Not Good: A&E Violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Letting Phil Robertson Go

[Pogo]

And they had to reinstate him because............

They reinstated him because they thought that would be the most financially profitable direction for the corporation.

Bullshit.

No top executives make decisions solely on the basis of profits, a myth long disproven to anyone that has to work with these numb skulls. Way far too often they make stupid decisions on the basis of resentment, faction, nepotism, hoping for sexual favors, etc.

They are human beings with all the attendant weaknesses and most often playing with fortunes they themselves did not create and this causes them to be lacking in confidence and ridden with guilt for having something that they did not earn without a lot of help from friends, family and others.

Unmitigated horseshit. A for-profit business works on one goal only and that is the bottom line. Everything A&E did, and does, and will do in future, is based on whoring to its advertisers. Period. Corporations do not have "confidence", "guilt trips" or emotional hissyfits. That's your job.

 

[Pogo]

It's your specious claim, skippy. You haven't backed it up or even come close to convincing ANYBODY that a morality clause is applicable, or even exists in this case. . You lose by default.

No, it's your specious claim, Skippy. See the bolded part. You declared it doesn't exist -- so where's your evidence?

Wassamatta? Can't answer?

Now you trying to pass blame on to others? Your pathetic.

She made the claim, she can't back it up. That's all there is to it. Like it or lump it, turdball.

 

[Pogo]

I don't see any references to a moronality clause. In fact, except from popo, I haven't heard a reference to one during this whole debacle.

Here's a good article.

Again, I have nothing against Christianity or Phil. I just want to drive through the point that A&E had a right to terminate him if they wanted to. Apparently that viewpoint warrants being called "cum breath" by some of the more loving Christians out there on the board.

If you fire someone for their religion it is against the law.

--- which just confirms that that's not what happened here. If that had been the case, Phil would have had "hand" and could have sued them. He didn't; the move was up to A&E, since they had the capacity to take the action in the first place. It was A&E that had hand, since they were the aggrieved party, contractually speaking.

Rule One of legal machinations: you can tell who's in control by their actions or lack thereof. That's why you and your comic fantasies of religious persecution are completely and utterly full of shit.

 

[kaz]

Yeah, I didn't mean Thanatos was lying.

The phrase 'wall of separation' is the lie that 20th century libtards have twisted into suppressing religious expression and I was referring to.

The establishment of religion the Founding Fathers referred to is the Church of England, and the damage such relations have on the religion are easy to see.

Absolutely, there is no wall of separation. There is a ban on creating a State religion and forcing people to follow a religion. There is nothing in this country that protects people from hearing things they disagree with. And there should not be.

Phil can say and do whatever he wants with regards to gay people, black people, bestiality, etc and will not be arrested. This is a wonderful thing, as it is "freedom of speech".

However, the discussion at hand is about a private contract between A&E and Phil R. A&E hired him so that he can make their network look good and make money. When Phil says something of a controversial nature, and attracts negativity towards himself and the network, he may no longer be doing the job he was hired for and thus A&E has the right to protect itself by suspending Phil.

This isn't about morals, religion, etc, it's about CONTROVERSY. If GLAAD had not stirred up things, and people didn't get genuinely upset, Phil would have never of been suspended. This is a key. Again, I don't commend GLAAD from creating a controversy, but you can't simply deny that it generated thousands of facebook posts, thousands of blog comments, news stories, writeups, you name it regarding Phil's comments. AND this may be a breach of contract for a public representative.




.

I'm not a fan of Pat Robertson at all. But GLAAD sure made him look good in this. The guy is in fact extremely intolerant of anyone who thinks differently than he does. It's impressive that the left so completely outdid him on that. As for your points, I took the op to be tongue in cheek, and my posts were likewise.

 

[Pogo]

No, you lying jack ass. She said, "You declare it does exist...but have provided no evidence."

