A must read for those who disagree with Chief Justice Roy Moore - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

drbrandini · #1 08-27-2003, 10:28 AM

Separation of Church and State ...who said that???

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

Darrell Woods · #2 08-28-2003, 10:23 PM

Drbrandini, thanks for posting. It's amazing that people will ignore the facts and still say that our founding fathers did not base their decisions, their lives, and our very government on Biblical principals.

MTI · #3 08-28-2003, 11:08 PM

Is there a shortage of churches, temples, shrines, tabernacles or other places of worship in this country so that clearly religious "monuments" need to be erected in public places?

As for this country's founding based on judeo-christian beliefs . . . I don't believe the "First Nation" inhabitants were really into that cult.

moparmike · #4 08-29-2003, 12:29 AM

Quote:

If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base.

Bull$hit. To say that one cannot have morals and ethics without believing in God is complete and utter bull$hit, and I willl not stand here and let someone spew this tripe while I am around. A little less blind belief and more reasoning is called for here.

unkl300d · #5 08-29-2003, 01:02 AM

Well Moparmike, if you reason your moral beliefs based on self discipline alone, that is great. However , if you believe in moral principles in order to preserve your fellow man, then at some point in time you will reach a crossroad where you have experienced so much grief from your fellow man and can no longer bear to use him/her
as your moral base.
A superior being, i.e. God, is meant to transcend the mortal condition and all its trappings.

So, the hope lies in being able to transcend most or all frustrations and keep one's moral bearing.
Otherwise the crap hits the fan and the towel is thrown in.
Use your imagination for conjuring up scenarios of consequential emotional/psychological venting.(choose your weapon)

Anyway, religion does offer emotional and psychological 'brakes' for many people who would otherwise transform themselves into some real earthly problems. (Call 911 !!!

)

If you are personally able to cope with all of the problems around you basing your strategy on pure reason alone, then , in my opinion you are close to being a saint and that much closer to God.

Pat yourself on the back and believe! Yeah believe in yourself and see beyond your own mortal shell.

Does your Mercedes have a soul?
Do robots dream?

What's your favorite pizza?

jjl · #6 08-29-2003, 04:46 AM

I'm with moparmike on this one. Absolutely right and well said. I get really fed up reading that if you do not believe in fairies you are morally bankrupt. I do not need a threat or a reward in the afterlife to lead a decent life. I do it because I want to.

Someone said once (I'm paraphrasing) 'If people did not believe things that there is no evidence for, it would transform the world'.

You think god is looking after you? What about the 'problem of pain'. Why do children die? What's that for? To teach us a lesson?Why are there diseases that strike the innocent? Have you even read any cosmology books - the universe is BIG, we are a tiny micro-speck of slime, existing for a micro-fraction of time. It's the ultimate arrogance to think all of this is for us in any sense. Yes - think for yourself.

sohj · #7 08-29-2003, 12:03 PM

Just gotta finally jump in on this topic.

Disclaimer first: I AM NOT A JUDICIAL SCHOLAR. That said, I AM a lover of history and, though my life doesn't give me much time to do it these days, I read a lot of primary sources. For those who have never studied history, a "primary source" is stuff written at the time of events by people who were witnesses (or who claim to be, part of a historian's job is to figure out if the source is "reliable"). I have not looked at any of (Founding Father who lots are arguing about lately in this church/state debate) Jefferson's writings since high school. I have, however, recently started rereading David Hume, a Scottish philosopher of the 18th century. (This is pertinent, bear with me )

