quote:The supreme court of the United States still has the Ten Commandments hanging on the wall.
I would argue, by the way, to those people who sometimes wonder why atheists make a stink about this sort of thing, or why atheists are so "unreasonable" about getting "under God" out of the Pledge and off our money, that Mal's quote above is actually an excellent example: because those quotes are not there to represent the virtue of a given idea (especially in the case of something like "under God"), but rather to legitimize the claim that ours is a Christian nation. As long as someone like Mal can point to the Ten Commandments on a courthouse wall as justification for the idea that atheists are simply non grata, I will argue that the Ten Commandments should come off that wall.
I would like to see the Code of Hammurabi hanging up there as well. Western society was founded upon those principles. The principles of the commandments and Hammurabi are our heritage. We also draw our senate from the political structure of the Greeks,...no one complains about the Greek columns in DC. Nations were ruled by religion for thousands of years. We now have a nation of religious freedom but it was a bunch of protestant Christians that formed this tolerant nation. The Anglicans, Catholics and Muslims have a long history of intermingling politics and religion. Your freedom of religion is the result of persecuted Christians. These Christians didn't create a Christian nation...they created a fair nation. They gave all what they wanted....religious freedom. What you are proposing is the revision of history.
Maybe we should ban the Declaration of Independence on that same wall since it mentions creation..."All men are created equal". School books and public libraries need to be purged of the speeches of Washington, Lincoln, etc if their words included "God". We should purge our history of any mention of God and it should be against the law for a political figure to utter the word..."god".
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mal: are you just getting tired of coming up with complete nonsense to argue? Your strawmen in this post can't stand up on their own even with the giant poles up their backsides.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would like to see the Code of Hammurabi hanging up there as well. Western society was founded upon those principles. The principles of the commandments and Hammurabi are our heritage.
... not any more so than any other culture, if you want to assume that the principles we have in our 'heritage' originated somehow with Hammurabi just by being a markedly well recovered system of early law. Unless you're arguing that there's something uniquely heritable to the western world over a guy who made such fantastic rules as "If anyone brings an accusation against a man, and the accused goes to the river and leaps into the river, if he sinks in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river proves that the accused is not guilty, and he escapes unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser." or "If a man strikes a pregnant woman, thereby causing her to miscarry and die, the assailant's daughter shall be put to death."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Of course they don't spend alot of time thinking about what it means to atheists when they call America a "Christian Nation" but there it is.
I don't think that is true. I think that calling America a "Christian Nation" is often aimed very much at making non-Christians feel unwelcome or second-class.
It is when it is used within the context of somebody asserting that America needs to be more secular.
I should think that just as often it's used as a means of shoring up confidence amongst the religious when they discuss patriotism.
I think it's a poor practice when used the way you describe, but I'm not going to attempt to denigrate it enough that you feel satisfied.
BB, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by your second part. Are you talking about when Christians are talking internally amongst themselves?
Obviously, I'm not privy to those conversations anymore, but I was talking about when the phrase is used in a more public context.
I'm not looking for some sort of condemnation of this. I was responding to a statement that implied that it didn't really happen all that much, whereas I see it as one of the primary motivations for the statement in nearly all of the cases that I see it. If I were looking for anything, it would be an acknowledgment that it does in fact happen, a lot.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Western society was founded upon those principles. The principles of the commandments
Let's look at a breakdown: * You shall have no other gods before me
Unconstitutional to enforce
* You shall not make for yourself an idol
Unconstitutional to enforce
* You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
Unconstitutional to enforce
* Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
Unconstitutional to enforce
* Honor your father and mother
Unconstitutional to enforce
* You shall not murder * You shall not commit adultery * You shall not steal * You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
Pretty much present in every civilized society, regardless of exposure to Christianity.
* You shall not covet your neighbor's wife * You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor
Unconstitutional to enforce
So... a few "golden rule" sort of things that are universally observed, and most of it not only ignored but actually illegal for the government to recognize.
Now, where in the Bible are these important principles enumerated?:
* Free speech * Freedom of press * Right of due process * Right to bear arms * Separation of powers/checks and balances * Freedom of religion
Some of these are the means by which US citizens are permitted to legally break several of the commandments which you identify as founding principles of the nation.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Now, where in the Bible are these important principles enumerated?:
* Separation of powers
Luke 20:25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You said "separation of powers" not "executive, legislative, and judicial branch". And Caesar wasn't a king, he was an emperor.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dob--separation of powers does mean the separation of the government into three equal branches. It does not mean separation of the power of the state and of the church. Easy misunderstanding considering where this discussion began.