She is pointing out that you have not proven your claim and therefore there is no evidence to believe the morality clause says anything if it is even there.

roflmao

So when a demonstrated cricketeering bullshit artist declares something exists, it exists. When I challenge her to show it, I'm a "liar".

No, you lying jack ass, that is not what is going on here and you know it.

You say that Phil violated a morality clause in his contract. And the relevant facts are:

1) You admit you cannot provide proof of such a clause which means this is just a guess on your part.

2) A+E is not talking about such a clause, and I don't think they ever did. Which means this is a pathetically idiotic guess on your part and probably intended as no more than just a distraction.

3) KG pointed out that you have provided no evidence. She does not have to prove the clause is not there; the burden of proof is on you.

And you are well aware of all of this. You just think you are being so clever derailing the thread, but in fact, you are working against your own interests by continuing to bump the thread, and providing an illustration of what idiots libtards are these days with your long list of posts that are simply stupid lies.

So keep helping us to prove that you and most libtards are simply lying idiots. It really does work for us, lol.

The whine -- it flows copiously.

Once again for the molasses-synapsed, KG made the claim that there is no morality clause; as the maker of the claim the burden of proof is on her; without that proof her claim has no merit. I don't make the rules of logic; that's how it works.

A&E doesn't need to show you, me, or anyone else in the public the language in its morality clauses. The only people who need to see that are A&E, Phil Robertson, and their attorneys. Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Your desperation in trying to rewrite history is kind of pathetic.

 

[KevinWestern]

Absolutely, there is no wall of separation. There is a ban on creating a State religion and forcing people to follow a religion. There is nothing in this country that protects people from hearing things they disagree with. And there should not be.

Phil can say and do whatever he wants with regards to gay people, black people, bestiality, etc and will not be arrested. This is a wonderful thing, as it is "freedom of speech".

However, the discussion at hand is about a private contract between A&E and Phil R. A&E hired him so that he can make their network look good and make money. When Phil says something of a controversial nature, and attracts negativity towards himself and the network, he may no longer be doing the job he was hired for and thus A&E has the right to protect itself by suspending Phil.

This isn't about morals, religion, etc, it's about CONTROVERSY. If GLAAD had not stirred up things, and people didn't get genuinely upset, Phil would have never of been suspended. This is a key. Again, I don't commend GLAAD from creating a controversy, but you can't simply deny that it generated thousands of facebook posts, thousands of blog comments, news stories, writeups, you name it regarding Phil's comments. AND this may be a breach of contract for a public representative.




.

I'm not a fan of Pat Robertson at all. But GLAAD sure made him look good in this. The guy is in fact extremely intolerant of anyone who thinks differently than he does. It's impressive that the left so completely outdid him on that. As for your points, I took the op to be tongue in cheek, and my posts were likewise.

Hey, I'm not defending GLAAD here in the least and I never claimed that they used truthful or honest tactics to kickstart this mediastorm off.

My point - which should be taken as completely neutral - is that GLAAD did in fact kickstart a controversy that ended up spreading on its own accord, organically sometime later. GLAAD accomplished the task they set out to do (at least initially). Jim is trying to deny that there ever was a controversy and I'm saying it's absurd to say that. My facebook wall was blown up with Phil Roberston bullshit for about 2 days straight.

And because of that controversy (which may or may not be based on valid evidence or facts), Phil may have been in violation of his contract which supposedly has a section that basically says "don't stir up public opinion against yourself or we can fire you".

 

[Pogo]

He's irrelevant. Just a troll.

What part don't you understand?

I got it.. cheers.

lol, no, you don't get it if you thank anyone but Pogo is the troll.

Here is the post that started your exchange:

Really? Despite the negative controversy the openly Muslim host is stirring up, the Christian network does not have the right to do anything? That sounds pretty darn silly, Jim.

This is not a "freedom of speech" discussion. Phil is not going to be arrested, and the government is not going to bust into his house with troops dressed in black to drag him away to the Ministry of Love; the man is free to do what he wants as far as I'm concerned. He is allowed to freely express himself.