Now, jump to another subject: Not very long ago, what was USUALLY claimed as the basis for the US legal system was "english common law". This is the kind of law that exists in a place with a monarch (no, not a butterfly ) who is the 'ultimate court of appeal' and a fairly stable populace. Stable in caste and stable in location. This is stuff like, "I graze my sheep on the common because I've always done it, and my father before me and his father before him." And then the local earl (who owns, umm, let's say 10,000 acres upon which lay two villages and greens with sheep and a large market town) decides he was really in need of some new orchards and decides to plant them on the common. If the yeomanry are lucky and the monarch is travelling nearby and due to "hold court" (which CAN include a ball like in the sanitized fairy tales, but ORIGINALLY meant to sit in judgment), the people who are being evicted from their ancestral grazing rights can go to the King (or Queen) and beg for an audience and if they get it can present their case and MAYBE, if the earl has recently pissed off the King and if the King is aware how important a happy peasantry is (ranks of longbowmen in the next war, for example), the earl has to plant his orchards elsewhere. [An early attempt to make this more consistent was the Magna Carta, signed by King John, younger brother of Richard Lionheart at Runnymeade. Here is a translation found on the British Library site: http://vincent.bl.uk/cgi-bin/htm_hl...ter_first_match ]

NOW, notice, no one brought up what was done in another town at a different 'court'. There is no use of "precedent".

SO, here is where I always wondered why on earth we were supposedly so indebted to English Common Law

Recently, probably since the Great Newt Revolt (or is the Greatly Revolting Newt ), I have heard this claim that our law is based on the 10 Commandments of the Judeo-Christian Tradition. (But, but, but, didn't Mel Brooks drop the other tablet and we REALLY had fifteen? --- never mind, scratch that )

I've got to say, this is the first I've heard of it.

Yes, it is true that the 10 Commandments are brought up as a great code of law. But, so are the Code of Hammurabi, the laws of the thanes among the Norse, Solon, Solomon, Draco (who we get the word "Draconian" from), Eshunna and the Roman Empire. IN FACT, SPQR was what I usually recall as being hailed as the source of our laws -- American Republic and Roman Republic? Get it? (Nudge, nudge) Btw, SPQR stands for Senatus Populusque Romani -- the Senate and the People of Rome. (See http://iuscivile.com/ to get sources to read if you are interested.)

AND, an interesting thesis has been suggest to me by the book How the Scots Invented the Western World, which was loaned to me by a friend at work who insisted I read it. That is that much of our legal system grew out of the thinking of a number of Scottish Enlightenment philosopers (hence my reference to David Hume -- read about him in brief here: http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jlync...eople/hume.html -- in the first paragraph) and the work of several judges in Edinburgh who were determined to make the legal system of Scotland (Yeah, yeah, I know they are part of the United Kingdom, but there is a long story behind that and, besides, lawyers who can practice in England STILL can't practice in Scotland because of their different legal system and bar.) follow the "Rule of Law" instead of the somewhat potentially arbitrary "English Common Law" as described above. (Of course, the English Law is NOW NOT arbitrary as they have a Constitutional Monarchy. Things have been written down and, I think, dragging "predecent" into the courts is allowed.)

If you have read this far, you will agree we need a wiping-the-brow smilie.

here is a link on the history of western jurispridence from the Catholic University of America: http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Law508/Law508.html If you check this out, you will note that there is no lecture titled "The 10 Commandments". I'm sure he brings it up some time; but, it doesn't seem to be a major issue.

rickg · #8 08-29-2003, 12:16 PM

Had kind of a hard time following that, but interesting.
For you O'Rielly fans, here's what I thought was a well put commentary on the subject, one I pretty much have to agree with:

"What is really behind the Ten Commandments (search) controversy? That's the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo. It's not about the commandments monument in the Alabama hallway. This is about a significant power in this country that does not want any mention or reminder of spirituality in public, period.

On the radio today, a guy called me, named Sean from Virginia, and he admitted it. He said it offended him to hear the word "God". And he didn't care if it were attached to any religion or not. He just didn't want to hear the word.

So that's what this dispute in Alabama is all about. But if you look deeper, there's another reason why people like Sean want to banish God. The secularists in America have an agenda. They want total personal freedom. That means no judgments about anyone's behavior. They want legalized drugs, gay marriage, soft criminal penalties, and rehabilitation in prisons instead of punishment.