Mal--I continually wonder how people argue that listing the 10 commandments does not promote 1 state religion since the exact commandments listed as the "10" vary depending on whether you are Jewish, Catholic, or a couple varieties of Protestant. Check out the Wiki article on the 10 commandments. Where one stops and the next begins is debatable. If you choose one group of 10 you are there by showing a preference--saying one faith is right and the other is wrong.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Separation of powers means allocation of powers between more than one governmental body, in this case the theocratic monarchy in Judea and the Roman imperial government.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Now, where in the Bible are these important principles enumerated?:
* Free speech
Acts 25:15-21. Paul upon being arrested and accused by certain Jews, was arraigned before Festus. "There is a certain man left in bonds by Felix: About whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me, desiring to have judgment against him. To whom I answered, It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have license to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him. Therefore, when they were come hither, without any delay on the morrow I sat on the judgment seat, and commanded the man to be brought forth. Against whom when the accusers stood up, they brought none accusation of such things as I supposed: But had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive. And because I doubted of such manner of questions, I asked him whether he would go to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these matters. But when Paul had appealed to be reserved unto the hearing of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I might send him to Caesar."
Festus was hesitant to judge Paul, as it appeared his accusers and him had a religious dispute, in the next chapter we have Paul giving his defense before Agrippa, Acts 26:22-32, "Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles. And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad. But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness. For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds. And when he had thus spoken, the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them: And when they were gone aside, they talked between themselves, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds. Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar." Clearly as far as Agrippa was concerned, Paul merely stating his beliefs did not make him worthy of death. Festus' only contention was that perhaps Paul was insane, but not that he should be punished for speaking things that were making others angry.
quote: * Freedom of press
Obviously there were no presses during Biblical times, and paper was a rare commodity indeed.
quote: * Right of due process
John 7:31, Nicodemus made this inquiry of the Sanhedrin, "Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?" The implication being, no it does not.
quote: * Right to bear arms
Luke 22:35-36, Jesus in instructing his disciples soon before his death, "When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
quote: * Separation of powers/checks and balances
I take issue with this principle as The Bible is designed to instruct God's kingdom, and as such the affairs of churches claiming to belong to Him ought to be good or near perfect reflections of His will. They should not need checks or balances within their hierarchies.
In The Acts we read that though Peter was the chief apostle, on the issue of circumcision, he wrongfully supported the continuation of the practice. Paul, rightly corrected him on the point, and after prayer and consideration it was revoked as a requirement of converts. We also read God specifically instructing Peter to stop requiring the church to eat only foods permitted in the Law of Moses. There are also numerous epistles from Paul, Peter, John, James, etc regulating the affairs of the church when disputes arose. The apostles were a check against deep rooted doctrinal errors in the church as well as amongst each other, and God was a check against Apostolic error. Beyond that, anybody can speak directly to God, and as far as God's will concerns the individual, no person comes between God and that person.
quote: * Freedom of religion
Mark 9:38-40. In response to a man invoking God's name and casting out devils, "And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe the presidential swearing in should remove the last line...."So help me God".
"god" is a very politically neutral term. Once it was "creator" since it was assumed that all people believed in a creating deity. Of course this insn't the case anymore. Still, "god" should apply. "god" is anything. "god" doesn't mean the father of Christ, Zeus, etc. "god" is what leads your life and what you worship. Even the old testament of the Jews and Christians sais, "though shall not have any other gods before me". "god" doesn't implicate religion. It implies whatever it is that is most important to you. Your god could be money, sex, power, Ala, Muhammed, self, children, etc,...etc. Even the atheist has a god. Swear upon what is most precious to you. Swear an oath to god. Even if that god is all your worldly possessions.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Acts 25:15-21. Paul upon being arrested and accused by certain Jews, was arraigned before Festus.
I have no idea why you think that a brief narration of one of Paul's encounters with the Roman legal system should be taken as scriptural endorsement for an idea of free speech, never mind robust legal protections for it.
quote:* Freedom of press
Obviously there were no presses during Biblical times, and paper was a rare commodity indeed.
So you wouldn't claim this is a god given right?
quote:* Right of due process
John 7:31, Nicodemus made this inquiry of the Sanhedrin, "Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?" The implication being, no it does not.