This is instead a discussion about whether or not A&E has the right to fire a TV representative for bringing unwanted negative attention towards their company. Phil is hired to make money and bolster the strength of the network; when he is ceasing to do this, A&E aught to have the option to fire him.

They can fire for any reason they come up with that is not based on race, religion, or gender. It's the law. They would have a hard time proving/claiming it was because of a morality clause.

Firing someone for expressing their faith 1) off the job, 2) in private off the record, 3) relating to essential values of that faith is to fire them for their religion.

Even from a purely legalistic point of view, this whole thing could be taken before a jury and won, and I have given cases where plaintiffs have won against employers using morality clauses in their contracts.

Shame you cant see the plain facts and just don't get it, dude.

You lying dishonest hack sack of shit. Here you are admitting the morality clause process after bending over backward to try to pretend it doesn't exist. Go **** yourself, dishonest hack.

And trust me, Brownie's a lot smarter than you think he is, and certainly smarter than you. As are most life forms on the planet.

 

[Pogo]

Phil can say and do whatever he wants with regards to gay people, black people, bestiality, etc and will not be arrested. This is a wonderful thing, as it is "freedom of speech".

However, the discussion at hand is about a private contract between A&E and Phil R. A&E hired him so that he can make their network look good and make money. When Phil says something of a controversial nature, and attracts negativity towards himself and the network, he may no longer be doing the job he was hired for and thus A&E has the right to protect itself by suspending Phil.

This isn't about morals, religion, etc, it's about CONTROVERSY. If GLAAD had not stirred up things, and people didn't get genuinely upset, Phil would have never of been suspended. This is a key. Again, I don't commend GLAAD from creating a controversy, but you can't simply deny that it generated thousands of facebook posts, thousands of blog comments, news stories, writeups, you name it regarding Phil's comments. AND this may be a breach of contract for a public representative.




.

I'm not a fan of Pat Robertson at all. But GLAAD sure made him look good in this. The guy is in fact extremely intolerant of anyone who thinks differently than he does. It's impressive that the left so completely outdid him on that. As for your points, I took the op to be tongue in cheek, and my posts were likewise.

Hey, I'm not defending GLAAD here in the least and I never claimed that they used truthful or honest tactics to kickstart this mediastorm off.

My point - which should be taken as completely neutral - is that GLAAD did in fact kickstart a controversy that ended up spreading on its own accord, organically sometime later. GLAAD accomplished the task they set out to do (at least initially). Jim is trying to deny that there ever was a controversy and I'm saying it's absurd to say that. My facebook wall was blown up with Phil Roberston bullshit for about 2 days straight.

And because of that controversy (which may or may not be based on valid evidence or facts), Phil may have been in violation of his contract which supposedly has a section that basically says "don't stir up public opinion against yourself or we can fire you".

Bowie lives in his own world, a delusional cesspool fed by the river of de Nial.

 

[Pogo]

Here's a good article.

Again, I have nothing against Christianity or Phil. I just want to drive through the point that A&E had a right to terminate him if they wanted to. Apparently that viewpoint warrants being called "cum breath" by some of the more loving Christians out there on the board.

If you fire someone for their religion it is against the law.

Phil was never in danger from being fired for being a Christian. He's been a Christian for years - correct?

Phil was suspended because he made comments that were interpreted as hateful and thus caused a public uproar. Key word is "interpreted". I don't believe Phil said anything hateful - personally - but other individuals interpreted his words as such and this threatened the health of the network. This discussion is about stirring unwanted controversy, which is sometimes a breach of contract.

When you have a multimillion dollar company, it's smart to protect yourself at times of controversy (lol) and this is exactly what A&E did.

Not sure what you folks are whining about.

Correct, way before A&E came along -- which means they hired him with exactly the same religion he has now, and that hasn't changed, so there (again) goes that stupid argument.