The agenda goes on and on, but the message is that the USA should be a place where all non-criminal conduct is permitted and moral judgments about right and wrong should never be made.

If you take the God factor out of the country, that agenda is easier to impose. But that would lead to social chaos. Last night, I told you about a guy who lit up a marijuana cigarette in front of two young boys at a rock concert. Now I made the idiot put it out, but he didn't want to. And if drugs ever become legalized, he'll be able to blow that pot smoke right in your kids' face. Is that the kind of society you want, where any kind of boorish behavior is acceptable?

In my upcoming book, Who's Looking Out for You?, I prove that the Founding Fathers (search) wanted a spiritual presence in the public arena for a very practical reason. They understood the new government did not have the power to control behavior. They rightly figured that a God-fearing people would behave better than people with no moral boundaries.

So in every debate about the Constitution, God was mentioned. I have all the letters written between [James] Madison and [Thomas] Jefferson in my home library. There's no question those two men, who forged the Constitution, wanted God on the minds of Americans.

But now we have powerful judges and politicians who reject the intentions of the framers. And that is what we are seeing in the Ten Commandments debate. Those slabs in Alabama do not establish any religion, nor do they intrude on any sane person's sensibilities. They are simply a reminder that our laws are based on Judeo-Christian philosophy. And the Alabama debate is a reminder that our freedoms and traditions are under assault by secular forces."

I couldn't say it any better than that.

sohj · #9 08-29-2003, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by brain_DUMP
So many people have had their heads screwed up by reading too many books and then questioning even their own very existance in efforts to feel scholarly, intelligent, certain, or released from loved ones with true faith. Certain we say? Yes, they want to be certain so for some stupid reason they choose un-certainty to count on. Release we say? Some of these people hate their relatives or loved ones who are bible thumpers. The choice is their's, they've been given free will to choose and: God help them.

I consider myself both a scholar and a bible-thumper. I read and study and follow up connections and examine various conclusions. Sometimes I change my mind. I also attend regular Sunday Meeting at the Society of Friends. We are all "bible-thumpers" in that the 'service' has no 'preacher'. We all speak as we are moved to as the spirit enters us.

What exactly is "true faith"? We are all seeking. We will not know in this world.

And, frankly, this reponse I quoted above is a good example why we should stick to Rule of Law rather than Rule of Faith. Because they are Seekers, Quakers were, once upon a time, branded as Unbelievers and persecuted. As a 'bible-thumper' (and a descendant of bible-thumpers, some even Lutheran), I treasure separation of Church and State.

moparmike · #10 08-29-2003, 02:24 PM

I feel it necessary to point out that not every Atheist or Agnostic is a moral saint, and niether is your most devout bible-thumping believer. Just because one does not believe in God or doesnt know wether a God exists doesnt make them a morally bankrupt heathen, nor does twice-weekly attendance at services and community service make a morally upstanding citizen. Lots of people who go to church sin. Lots commit more unspeakable acts than most Agnostics/Athiests.

Lets not bunch everyone together as "Godless, morally corupt heathens" or "Moral God-fearing bible-thumpers" just because they have or do not have a "common" belief.

Logic. Its whats for dinner. Paid for by the Council for Reasoned Logical Thought.

rickg · #11 08-29-2003, 02:36 PM

I have to agree that it doesn't take a belief in God,or whatever, to make a good person. I think those kinds of claims are a bit blind.
And on the other side of the coin, I've seen/known plenty of "church-goers" that ain't so great.
But I do believe that the foundations of decent living are rooted in theology. But hey, that's my opinion as a "church goer".

Oh yeah. I'm not exactly sure Timothy Leary is a person to look to for good living philosophy

drbrandini · #12 09-02-2003, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rickg
Oh yeah. I'm not exactly sure Timothy Leary is a person to look to for good living philosophy

HAHAH Rick ! I second that !