Religion in politics/schools

[goldcatt]

Well with all due respect there are MANY Christians that think these laws are some how exclusive to the Ten Comandments.......They are WRONG!

Some, perhaps. But why make such a big deal out of the few and the uninformed?

Becuase the FEW and UNINFORMED are an EXTREMELY vocal MINORITY!

And if we stopped paying attention to them and magnifying their influence, they would slink back into Footloose land where they belong. They are a small minority after all, living in their own little echo chamber, regardless of how loud they yell.
Why do we have to keep tailoring everything to the lowest possible denominator? Some people prefer to be left behind.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Well I guess 4 out of 10 ain't bad. Oh and the four laws you refer to predate Christianity by a millenia.

Um duh. Christianity as we know it didnt develop until 1000+ years after the Ten Commandments were given. You act as this is some shocking fact when any idiot who can read would know this.

ROFLMAO

good catch
i missed that subtle point the first time
actually, the ten commandments predated christianity by about 3000 years

One millenia or three dosn't make that much difference. The POINT is that EVERY society in Earths history would REQUIRE the idea of not killing or stealing from your neighbor. So these are ideas that are hardly exclusive to Christianity.

 

[goldcatt]

Um duh. Christianity as we know it didnt develop until 1000+ years after the Ten Commandments were given. You act as this is some shocking fact when any idiot who can read would know this.

ROFLMAO

good catch
i missed that subtle point the first time
actually, the ten commandments predated christianity by about 3000 years

One millenia or three dosn't make that much difference. The POINT is that EVERY society in Earths history would REQUIRE the idea of not killing or stealing from your neighbor. So these are ideas that are hardly exclusive to Christianity.

Which brings me back to my original point.
They are not original to Christianity, or even Judaism where they really originated, but those who first set down and enforced them as "law" helped usher in civilization. Does it really matter if at the time the concepts were Hebrew, or Babylonian, or Greek, or Roman, or Egyptian, or......?
The fact is, the people who first codified law whether originally under religious guise or not deserve a certain level of respect for their contribution. That can be done without endorsing the specific gods they worshipped.
If all you can see is the small minority who can't separate the two, then you're not getting the whole picture.

 

[DiveCon]

Um duh. Christianity as we know it didnt develop until 1000+ years after the Ten Commandments were given. You act as this is some shocking fact when any idiot who can read would know this.

ROFLMAO

good catch
i missed that subtle point the first time
actually, the ten commandments predated christianity by about 3000 years

One millenia or three dosn't make that much difference. The POINT is that EVERY society in Earths history would REQUIRE the idea of not killing or stealing from your neighbor. So these are ideas that are hardly exclusive to Christianity.

yeah, i'm sure the mongols and the huns had real problems in killing people
LOL

 

[goldcatt]

ROFLMAO

good catch
i missed that subtle point the first time
actually, the ten commandments predated christianity by about 3000 years

One millenia or three dosn't make that much difference. The POINT is that EVERY society in Earths history would REQUIRE the idea of not killing or stealing from your neighbor. So these are ideas that are hardly exclusive to Christianity.

yeah, i'm sure the mongols and the huns had real problems in killing people
LOL

Forget the Mongols and Huns, look at Somalia today. Or perhaps Zimbabwe.

 

[DiveCon]

One millenia or three dosn't make that much difference. The POINT is that EVERY society in Earths history would REQUIRE the idea of not killing or stealing from your neighbor. So these are ideas that are hardly exclusive to Christianity.

yeah, i'm sure the mongols and the huns had real problems in killing people
LOL

Forget the Mongols and Huns, look at Somalia today. Or perhaps Zimbabwe.

that too
or the Zulu

or the Inca's or Druids
none of them had problems with killing

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

One millenia or three dosn't make that much difference. The POINT is that EVERY society in Earths history would REQUIRE the idea of not killing or stealing from your neighbor. So these are ideas that are hardly exclusive to Christianity.

yeah, i'm sure the mongols and the huns had real problems in killing people
LOL

Forget the Mongols and Huns, look at Somalia today. Or perhaps Zimbabwe.

Or Linux Pinguins. Nice avatar gold.

