E=mc²? Einstein goes the way of Darwin: Conservapedia's war on Relativity.

Remove all ads!

Plenty of religious people appreciate the separation of church and state as well, Ragusa. The idea of one religion being favored over another in matters of public policy is not very palatable (unless you happen to be the favored religion.) However, separation of church and state does not mean that religious groups are to be muzzled. Like any other group of people, they have every right to be involved in public affairs and lobby for their interests to the government.

It seems that when a religious group is successful in their lobbying attempts*, the accusation of violating church and state separation gets trotted out by the really anti-religious people out there. That's utter nonsense. It's just as nonsensical as a religious group arguing that every time they lose a political issue, there is an anti religious plot against them. Both have occurred.

 

I am talking of the sort of people who find it apt, to take a very crass case, to to put the ten commandments on display in front of the court house. Or people who keep talking about America being a Christian Nation, founded on Judaeo-Christian principles.

If these people aren't just nutty they are pandering. If that is so, they must be pandering to someone.

Their message resonates with those conservatives who not only not appreciate the separation of church and state - they are openly hostile to the idea and outright deny it exists. And that number is large enough make pandering to it a politically rewarding activity for Republicans to indulge in.

 

Quite likely, you do live in Texas after all. Before anyone comes right out and puts the words in my mouth, I'm not accusing all, or even most, atheists of being liberals. I'm just saying that there is an influential liberal atheist movement, and that it's extremes can get pretty nasty.

That was actually a very difficult case, and different judges ruled different ways, because the US criminal justice system is descended from the Jewish system. Not that system alone, of course, and maybe it would have been more appropriate if, next to the Ten Commandments there were Aristotle, blind Justice, and that guy who used a fly to tell which shovel killed a man in India*, but there was some reason for it to be there. It was just a question of if it was enough.

*Or whatever, I'm not that familiar with the story.

 

NOG,
it is alway interesting to see which points you don't choose to respond to.

Besides, I have some serious difficulties believing that American criminal law is in fact based on Jewish law. English common law appears to be much more plausible.

---------- Added 0 hours, 14 minutes and 6 seconds later... ----------

Too late for my previous post, but here's Conservapedia's article on Separation of Church and State:

Just so we close the circle.

 

It is and many historians would agree. The country was founded by Englishmen, with some notable caveats:

In some ways the US has evolved very differently, but English Common law is largely the source. The Constitution is supposed to be the ruling document, but in recent events and administrations we've seen how that goes....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States

 

Likewise to you, Ragusa.

English common law was strongly influenced by the Catholic Church, which strongly held to the Old Testament, including the Ten Commandments. I never said immediately decended from, just that one can trace a 'lineage' of sorts. One can also trace a 'lineage' to the Greek philosophers, which is why I mentioned Aristotle, and to the school of thought that demands proof (which some scholars attribute to the shovel thingy), thus the other guy. Or maybe Sherlock Holmes would so.

Nonetheless, probably all of Europe can trace significant parts of it's legal ideology back to Judaism. You can thank the medieval Catholics for that.

 

Wait a minute. Catholics are not Jewish. In fact, they were the major source of violence against Judaism, and Jewish people, in the Middle Ages. I think you are confused, since you seem to be implying Judasim and Catholicism (especially as it was practiced in the MA) are ideologically the same thing. The Catholic violence against Judaism is a very deep stain upon the Church, IMO. And I don't mean to offend anyone who is Catholic in that regards, and it was the MA after all, but it was especially despicable, in my opinion.

English common law, as I understand it, came out of the Norman Conquest in 1066. But nevertheless, there were already courts in Anglo-Saxon England before the Conquest based upon courts that were set in motion by Alfred the Great, during the last years of Anglo-Saxon England. But he was continuing the work of his forefathers in that regard. Although his Doom Book included the 10 Commandments, it was largely based on Christian principles and the teachings of Christ (which many Jewish people would not recoginze), rather than Judaism, since Alfred was a devout Catholic. Alfred probably had a much kinder view of Judaism than the Normans who came after him. Although much of the Anglo-Saxon religious tolerance towards Jewish people that appears in Ivanhoe is probably fantasy.

I studied Alfred somewhat, and lectured on him as part of my history final exams at my university. Christ is a looming figure in Alfred's thinking regarding most anything of importance, and the law was no exception. But the new Norman ruling noblility, who came after Alfred, made a number of changes to the Anglo-Saxon systems, very intentionally, I might add.