Had they hired him a while ago, and then last week Phil up and says "I'm converting to Shinto" and A&E then says, "we don't like Shinto, you're fired", THEN you have a case. Without something like that all we have is a hair-on-fire Paranoia comic book.

 

[Pogo]

We are upset that Phil was canned for quoting the Bible all because militant gays wanted him punished.

Phil said nothing controversial. He got targeted by GLAAD because Phil stated the TRUTH.

Jim - I (personally) actually agree with you in that I don't think what he said was that big of a deal. However, the word "controversy" isn't yours (alone) to define. To say he didn't stir up a controversy is absurdly dishonest. He absolutely did.

OK, dude, let me break this down for you in terms of cause and effect.

We have factor 1) Phil gave an off the record interview that included a Bible quotation.

2) A+E had no problem with the interview until.....

3) GLAAD made threats to A+E to punish Phil or else. we then had a....

4) 'Controversy' that was entirely a media driven event.

5) A+E stood to lose NO MONEY from what Phil said, in fact it is MAKING THEM MONEY.

The idea that A+E let Phil go because his remarks would hurt their business is a laughable lie. Only an idiot or an ideologue would assert such a thing, or maybe a lawyer hired to say silly things.

A+E fired Phil because they feared the fascists at GLAAD. And GLAAD was purely trying to suppress Phils religious views.

Phil was fired for his religious beliefs, and not anything he did on the air, on company property or that hurt A+E's revenue. NONE OF THAT HAPPENED.

If you want to continue to look like an idiot, keep insisting that Phil was not fired for his religion. That was what dorve GALAAd and what A+E responded to.

Again, people on Facebook talking about it in large numbers, blogs talking about it, newspapers writing about it, etc. Some of it was in his defense, and some of it was negative towards both Phil and A&E.

This is controversy. I never even heard of DD before the incident.

Perhaps it was started by GLAAD, but it grew into something real. You can't deny this.

The greatest part of the controversy was the blowback A+E and Cracker barrel got for giving in to GLAAD. The biggest part of the public AGREED with Phil. So nothing he said brought a 'bad light' to A+E, dumbass.

Phil made them even more money and they will likely see a BIGGER AUDIENCE AND MORE AD REVENUE! GALAAD hates Christianity, bluffed A+E into firing Phil for his religious views, that is the sequence of events here.

So go ahead and continue to insist that had nothing to do with religion, idiot, lol.

I put the flaw in your stupid argument in bold red for ya. A&E acted for one reason: to protect its own ad revenue. To avoid having advertisers pull out due to an adverse image of one of its actors. That's the whole reason actors on a show like this always have a morality clause. It protects their investment.

A&E sells illusions, as does all TV. This Phil Robertson illusion is one of them. What would happen if, say, one of their regular pawn shop actors turned up arrested for crack? Morality clause kicks in, pawn guy fired, A&E saves face, advertisers satisfied, and business goes on.

DUH.

 

[koshergrl]

No, it's your specious claim, Skippy. See the bolded part. You declared it doesn't exist -- so where's your evidence?

Wassamatta? Can't answer?

Now you trying to pass blame on to others? Your pathetic.

She made the claim, she can't back it up. That's all there is to it. Like it or lump it, turdball.

No, YOU made the claim (that he was suspended for violating a non-existent morality clause) and YOU couldn't back it up.

Which makes your claim a specious one, and proves me right when I say that.

"
spe·cious

adjective \ˈspē-shəs\ : falsely appearing to be fair, just, or right : appearing to be true but actually false"


Specious - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Pogo]

Now you trying to pass blame on to others? Your pathetic.

She made the claim, she can't back it up. That's all there is to it. Like it or lump it, turdball.

No, YOU made the claim (that he was suspended for violating a non-existent morality clause) and YOU couldn't back it up.

Did I. Can you quote it?