 

[goldcatt]

yeah, i'm sure the mongols and the huns had real problems in killing people
LOL

Forget the Mongols and Huns, look at Somalia today. Or perhaps Zimbabwe.

that too
or the Zulu

or the Inca's or Druids
none of them had problems with killing

Several of the Polynesian cultures as well. Look into Paupua/New Guinea sometime. They still have aborigines there straight out of Kipling.
Although to be fair, I think Cold was thinking more along the lines of Western civilization, since that's where the predominant American culture (if you can say there is one) amnd legal system came from.
Although, you might not want to tell him about the British ecclesiastical roots of entire branches of modern American law.

 

[goldcatt]

yeah, i'm sure the mongols and the huns had real problems in killing people
LOL

Forget the Mongols and Huns, look at Somalia today. Or perhaps Zimbabwe.

Or Linux Pinguins. Nice avatar gold.

Glad you approve!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Did already. Wasn't there.

Lol. Yes, it is. Look under the main entry "approve."

It says ". . . respecting an establishment of religion", and you have to really torture the English language to make "establishment" not a noun, in my never-humble opinion.

Yes, very good, it's a noun. And it's a noun that refers to the act of establishing something. You aren't trying to claim that because it's the noun version, it somehow doesn't apply? Cause that would be really stupid.

::sigh:: No, "establishment" does not refer to the act of establishing, mostly because that wouldn't be a noun. That would be the verb, "establish". It is clear that when the Constitution says, ". . . respecting an establishment of religion", it is referring to a thing which has been established, ie. a specific denomination or organization of religion. In other words, the injunction against Congress - and only Congress, by the way - in that Amendment is to not make laws RESPECTING - you can take that either to mean "favoring" or "regarding", whichever definition you like better - a specific church. It doesn't actually say anything about Congress establishing a church itself, although one assumes that to do so would be "respecting" such a church.

I know it's very popular to believe that the First Amendment freedom of religion section exists because the Founding Fathers were afraid of religion and government mixing, but that just isn't the case. In fact, it was intended at least in part to keep the federal government from interfering with the official churches that several of the STATES had.

What are you talking about? I've already stated that kids praying if they choose to is a protected right. Kids can pray whenever they want - they simply cannot subject others to their faith or take up others time with it. In other words, no organized prayer, and no standing at the door of the school in signboards saying all the non-Christians were going to hell.

Except it's not protected. It's merely a cherished fantasy among leftists that their militance on the subject of "organized religion in schools" isn't being used to oppress individual religious expression. The news is rife with stories, if you bother to look, of school officials interfering with the religious rights of students and their parents on the specious and occasionally even clearly-prohibited grounds that others somehow have a right to never be aware of their beliefs. And no, it is not enough for you to have this pointed out to you and then say, "Well, that's just WRONG", because we both know you're not really outraged and have no intention of doing anything about it except promptly forgetting it and going back to reserving your REAL outrage for anything you can use to convince yourself that Christians are trying to force their beliefs on you.

I have personally witnessed it. And if you honestly believe that you can universally speak for all Christians then you're living in fantasyland.

Oh, well, if you give me your personal word that you yourself have witnessed it, that certainly obviates any need for that pesky little item we call "proof I will actually believe instead of sneering contemptuously".

Or not.

Yes, it is my personal choice. If they're on the clock and making me wait while they pray, they're stealing. The fact that they have the ability to sneak and deny me my personal choice doesn't make it not my choice.

Actually, it's NOT your choice, because you have no freaking choice about it, other than to walk away and not get your business done. Oh, you can bitch and moan, just as you can bitch and moan about them taking a coffee break, but there's not a damned thing you can do about it.

And they're not "sneaking", dumbass. They don't owe you any explanation, any more than they owe you an explanation of going to the can.

I have not advocated any organized prayers, and you're setting up a straw man if you're trying to pretend that's the argument.

Then what are you arguing about? You responded to my post. I stated pretty clearly that kids could pray whenever they wanted, but that it can't be organized and take up others' time. Why did you disagree with me when I said the minority kids shouldn't have to sit in study hall during others' prayer time? You, for some odd reason, argued with that and have followed up with insults. Was it just too much for you to handle that you agreed with someone you clearly perceive as a leftist?

No, there's a big difference between what we were talking about, which is the school allowing for personal religious expression, and organized school prayer. That's just a leap you decided to take, since apparently you can't envision REAL tolerance of other cultures without it leading to the "horrific" vision of teachers - no doubt wearing swastika armbands - ordering children to pray under threat of punishment. Doesn't seem to be any middle ground in your mind.