In thinking about any number of influences that went into the mix of English common law, especially by the time it gets to the US, one cannot say that it is based upon only one thing. Like many English institutions there are many influences (including Roman) that must be considered. Certainly both Jewish and Christian influences are there in greater or lesser amounts, but English Common law must be seen as an independent system, in it's own right, much like American law.

 

Me? No, I am just lazy. If I have to chioose between responding to you at the length you expect and RL/gaming time I choose the latter.

Also, I hate quote/comment quote/comment quote/comment quote/comment quote/comment quote/comment quote/comment quote/comment quote/comment quote/comment quote/comment quote/comment quote/comment quote/comment quote/comment quote/comment posts and find them unreadable. I rarely use more than two quote items for readability and layout (call it a professional deformation).

In contrast, you always reply, at sometimes lamentable length, and you not addressing two out of three arguments is, as I said, telling. Feel free to disagree.

 

And they also held very strong views on things like the Ten Commandments and such. Witches were burned, remember? That's OT-style justice. I'm not arguing for a second that Catholicism in the middle ages and Judaism were the same thing. I'm arguing that Catholicism referenced Jewish law in the Old Testament even as they tortured Jews to convert or die.

This. This has been my point all along. It is ridiculous to say that the Ten Commandments didn't have a significant impact on the US ideology of law. It is equally ridiculous to say they are the only influence, which is why I didn't. In fact, I specifically said that some other major figures belonged up there as well.

It's simple. I rarely feel the need to reply to things I agree with, and when I do it's usually a simple endorsement of the idea because I think it needs repeating. I agree with your other two arguements. America is not a Christian nation. It was founded, in part, on Judeo-Christian values, but the founding fathers worked very hard to make sure it wasn't a Christian nation. At best, we may (someday) be a nation of Christians (being a nation of the people, after all), but we will never be a Christian nation without some substantial re-writes to the Constitution. Likewise, Separation of Church and State has been ruled on repeatedly by the Supreme Court. It's not directly in the Constitution, but like the Right to Privacy, they've imputed it in. And for good reason. Different courts have interpreted it different ways, and there really are some activist loons who want to ban all people of religious beliefs from government office, but the Separation is here and needs to be addressed.

As for your overall point, that the Right still panders to it's religious side, I've already addressed that. These are issues that don't really cost the Republicans anything. If they say these things, the only people offended are those who probably weren't voting for them in the first place, while those who would be offended if they said the opposite are voting for them. For now. And again, my overall point that the Left does the same thing stands. They pander to their fringe, too.

 

First, who are they? Second, what do you mean by "...and such?" Alfred was a devout Christian. He would be more comfortable by the motto, which was oft used at the time "Christ's Mercy," being carved outside the courtroom doorway, as he would the "Mighty Ten." As a Christian King Alfred felt real tension between the exactness of Judaic Law and the Codes in the teaching of Christ: "Be merciful and you shall receive mercy." This was a real problem for a real Christian ruler, because he wanted to honor both. Of course, the Normans who came after him were largely concerned with weilding power, so the problem of constructing and revising the Anglo-Saxon law codes was more easliy solved for them. Please note that I am not applying the following to anyone here:

Today, the problem is much more easily side-stepped by lazy, know-nothings who laugh it off with claims, "They [Judaic Law and the Codes of Jesus] are really the same thing, so why worry with such details?" And those judges who show the Code of Mercy for crimes within the courtroom are really just Liberal Activist Judges, who can't be Christian, or even religious [all liberals are atheists anyway], so let's just forget all that, and put up in the doorway the motto(s) which best suits our political agenda and displays our long-standing tradition of "faith in God."

If King Alfred had only thought of that....

 

Oh, FFS, please. A simple point was made that many European legal systems were influenced by the Old Testament 10 Commandments. Maybe not directly descended from, there were other many other influences, etc etc etc, but the point is simple and doesn't require a great deal of hair-splitting. Given the tremendous amount of power wielded by Christian religions in Europe for hundreds of years, this isn't too much of a stretch and is certainly not debatable. The relative benefits and degree of influence is, but the existance of significant influence. NOG may have worded it poorly, but he didn't say anything that merits such unbelievable nit-picking.

 

Nit-picking? NOG? Are you new here?

 

Sorry, in the larger context of the discussion, 'they' were the Founding Fathers. As for the 'and such', I would strongly suggest anyone interested in the Law to read past the Ten Commandments. That wasn't all God set out. He also set out laws for accidental injury, accidental death, small claims court, and a whole slew of other stuff. Much of which still has some mirror in modern American law and justice.

And thankyou, LKD, for understanding, but Chandos is right. Nitpicking any argument you don't like but can't refute is long-standing tradition in the Alleys.

