Should God's Law be the Law of the Land?

[Foxfyre]

Are we discussing the religious beliefs of the founders again? How futile.

This is a subject that interests only those with theist and atheist agendas. In the real world it doesn't matter. Laws as they pertain to governance are human constructs to begin with. Laws as they are recognized in nature simply are what they are. God's Laws are simply up to individuals to apply to their own lives as they see fit. End of story. Besides, the Jews observe hundreds of laws, while Christians observe a much smaller list. Which sets of laws are we talking about?

Many of the founders were Christians. Some of them had deist leanings as influenced the The Enlightenment. Who the fuck cares?

The thread topic is whether God's law should be the law of the land. For the rest of your comments, I will refer you to my immediately preceding post.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Are we discussing the religious beliefs of the founders again? How futile.

This is a subject that interests only those with theist and atheist agendas. In the real world it doesn't matter. Laws as they pertain to governance are human constructs to begin with. Laws as they are recognized in nature simply are what they are. God's Laws are simply up to individuals to apply to their own lives as they see fit. End of story. Besides, the Jews observe hundreds of laws, while Christians observe a much smaller list. Which sets of laws are we talking about?

Many of the founders were Christians. Some of them had deist leanings as influenced the The Enlightenment. Who the fuck cares?

The thread topic is whether God's law should be the law of the land. For the rest of your comments, I will refer you to my immediately preceding post.

So if the question is whether or not we should be a theocracy, what does the beliefs of the founders have to do with that? The Constitution was derivative of classical liberalism, not Biblical Law. I have yet to see any correlation between the Bill of Rights and the Commandments. The predominance of parochial education in our formative years does not make it so. God's law being the law of the land makes us a theocracy. This is not debatable. The 1st Amendment is pretty clear in guarding against a theocracy. Why confuse what the founders set down in the Constitution and what we, over 200 years later, THINK they believed? It is a futile and pointless endeavor.

 

[koshergrl]

Who said the Constitution was based on the ten commandments?

It's not. But the basic tenet of liberty, free will and the inherent equality of men under God, is a Christian one.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Who said the Constitution was based on the ten commandments?

It's not. But the basic tenet of liberty, free will and the inherent equality of men under God, is a Christian one.

The basic tenet of liberty, free will and inherent equality are those of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism itself was influenced to some degree by the Protestant Reformation, true, but fundamentalists tend to overvalue this influence for obvious reasons. The Reformation was part of a massive cultural shift in Europe that was already taking place, lest we forget that the Magna Carta preceded it by about 300 years, or that the concepts of due process originated from it.

I acknowledge the influence of the Protestant Reformation. It's hard not to if one values our Western ways, which I do. Fundamentalists tend to overvalue this influence, which I do not. I think we differ mostly in terms of degree.

 

[hortysir]

Perjury (lying = bearing false witness)
Theft (stealing)
Murder (killing)
Even Adultery was illegal in many places for ages
Some old Blue Laws banned a wide range of things on Sunday (keep the Sabbath holy)

 

[Hollie]

Are we discussing the religious beliefs of the founders again? How futile.

This is a subject that interests only those with theist and atheist agendas. In the real world it doesn't matter. Laws as they pertain to governance are human constructs to begin with. Laws as they are recognized in nature simply are what they are. God's Laws are simply up to individuals to apply to their own lives as they see fit. End of story. Besides, the Jews observe hundreds of laws, while Christians observe a much smaller list. Which sets of laws are we talking about?

Many of the founders were Christians. Some of them had deist leanings as influenced the The Enlightenment. Who the fuck cares?

The thread topic is whether God's law should be the law of the land. For the rest of your comments, I will refer you to my immediately preceding post.

Quite clearly, we have experience with “god’s law” (the Christian gods) being the law of the land and it was a waking nightmare. The Dark Ages, Inquisitions, witch burning, philosophers and thinkers being under the boot heel of the Christian clergy. That was awful.

A cursory look at Christianity’s long history of bellicose imperialism reveals what is at stake. Warring over national or political disputes is one (awful) thing. But an ongoing, centuries-long campaign of violent and offensive subjugation of humanity and the human spirit of inquiry in the name of Gods is quite another. There is no future in a free and peaceful world for such unreformed, unenlightened medieval thinking.