Speaking of which:

When you "compassionate" leftists come even CLOSE to spending as much of your own personal money - not tax dollars you've stolen from your neighbors at the point of the government's gun - on the poor and downtrodden as Christians routinely do, MAYBE I'll be interested in hearing what you have to say about how they should practice their religion. But I doubt it, because I'm fairly certain it will still be akin to listening to a virgin give sex lessons.

What kind of nasty little hypocrite puts "Christians" on one side and "Leftists" on the other? I happen to have very dear friends who are both leftwing and Christian. I simply find it reprehensible to equate Christianity or any religion with a political side.

Sorry, Charlie, but it's not RIGHTIES treating Christians like a nasty, deviant fifth column in American society. If you people want to sit around, twitting yourselves on how "religious" you are, then you might want to rethink associating yourselves with people who consider Christianity to be the equivalent of having a venereal disease . . . except more distasteful. My mother always said, "You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas."

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh and remind me how many of the Ten Comandments directly translate into laws.

do you think breaking a contract, adultery....should be legalized?
do you think stealing should be legalized?
do you think lying, obstructing justice, bearing false witness is ok and should be legal?
do you think murder is ok and should be legalized?

what was your point of this post CF?

care

I think Cold might have been trying to point out that several of the Ten Commandments deal with the relationship between humans and God, not humans and other humans. Of course our laws are not predicated on those.
But it's the symbolism of the contribution that is worthy of a certain respect, not necesarily the laws themselves (although you have a great point, Care). Others on this thread have pointed out contributions of other law-givers such as Hammurabi or Justinian, and I have no problem giving any of them their due.
To go as far as to remove any nod toward ancient law-givers if they had anything to do with religion, Lady Justice would have to take off the rest of her toga and put on jeans, a t-shirt and an i-pod. How silly would that be?

Why do people always assume that the Big Ten are the sum total of all laws, rules of behavior, and beliefs concerning conduct that Christianity possesses? When we say that our laws are based on Christian precepts, we aren't just referring to the Ten Commandments.

And no, Western Civ owes nothing to Hammurabi or any of those others, simply because they may have hit upon similar concepts of behavior at one time.

 

[Cecilie1200]

do you think breaking a contract, adultery....should be legalized?
do you think stealing should be legalized?
do you think lying, obstructing justice, bearing false witness is ok and should be legal?
do you think murder is ok and should be legalized?

what was your point of this post CF?

care

I think Cold might have been trying to point out that several of the Ten Commandments deal with the relationship between humans and God, not humans and other humans. Of course our laws are not predicated on those.
But it's the symbolism of the contribution that is worthy of a certain respect, not necesarily the laws themselves (although you have a great point, Care). Others on this thread have pointed out contributions of other law-givers such as Hammurabi or Justinian, and I have no problem giving any of them their due.
To go as far as to remove any nod toward ancient law-givers if they had anything to do with religion, Lady Justice would have to take off the rest of her toga and put on jeans, a t-shirt and an i-pod. How silly would that be?

Well I guess 4 out of 10 ain't bad. Oh and the four laws you refer to predate Christianity by a millenia.

Of course they do, because Judaism does. And it's not like the basic, generalized concepts are all that difficult to come up with. "Don't kill people without a good reason" isn't exactly rocket magic to figure out. Nevertheless, when we originally codified our particular attitudes concerning murder, justifiable homicide, self-defense, etc. into law, we derived our attitudes from a cultural history of Christianity, not Buddhism or Islam or Zoroastrianism or whatever else you want to throw up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

First, Jesus made it clear that money was never a priority, even when giving to the poor. Helps of many kinds can be given, even personal help from oneself rather than money. Then Jesus considered following Him, and abiding by God's commandments to be more significant than the help for the needy. Jesus told at least one person, "Let the dead burry the dead, come follow me now." This was when he had asked a person to become one of His kingdom kids. We can still give foor and blankets, even while taking care of issues of our own. There is no sin in that, unless it is about "love of money" on our part.

Jesus did not heal everyone he passed. Jesus said the poor will always be with us. We will not ever win the poverty war. Jesus would rather they learn how to fish rather than to give them food. Then they can do it for themselves.

Where it is possible, we certainly need to be about doing the community well. However, not all of the problems are our tasks.

but the point i was making is these libs making the claim Jesus said to take care of the poor and them supporting the government FORCING the unwilling to do so
Jesus said to do it YOURSELF
not force others to do it

If "these libs" are not actually working in the Kingdom work (the Christians) then you are correct, they are getting someone else to do their job. That is waong, but worse is that these same libs that are not doing their jobs are likely the same ones robbing the boopr with emotional calls for their money.