(insert crickets)​

Exactly.

Let's run it yet again in s l o w m o for the sluggish of synapse:

Ah Poto and the nonsensical 'morality clauses' diversionary tactic again, lol.

Robertson wasn't any more suspended than anyone else who was on hiaitus waiting for shooting to resume. Cuz there was no applicable morality clause, and A&E isn't about to dump their golden egg laying goose. Americans love him.

And once again... your evidence for this absence of a clause is.......... where?

(insert crickets)​

Exactly.

Here's your clock back.

It's all cleaned. Nomsayin'?

 

[KevinWestern]

Now you trying to pass blame on to others? Your pathetic.

She made the claim, she can't back it up. That's all there is to it. Like it or lump it, turdball.

No, YOU made the claim (that he was suspended for violating a non-existent morality clause) and YOU couldn't back it up.

Which makes your claim a specious one, and proves me right when I say that.

"
spe·cious

adjective \ˈspē-shəs\ : falsely appearing to be fair, just, or right : appearing to be true but actually false"


Specious - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I posted a few links (and so did he) from various news sources that confirmed a "morality clause" was written into Phil's contract, and this was the basis for the suspension. The most recent one was from a Fox News website.

 

[WillReadmore]

Rape murder stealing ALL in the bible now move along .

No, there have been laws against these all over the world and throughout time.

How in the name of Reason does your statement plausibly contradict his?

And there have been societies that legalized murder, such as Nazi Germany and the Aztecs.

So what is your point?

You claim that our laws against murder are an indication that our laws come from the bible.

I'm just pointing out that every society has laws against murder, and the existence of such laws says NOTHING about their source being the Bible.

Look up "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" - a common source of fallacy.

 

[WillReadmore]

Then you are an ignorant fool.

Christian ecclesiastical law mimicked OT law, and English common law took much of its formation and process from Ecclesiastical law.

You do grasp how US law is derived from English common law? or are you as ignorant on that topic as well?

Look at the features of US law that I listed. Those are the central foundation of law in the US, and those features are not topics related to anything in the Bible.

I agree that our system developed over time in a context that included Christianity.

But, the features in our law are a secular response. They are NOT some sort of refined version of Leviticus.

True, they are an evolved version, sir, and they are inspired by the NT if not the OT as well.

Were it not for the Biblical teachings of morality, legal rights and the concept that the law stands above the king himself we would never have had a Magna Charta nor a Declaration of Independence both of which make direct reference to God.

Charter of Liberties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Were it not for the Biblical teachings of morality we would still have a foundation of morals. Every society has that.

The "legal rights and concepts" you speak of don't come from the Bible. They come from secular law.

Our law sprang from the contest between church and state (kings) and the abuse of kings as they won that contest and had to be reigned in without returning significant governmental power back to the church.

We got habeas corpus, personal rights, legislature, democracy, etc. etc. as means for the people to maintain dominance over both kings and religion.

Suggesting that these things came from the church is LAUGHABLE. The church doesn't care about habeas corpus, rights of individuals, democracy, etc. The church has God They don't need the people (as long as they don't revolt). These tools were developed and used AGAINST the church dominance that had to be opposed - the dominance that gave us the inquisition, "Bloody Queen Mary", and the religious belief in the rights of the church, NOT the rights of man.

Clearly, there was some back and forth. For example, the church needed protection from the kings, too. But, the solution the church has to offer is NOT democracy, capitalism, and personal rights.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Were it not for the Biblical teachings of morality we would still have a foundation of morals. Every society has that..."

True.

But our (Western) morality would look much different, without such teachings. And, of course, the Bible was chosen long ago as the medium through which Standardized Morals would be communicated across the generations during the formative centuries of Europe and its satellite and descendant cultures.

"...The 'legal rights and concepts' you speak of don't come from the Bible. They come from secular law..."