Again, narration, not moral command.
quote:* Right to bear arms
Luke 22:35-36, Jesus in instructing his disciples soon before his death, "When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
So this is one of those times when "literal interpretation" falls through? 'Cause Jesus is telling his inner circle to buy a sword and sell their clothes if they have to. There is nothing here about some kind of universal right to own a weapon - unless you want it to be written into law that people have to sell their clothes to buy a sword (not a gun, that wouldn't be literal).
quote:* Freedom of religion
Mark 9:38-40. In response to a man invoking God's name and casting out devils, "And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part."
Ok, so freedom of religion for people that do not actively speak against Jesus. A lot of evangelicals would think that excludes Mormons!
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Once it was "creator" since it was assumed that all people believed in a creating deity. Of course this insn't the case anymore.
I think you perhaps do not understand why the term "Creator" was used so often in the 18th and 19th century instead of the word "god." This information is easily available; I suggest you do some research. You may find that it challenges your preconceptions, here.
quote:"god" is what leads your life and what you worship....Swear upon what is most precious to you.
I submit that this particular definition of "god" is not likely to catch on, except among people who simply want to come up with some excuse to keep using the word "god."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think you perhaps do not understand why the term "Creator" was used so often in the 18th and 19th century instead of the word "god." This information is easily available; I suggest you do some research. You may find that it challenges your preconceptions, here.
Ok, apparently my google-fu is weak. Can you help me out here?
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I submit that this particular definition of "god" is not likely to catch on, except among people who simply want to come up with some excuse to keep using the word "god."
Even if I accepted your interpretations (see Foust's comments), can you show any indication that these scriptures were referenced by the founding fathers. A lot was written about the justification for contents of the Constitution (see the Federalist Papers, for instance), including reference to other legal codes and schools of philosophy so presumably if these aren't post-hoc justifications then you can provide some period documentation that they were used as a an inspiration or basis for our Constitutionally protected rights.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think you perhaps do not understand why the term "Creator" was used so often in the 18th and 19th century instead of the word "god." This information is easily available; I suggest you do some research. You may find that it challenges your preconceptions, here.
Ok, apparently my google-fu is weak. Can you help me out here?
Google Deism. Also, its probably relevant to note that Tom has frequently argued that most Deists of the 18th and early 19th century were actually atheists (or at least proto-atheists).
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since "god" isn't an all encompassing word for what rules a mans life. We ought to replace "so help me god" with a flexible oath of "so help me...(fill in the blank). We could do a profile of the person to figure out what is supreme in their life. I don't have a problem with an atheist being president but an oath should carry some weight. Maybe they could wager their testicles, bank account...ideas anyone? I suppose the next step in this trend is to eliminate oaths all together.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since god doesn't seem to intervene when people break their oaths in his name, I'm not sure why you'd want a substitute.
Eliminating oaths is fine. Just make sure the requirements of the office (or situation) are clear, and set clear consequences for malfeasance or dereliction of duty.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see no downside to making oaths actually binding, instead of hoping an imaginary God punishes somebody in some way after death for breaching them in life.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe the presidential swearing in should remove the last line...."So help me God".
This is not part of the presidential Oath (or affirmation). Presidents do this of their own choice, they are not required to. No one knows exactly when this began, but apparently the legend that George Washington added the words can be traced to a Washington Irving story. The earliest reliable example of a president adding this to the oath was Chester A. Arthur.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe the presidential swearing in should remove the last line...."So help me God".
This is not part of the presidential Oath (or affirmation). Presidents do this of their own choice, they are not required to. No one knows exactly when this began, but apparently the legend that George Washington added the words can be traced to a Washington Irving story. The earliest reliable example of a president adding this to the oath was Chester A. Arthur.
We do know when "so help me God" was added. George Washington. Perhaps it was a personal statement thrown on after the reading the official oath. No president has had the nerve to break from his tradition. Truth be told, "so help me God" wasn't part of the original oath of office. The first president who decides to omit that last line is assured to be a one term president. We may not be a "Christian Nation" but we are a nation that is majority Christian. The rest other faiths that believe in God and an extreme minority of true atheists.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not only is it pretty clear Washington wasn't the first to say "so help me God" (there's not a single contemporary account that he did so, plus it seems the custom then was not to repeat the oath, but to be asked it as a question and respond in the affirmative), but numerous Presidents have not added "so help me God" (and that's on the record).
