Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:26:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1833 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
| |
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.
|
Before I attempt this documentation, can you give me an idea of what would
qualify as acceptable to you? Honestly, a scientific theory that can be
falsified is, as an explanatory device, superior to non-falsifiable statements
of faith, so I don’t understand why you would reject that kind of documentation.
| |
Even the great Stephen Hawking is recanting one of his most cherished
theories today.
|
Which is why science provides a better explanatory model of the universe than
does religion, as I’ve been saying for years. Man’s understanding has grown, so
the theory is revised. Is there a religious figure (of authority comparable to
Hawking) now or in the recent past who similarly recanted? What was the impact
upon 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.
|
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.
|
No no no. The state’s fallback stance is that the state has no authority to
endorse any religion or non-religion; the state simply has no business entering
into that debate, except in terms of protecting religious liberty.
| |
I wonder how court rulings would be affected if a formal Church of Atheism >
existed...
|
I would be interested to know how such a church might be structured.
| |
| |
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.
|
I’ll accept that, but then someone has to tell me why it’s valid to claim that
portions of the NT (which Jews recognize and an appendix to the bible)
supersedes existing portions of the OT. How can our “Judeo-Christian”
foundation accommodate these disparate worldviews?
| |
All religions including atheism
|
Nitpick. Atheism is not a religion, inasmuch as the lack of a tennis ball is
not a tennis ball.
| |
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.
|
The “foundation” issue comes to a head when you try to draw lines claiming that
“this” but “not that” is part of the foundation. I see no reason, other than
political convenience, to draw these lines as they are generally drawn. Absurd?
Perhaps, but it’s still true, and that’s the problem.
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
|
|
|
|