Because the distillation of centuries of ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, principles and convictions, the Magna Carta, the work of Locke, Hume, Rousseau, Paine, et al. into a codified framework of law that guarantees rights and liberties to all people— we have a fair and pluralistic way of life that hundreds of thousands of good men have died defending is where this nation has evolved.

 

[koshergrl]

Just when I think you can't be more stupid or ill informed, you post a gem like the above.

It doesn't even warrant criticism other than...ignorance, thy name is hollie.

 

[Hollie]

Just when I think you can't be more stupid or ill informed, you post a gem like the above.

It doesn't even warrant criticism other than...ignorance, thy name is hollie.

It's best you stick with ignorant and pointless comments such as you litter the board with. As usual, your whacked-out, fundie zealotry leaves you to babble.

 

[koshergrl]

Ah, the tried and true "you're just a fundie!" argument, lol.

Never mind that it's patently untrue, but carry on. I have yet to see you post one truthful or even remotely factual statement. I'm sure you will eventually...I mean, the odds are that at SOME point, you'll just accidentally be correct about something.

Hasn't happened yet, but hope springs eternal.

 

[Hollie]

Ah, the tried and true "you're just a fundie!" argument, lol.

Never mind that it's patently untrue, but carry on. I have yet to see you post one truthful or even remotely factual statement. I'm sure you will eventually...I mean, the odds are that at SOME point, you'll just accidentally be correct about something.

Hasn't happened yet, but hope springs eternal.

Ah, your usual inability to offer a meaningful comment.

When it comes down to sharing hope in the pursuit of knowledge and denying hope as a manifestation of ignorant, selfish Christian fundie extremism, it's reassuringly apparent which side the vast majority chooses. Progress happens regardless of the haters.

 

[koshergrl]

Your posts don't warrant any meaningful comment. When you write something true, or meaningful, then you'll get meaningful feedback.

Until then, all we have to do is point and laugh. Anyone with a shred of education recognizes your abject ignorance when it comes to religion, history, law, and the constitution. All you have to do is write something. You expose yourself. Nothing else needs to be said about it.

 

[Hollie]

Your posts don't warrant any meaningful comment. When you write something true, or meaningful, then you'll get meaningful feedback.

Until then, all we have to do is point and laugh. Anyone with a shred of education recognizes your abject ignorance when it comes to religion, history, law, and the constitution. All you have to do is write something. You expose yourself. Nothing else needs to be said about it.

It's an exercise in futility. Gag a Christian zealot. Shake a shiny object before her crazed eyes to get her attention. Calmly delineate in simple declarative sentences of user-friendly monosyllables a logical progression of folly from belief in the supernatural to a fragmenting, humiliating disaster in the courts. Nod reassuringly. Slowly remove the gag. It is inevitable that the Christian fundie zealot will defiantly screech and sputter something as cogent as
" we are entitled to push our Christian agenda. The entitlement is already there "
and thrill at her triumph of idiosy.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.

 

[koshergrl]

So you maintain the constitution doesn't afford us to freedom of religion?

Brilliant, kook.

 

[Hollie]

So you maintain the constitution doesn't afford us to freedom of religion?

Brilliant, kook.

So, You are typically befuddled, but I understand where such self-deception is necessitated by your rigid mindset.

 

[koshergrl]

You're the one who said the Constitution doesn't provide for freedom of religion, kook.

 

[Hollie]

You're the one who said the Constitution doesn't provide for freedom of religion, kook.

Nay, 'tis but the flaccid fundie’s strutting boast, and the hollow promise of coherent sentences that underscores yet again the feeble imposter.

 

[koshergrl]

Do you think you're being cerebral there, nutbag?

 

[Hollie]

Do you think you're being cerebral there, nutbag?

Might you provide specificity concerning the primary areas of your ignorance? I'll strive to enlighten you as best I can, but a holistic transformation is a tall order.

 

[koshergrl]

Good grief.

Now I'm just sort of sad for you.

 

[Hollie]

Good grief.

Now I'm just sort of sad for you.

Amongst fundie whackjobs, It is disappointing that you are unable to avoid what is, sadly, a clear spiritual pitfall.