As for any President not using it being one term, you may be familiar with Teddy Roosevelt, who did not add the phrase, and his two-term presidency.
Lincoln used it at least in his second inauguration . . . but given the second inaugural address, his meaning may well not have been as God-affirming as some would like.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have no idea why you think that a brief narration of one of Paul's encounters with the Roman legal system should be taken as scriptural endorsement for an idea of free speech, never mind robust legal protections for it.
Do you think the New Testament is packed full of narratives where morally neutral lessons are taught? One of the clear lessons of the incident is that the law protected Christianity when it was in its' infancy to an extent. If we wouldn't have wanted Paul executed simply for believing what he did, we shouldn't kill or molest others for doing the same thing.
quote:So you wouldn't claim this is a god given right?
I was simply indicating that in the absence of a press, you can't really create commandments that deal with them. Now that the press exists, one should observe what it is and what it does and believe accordingly. I think since writing is simply words on paper it might as well be treated in a similar fashion to free speeech.
quote:Again, narration, not moral command.
No it isn't. Nicodemus is appealing to the Law of Moses, (and legal precedent) which was designed explicitly to provide for due process. One of the more legitimate criticisms of Jesus' execution was that this due process was not followed properly. I don't think you can seriously argue that Jesus would have opposed due process, having himself not had it available to him.
quote:So this is one of those times when "literal interpretation" falls through? 'Cause Jesus is telling his inner circle to buy a sword and sell their clothes if they have to. There is nothing here about some kind of universal right to own a weapon - unless you want it to be written into law that people have to sell their clothes to buy a sword (not a gun, that wouldn't be literal).
Play around with the passage all you want, at its most basic, Jesus is indicating that there are times when people ought to arm themselves with weapons.
Further, not all that Jesus said was recorded, in fact according to John a tiny percentage was, that leaves plenty of room for his endorsement of principles that you can defend through common sense. (disclaimer: I didn't necessarily mean that owning a gun is a common sense issue.)
quote:Ok, so freedom of religion for people that do not actively speak against Jesus. A lot of evangelicals would think that excludes Mormons!
But who cares!? I can't prevent everyone from misunderstanding others' beliefs. Further the text does not make it absolutely clear he was invoking "Jesus." For all we know he might have simply said "God" and the apostles said, "Hey Jesus is God, so he better be talking about Jesus."
----
Matt:
quote:Even if I accepted your interpretations (see Foust's comments), can you show any indication that these scriptures were referenced by the founding fathers. A lot was written about the justification for contents of the Constitution (see the Federalist Papers, for instance), including reference to other legal codes and schools of philosophy so presumably if these aren't post-hoc justifications then you can provide some period documentation that they were used as a an inspiration or basis for our Constitutionally protected rights.
Your original contention is that the Bible does not support certain key rights found in our constitution. We aren't discussing whether the founding fathers pulled more from the bible or from John Locke.
Were we to discuss that, we'd still have to accept that the founding fathers, as well as many of the philosophers they read so enthusiastically from, would have been very well versed in the Bible. When you are exposed deeply to something you are often influenced by it to a degree.
Having said that, I don't think it would have necessarily been wise to quote direct verses from the Bible as a means to make an affirmative statement in a legal document, or to support it. Sectarianism was as alive and well then as it is now, and it would have allowed conversation on the constitution to degenerate into just another argument about the Bible and who reads it correctly. Better to take any good ideas one has gleaned from the book, and to simply reword them and present it on its own terms. Good ideas, presented well, stand on their own.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
MattP, are you aware you listed 11 Commandments? There are only ten. (This is explicitly stated in Ex. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4.)
The confusion comes because Catholics break up the tenth commandment into two commandments, as if "Do not Covet your neighbor's Wife" is different from "Do not covet anything that is thy neighbor's." Protestants observe that Catholics do this because in their catechisms they lump the second and third commandments together, so they can skip over reading the prohibition against making graven images in the official "summary" of the commandments--which might raise embarassing questions in the minds of anyone who sees all the statues of saints in Catholic churches. Since the Bible states there are ten commandments, they had to divide up the last commandment into two in order to preserve the number.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The confusion comes because Catholics break up the tenth commandment into two commandments, as if "Do not Covet your neighbor's Wife" is different from "Do not covet anything that is thy neighbor's."
So a man's wife is in the same category as his other possessions?