A mix-and-match, actually; some truth in the idea; some inaccuracy; given how heavily the secular law of The West leans upon Judeo-Christian scripture as its basis or philosophical mothership.

"...Our law sprang from the contest between church and state (kings) and the abuse of kings as they won that contest and had to be reigned in without returning significant governmental power back to the church..."

Our law sprang from Roman Law and Germanic-Frankish (Salic/Salian) Law and Canon (Church) Law; much evolved but containing recognizable principles and practices. The struggle between Church and Christian Prince played its part in the birth and evolution of secular law but that struggle was more catalyst and accelerant than it was a provider or inspiration of content.

"...We got habeas corpus, personal rights, legislature, democracy, etc. etc. as means for the people to maintain dominance over both kings and religion..."

Very true, in large part.

"...Suggesting that these things came from the church is LAUGHABLE. .."

Only if you lack a solid historical understanding of the diverse elements which comprise modern secular law and the 1500-2000 year-old journey that our secular law has taken to get us to where we are today.

"...The church doesn't care about habeas corpus, rights of individuals, democracy, etc. The church has God They don't need the people (as long as they don't revolt). These tools were developed and used AGAINST the church dominance that had to be opposed - the dominance that gave us the inquisition, "Bloody Queen Mary", and the religious belief in the rights of the church, NOT the rights of man...

If you are trying to say that Canon Law, viewed separately, lacks a focus upon the rights of the individual, most folks would offer mixed reviews; there are, indeed, a wide array of individual protections in Canon Law; some of which found later expression in secular law; some of which did not; in country A or B or C as Christendom broke up.

"...Clearly, there was some back and forth. For example, the church needed protection from the kings, too. But, the solution the church has to offer is NOT democracy, capitalism, and personal rights."

Canon Law and canonical interpretations and precedents were utilized for much of the post-Roman period, the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages, and into the Renaissance and Enlightenment and beyond, to define and enforce criminal, civil and social justice.

You seem at-risk of confusing the Mode of Government (kings, autocracies, parliaments, etc.) with the Means of Government (laws).

I respectfully suggest that you do a little more close reading on the nature of Canon Law in The West (Christendom) - specifically, that evolved by the Roman Catholic Church and tweaked and split-off and closely borrowed-from by various Protestant denominations during and after the Reformation. You'll find more attention to individual liberties and rights and protections, and more attention to property rights and limitations on the secular authority (in its dealings with the layman as well as the church) than I think you're giving Canon Law credit for.

Just a thought...

 

[thanatos144]

She made the claim, she can't back it up. That's all there is to it. Like it or lump it, turdball.

No, YOU made the claim (that he was suspended for violating a non-existent morality clause) and YOU couldn't back it up.

Which makes your claim a specious one, and proves me right when I say that.

"
spe·cious

adjective \ˈspē-shəs\ : falsely appearing to be fair, just, or right : appearing to be true but actually false"


Specious - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I posted a few links (and so did he) from various news sources that confirmed a "morality clause" was written into Phil's contract, and this was the basis for the suspension. The most recent one was from a Fox News website.

Show me the contract. Otherwise shut your f****** lying mouth

tapatalk post

 

[beagle9]

Even from a purely legalistic point of view, this whole thing could be taken before a jury and won, and I have given cases where plaintiffs have won against employers using morality clauses in their contracts.

That tactic, I believe, only works if you are supported by the Liberal Machine -ACLU or other Soros mechanisms

I would like to see it work for the conservatives - do you know of any instances of successful litigation where a conservative plaintiff prevailed ?

Conservatives don't sue to make a living, they work for it the most of them.

 

[beagle9]

"...Were it not for the Biblical teachings of morality we would still have a foundation of morals. Every society has that..."

True.

But our (Western) morality would look much different, without such teachings. And, of course, the Bible was chosen long ago as the medium through which Standardized Morals would be communicated across the generations during the formative centuries of Europe and its satellite and descendant cultures.