 

Yeah, but it's not really an argument, even, just a statement of fact. People can hate Christianity, or believe that it's influence has been lousy, or whatever, but to say "it didn't have an influence at all" or such is ridiculous. It'd be like saying "Gold is now an evil thing, and we hate it, so we are now going to say that gold had nothing to do with the migration of so many people to California in the era around 1849."

 

I thought we were discussing Judiac law? or both? Besides, who said anything about "hating it?" Or are you just going off on a tangent?

But while you are at it, don't forget the part about "the Founders" being for separation of Church and State.

 

I find the assertion that American Law was strongly influenced by Jewish Law pretty ludicrous.

OT style justice? That's stoning. And the burning of witches was to cleanse their souls on earth through purifying fire so they would be spared hell - difficult to comprehend nowadays, despite it's brutality, that was considered a mercy - please find me the bible passage referring to such reasoning and I might change my mind on the (lack of) extent to which medieval law was influenced by the OT. Alas, I don't expect you to be able to deliver on that challenge. Medieval justice had already evolved significantly from the OT.

It is a very different thing to say: You have broken the 8th (or for all you heretics 7th) commandment and thus are to be hanged, or to say, you committed theft and stole property and the punishment for that is death by hanging because you violated somebody else's property and we punish that harshly.

What you conclude with your reference to 'OT-style justice' is that the punishment was death, ergo, it was just like in the OT because the result coincides with biblical law. That is fallacious.

The idea of natural rights as held by English common law is key. In the OT you don't have rights. God demands and you obey, or else. That is the nature of divine law.

IMO the idea of natural rights appears to be inherently in friction with the ideas of divine law and total submission under God's law. The idea of natural rights dates back to the Stoics. It was later rationalised and reconciled by Catholic theologians, namely St. Thomas Aquinas, under classical influence, that these natural rights were given to man by God, but that is already a great leap away from the OT.

And the idea of natural rights is corrosive to an order of divine law as it raises tricky questions, like: Do you also have rights vis a vis your deity? You do not if God gave you these rights, but you do if you have these rights by mere merit of being man. Now that opens a can of worms ... imagine Abraham telling God: Me sacrificing Isaac? You kidding? We have rights! Who do you think you are!? See you in court!

All of which only underlines that St. Thomas Aquinas was a very wise man.

 

Isn't this where we get the term "Judeo-Christian"? I mean, despite the assertions of KKK like folks to the contrary, Jesus was Jewish. He talked a LOT about the Law and such, and one way of looking at his activities is that he advocated going to the spirit of the law rather than rigid legal inflexibility. But his ideas involved going "a step beyond" mere legalities.

The OT had a pretty interesting legal code laid down, one that attempted to cover all sorts of contingencies. For it's time, it was a pretty good (and progressive!) system. I haven't studied it extensively, but if you look at the 10 Commandments, a number of them (and their subsequent interpretations and such) address issues we are still facing today. They may not have been addressed in a way we like as modern people who have evolved in our understanding of how laws should work, and some elements of the law were religiously and symbolically significant, but in terms of criminal law, the idea of the punishment being equivalent to the crime is in there pretty strongly.

 

You have that in the Hammurabi codex as well, but what does that say? That Hammurabi was influenced by Jewish law? Rather it suggests that it was a Middle Eastern idea in the broader sense, and shared across the region.

 

I've never understood that term. It makes about as much sense as, Pagan-Judeo-Christian-Muslim. When in doubt, just check "all the above," I guess.

Well, yes, of course. But think of it in the reverse, LKD: Do Jewish people think of themselves as Christian? Hardly. Nevertheless, some people who are fond of this term tend to think of them as the same [Christian], just that "Jewish people are misguided," and that in the Last Days they will all understand that they were [are] all really Christians all along. If you go in for that thinking, I suppose it makes sense, within that narrative. But that is only one narrative [the evangelical], among many other narratives and possibilities.

But we are dicussing secular government. If you wish to have a theological discussion, that would be entirely different. America is a plurality, after all is said and done. THAT is the freedom we all share. Not the "freedom" to be a member of the prescribed "state religion." I realize that is not what you are saying, but that is where the track leads to in the not-too-far off distance.

Again, if religion is your objective, that's well and good. But secular law, within a pluralistic society, has to account for a wide range of religious and non-relgious ideas regarding "freedom and liberty." That is our topic, atm -- freedom and liberty.

 

I strongly suggest you investigate this topic more. There's a lot more to God's Law for the Jews than 'God demands and you obey' and, while no rights are officially spelled out, it is quite easy to read many rights in from what is presented.