However, If these libs are actually out there serving the community, and society, they may be just trying to get some help because it is a huge job.

Shame on the church for not stepping up to the plae and being the church.

Which church, precisely, is it that isn't "stepping up to the plate"? Be specific about which church is falling short of its duties, and how.

I personally am not one of the libs, I do not support the government takeover, and while I am not well to do, I do reach out to my community as much as I can.

That too is not enough. I would call for the "True Church" to stand up, and get to work. I know that I can do more if I am among the workers.

The government is stepping in where it does not belong.

How about before you go pompously "calling for" things, one assumes in order to look fair and open-minded, you document for us that there's a NEED for you to "call for" it? Your blank, unthinking assumption that OF COURSE, the accusations of church negligence are well-founded offends me. Go suck up for popularity points somewhere else.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well I guess 4 out of 10 ain't bad. Oh and the four laws you refer to predate Christianity by a millenia.

With all due respect, so what?

Well with all due respect there are MANY Christians that think these laws are some how exclusive to the Ten Comandments.......They are WRONG!

With all due respect - which is to say, not an iota of it - you're replacing what you THINK people think with what they actually believe. I don't know any Christians who believe that ONLY Christians think randomly killing people, for example, is a bad thing. All we've ever said is that our Framers operated from a viewpoint informed by a Christian culture and heritage handed down for millennia. They didn't come to their opinions because Mohammed espoused it, or some contemporary philosopher did, or whatever.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well with all due respect there are MANY Christians that think these laws are some how exclusive to the Ten Comandments.......They are WRONG!

Some, perhaps. But why make such a big deal out of the few and the uninformed?

Becuase the FEW and UNINFORMED are an EXTREMELY vocal MINORITY!

Looking at your posts, I'd have to say THAT is certainly true.

 

[Cecilie1200]

yeah, i'm sure the mongols and the huns had real problems in killing people
LOL

Forget the Mongols and Huns, look at Somalia today. Or perhaps Zimbabwe.

that too
or the Zulu

or the Inca's or Druids
none of them had problems with killing

One of the things that is unique about Christianity is that, while many cultures abhor abusing and mistreating your neighbors, Christianity expands the definition of "neighbors" to include all other human beings, not just those who share your race, religion, culture, etc.

 

[Gudrid]

::sigh:: No, "establishment" does not refer to the act of establishing, mostly because that wouldn't be a noun. That would be the verb, "establish".

Learn to use a dictionary. And learn what a noun is while you're at it.

es⋅tab⋅lish⋅ment  [i-stab-lish-muhnt]
–noun
1. the act or an instance of establishing.

Actually, it's NOT your choice, because you have no freaking choice about it, other than to walk away and not get your business done. Oh, you can bitch and moan, just as you can bitch and moan about them taking a coffee break, but there's not a damned thing you can do about it.

I can leave. Kids can't leave public school. I am not required to be there. Get a brain.

Now let's review your devout Christianity.

One of the things that is unique about Christianity is that, while many cultures abhor abusing and mistreating your neighbors, Christianity expands the definition of "neighbors" to include all other human beings, not just those who share your race, religion, culture, etc.

With all due respect - which is to say, not an iota of it -

dumbass.

MAYBE I'll be interested in hearing what you have to say about how they should practice their religion. But I doubt it, because I'm fairly certain it will still be akin to listening to a virgin give sex lessons.

"You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas."

Particularly love the last one, comparing your "neighbors" to dogs because they believe something you don't.

I do enjoy irony.

 

[AllieBaba]

Forget the Mongols and Huns, look at Somalia today. Or perhaps Zimbabwe.

that too
or the Zulu

or the Inca's or Druids
none of them had problems with killing

One of the things that is unique about Christianity is that, while many cultures abhor abusing and mistreating your neighbors, Christianity expands the definition of "neighbors" to include all other human beings, not just those who share your race, religion, culture, etc.

Which is why it's Christians who go into the most dangerous countries and risk death (and die by the hundreds and thousands) to help the ppl being held hostage by tyrants and animals.

 

[AllieBaba]

Last I heard no atheists were getting in line to do that.

 

[rdean]

Last I heard no atheists were getting in line to do that.

Why would atheists want to do something so stupid? Go where you are wanted, stay away from where you aren't. It's only common sense. Guess it's not that "common".

I like the idea of kids praying in school Much better than learning. "Dear God, please do my math test for me".