"...The 'legal rights and concepts' you speak of don't come from the Bible. They come from secular law..."

A mix-and-match, actually; some truth in the idea; some inaccuracy; given how heavily the secular law of The West leans upon Judeo-Christian scripture as its basis or philosophical mothership.


Our law sprang from Roman Law and Germanic-Frankish (Salic/Salian) Law and Canon (Church) Law; much evolved but containing recognizable principles and practices. The struggle between Church and Christian Prince played its part in the birth and evolution of secular law but that struggle was more catalyst and accelerant than it was a provider or inspiration of content.


Very true, in large part.


Only if you lack a solid historical understanding of the diverse elements which comprise modern secular law and the 1500-2000 year-old journey that our secular law has taken to get us to where we are today.

"...The church doesn't care about habeas corpus, rights of individuals, democracy, etc. The church has God They don't need the people (as long as they don't revolt). These tools were developed and used AGAINST the church dominance that had to be opposed - the dominance that gave us the inquisition, "Bloody Queen Mary", and the religious belief in the rights of the church, NOT the rights of man...

If you are trying to say that Canon Law, viewed separately, lacks a focus upon the rights of the individual, most folks would offer mixed reviews; there are, indeed, a wide array of individual protections in Canon Law; some of which found later expression in secular law; some of which did not; in country A or B or C as Christendom broke up.

"...Clearly, there was some back and forth. For example, the church needed protection from the kings, too. But, the solution the church has to offer is NOT democracy, capitalism, and personal rights."

Canon Law and canonical interpretations and precedents were utilized for much of the post-Roman period, the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages, and into the Renaissance and Enlightenment and beyond, to define and enforce criminal, civil and social justice.

You seem at-risk of confusing the Mode of Government (kings, autocracies, parliaments, etc.) with the Means of Government (laws).

I respectfully suggest that you do a little more close reading on the nature of Canon Law in The West (Christendom) - specifically, that evolved by the Roman Catholic Church and tweaked and split-off and closely borrowed-from by various Protestant denominations during and after the Reformation. You'll find more attention to individual liberties and rights and protections, and more attention to property rights and limitations on the secular authority (in its dealings with the layman as well as the church) than I think you're giving Canon Law credit for.

Just a thought...

Interesting stuff..

 

[WillReadmore]

I respectfully suggest that you do a little more close reading on the nature of Canon Law in The West (Christendom) - specifically, that evolved by the Roman Catholic Church and tweaked and split-off and closely borrowed-from by various Protestant denominations during and after the Reformation. You'll find more attention to individual liberties and rights and protections, and more attention to property rights and limitations on the secular authority (in its dealings with the layman as well as the church) than I think you're giving Canon Law credit for.

Just a thought...

The Holy Roman Emperor (for example) certainly had to address law. But, again, that doesn't mean his answers came from the Bible. It just means that when you are the government, you have to come up with answers to questions related to government. This is a posting environment, and I chose to point this out in the large rather than to review the emperors, the kings and queens, et al.

A previous poster claimed our solution comes down from the New Testament. But, the NT has no substantial discussion of any of this. The New Testament is about our relationship with God, and especially Jesus. It has ample information concerning how we should behave and how we should treat each other. But, it is not a treatise on government. Paul says our leaders are given to us by God, so we must respect and follow them. There is nothing about how to evaluate the government they provide. In fact, he was undoubtedly very careful with that given the political climate where he was - Rome.

While religion certainly slowed down progress at times, we came through it. I most certainly do not believe that we need to ignore or discredit the Bible.

BUT, when we consider issues such as the separation of church and state, the incorporation of Biblical passages as laws, state sponsored discrimination, etc. it is seriously important to notice that our entire evolution as a type of government came from secular progress and the subsequent victory of the people over kings and religion in the realm of government. We need to maintain our progress as a secular government, even as we (or some of us) rely on the moral leadership of the Bible.