern incarnations upon
the entire nation? I do feel that it’s unconstitutional to pass laws
prohibiting such actions, but that doesn’t mean that I feel it’s automatically
right to pass them. It depends on whether by doing so you are imposing your
faith or your faith-derived values. The former is unconstitutional if passed as
Law by Congress, but the latter is perfectly legal.
The bigger problem is that the various religions and Christian denominations
have changed enough over the past 200+ years that people often try to argue the
intent of the Founding Fathers based on their own religious beliefs, in spite of
the fact that someone else might be holding forth the exact opposite belief with
the very same reasoning. Even now you’re arguing that Christian values have no
business influencing government because the US constitution prohibits it, but
the various Christian groups that are doing so feel that they can because the US
constitution allows it.
| |
Whoa! The “what is a set” question! That’s my
favorite!
|
Ah, but the auto industry, much like the gun industry, imposes a numbering
system that’s not inherent to the LEGO system. LEGO sets have no equivalent of
the VIN. Gun components don’t count as “guns” unless they’re gun barrels (so
defined by virtue of the fact that they’re the most useful part in determining
the identity of the gun that shot John Doe).
| |
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.
|
No it’s not. The conglomeration of various beliefs was a unique blend that
resulted in a unique government. Other religious backgrounds could have
conceivably produced similar governing systems, but not the exact set of words
that we know as the U.S. Constitution. You are the product of all of your
experiences with other people combined, but your set of beliefs are unique to
you, even though it can be argued that none of the individual beliefs are truly
original to you. All religions including atheism ostensibly hail back to the
first sentient thought experienced by early man, and since we’re unable to trace
the roots of every religion back to that thought, it doesn’t really mean much to
say that we can’t ascribe the origins of a particular government to a particular
religious tradition on the basis that various values held by that religion
predate that religion.
| |
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).
|
Ah, but when you decide to add a fifth floor, you build it on top of the fourth
floor, not the basement, and your design choices will be limited by the layout
of the fourth floor. Christianity and Islam are considerably different faiths,
but they both sprouted from Judeism within recorded history. To claim that both
the US and Iran are based on the same root Judaic faith is clearly absurd.
| |
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?
|
For the same reason why we don’t trumpet our government’s ancient Greek
heritage. It’s not the reason why we came here in the first place, and it’s not
the justification cited for declaring independance. Noone cared enough to make
a big stink about it then, and noone does today either, except those who are
trying to argue that it’s somehow illegitimate to claim a Judeo-Christian
heritage for the US government.
| |
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.
|
See, and that’s the sticky point. If Religion A feels that it’s their
fundamental duty to burn witches (after all, God told them to), by telling them
that it’s illegal, the US government is technically prohibiting them from the
free practice of their religion. But no court will ever rule that it’s
unconstitutional for them to do so based on the freedom of religion provided by
the 1st Amendment (ignoring, for the moment, the fact that laws concerning
murder are relegated to the individual states). Just as with the three branches
of the government, there are checks and balances built into the perceived
absolute divide between government and religion. Religious values can influence
our system of laws as long as they don’t involve enforcing a state-sponsored
religion. Government can outlaw certain religious practices as long as by doing
so they are preventing you from abusing other peoples’ rights with impunity.
| |
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?
|
If the system of sentancing guidelines consisted of nothing more formally
structured than imposing minimum and maximum limits on the sentance, flipping a
coin is a legal method of determining what to vote for. If the only means given
for determining whether to impose a strong or light sentance is defined in such
vague terms as “morals”, “decency”, or “outrage”, it’s left entirely to the
individuals to decide where that line is located and whether or not it has been
crossed.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