By the way, Jews enumerate the commandments differently than the Protestants or the Catholics.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard that from Lisa. They take verse 2 of Exodus 20 as the start of the first commandment: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." (NASB) But that is not a command, it is a declaration. And to my reason, it is not just a preamble to the first commandment (which properly begins with verse 3--"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.") it is a preamble to all ten commandments.
This is actually a very significant point. What God said here is that BECAUSE the people ARE ALREADY delivered, THEREFORE they will keep the Ten Commandments. The problem arose when many of the people supposed that the Decalogue was the type of covenant that implied that IF they would keep the Commandments, THEN they would be delivered. That is the essense of legalism, and what some people call "the old covenant."
But God has only ever had one covenant to save man. God's Commandments are to be kept because He has delivered us from sin (which Egypt is a type of). There is no point in keeping the Commandments if you are not already saved and restored to a right relationship with God. Just as there is no point in keeping the laws of the land (the divine Kingdom) unless you are already a citizen.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, you describe three versions of the Ten Commandments. You give a very interesting interpretation on why your 10 are the correct ones. Still, there are millions of people who list them differently, some of whom have interesting interpretations of why there's is the correct ones. If the government were to post the Ten Commandments, any of the three versions you have described, would it not then be favoring one faith over that of others. Would it not be saying "The Protestants are Right." if they chose yours? Would you feel as if your faith was under attack if they chose the Catholic version?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have no idea why you think that a brief narration of one of Paul's encounters with the Roman legal system should be taken as scriptural endorsement for an idea of free speech, never mind robust legal protections for it.
Do you think the New Testament is packed full of narratives where morally neutral lessons are taught? One of the clear lessons of the incident is that the law protected Christianity when it was in its' infancy to an extent. If we wouldn't have wanted Paul executed simply for believing what he did, we shouldn't kill or molest others for doing the same thing.
Obviously there is a distinction between narrative and teaching. The book of Judges says that "every man did what was right in his own eyes," and guess what? There is no consistent condemnation of that fact; it is just narration, just justification for full blown moral relativism. Yes, the NT is packed full of morally neutral narrative, and of course it is also packed full of moral teachings. There is no reason why it can't be both and.
Your last sentence would still be true even if Paul had been executed at that point, and you can draw that conclusion with or without divine commands.
There is a world of difference between saying "scripture says X happened" and "scripture commands, suggests or recommends X."
By the way, you own example is actually evidence that our system has more to do with Roman law than anything the Bible could lay claim to.
quote:
quote:So you wouldn't claim this is a god given right?
I was simply indicating that in the absence of a press, you can't really create commandments that deal with them. Now that the press exists, one should observe what it is and what it does and believe accordingly. I think since writing is simply words on paper it might as well be treated in a similar fashion to free speeech.
And yet, the idea neither appears in nor is solely supported by the Bible. You can't make an argument that a free press is a "God-given" right.
quote:
quote:Again, narration, not moral command.
No it isn't. Nicodemus is appealing to the Law of Moses, (and legal precedent) which was designed explicitly to provide for due process. One of the more legitimate criticisms of Jesus' execution was that this due process was not followed properly. I don't think you can seriously argue that Jesus would have opposed due process, having himself not had it available to him.
I'm not saying Jesus would have criticized due process. You are saying that legal rights are founded in the Bible - that is not the same claim as "Jesus would have liked it."
If you want to expand the concept of due process so ridiculously as to include the Torah, then you're stuck admitting that every culture that has ever had anything like laws has also had due process. Again, no need of the Bible, and there isn't even a close appearance between our system and anything in the OT.
quote:
quote:'Cause Jesus is telling his inner circle to buy a sword and sell their clothes if they have to.
Play around with the passage all you want, at its most basic, Jesus is indicating that there are times when people ought to arm themselves with weapons.
Further, not all that Jesus said was recorded, in fact according to John a tiny percentage was, that leaves plenty of room for his endorsement of principles that you can defend through common sense. (disclaimer: I didn't necessarily mean that owning a gun is a common sense issue.)
I'm getting tired of following your moving goal posts, you're pushing my lazy buttons. Now you're appealing to what Jesus might have said?
quote:
quote:Ok, so freedom of religion for people that do not actively speak against Jesus. A lot of evangelicals would think that excludes Mormons!
But who cares!? I can't prevent everyone from misunderstanding others' beliefs. Further the text does not make it absolutely clear he was invoking "Jesus." For all we know he might have simply said "God" and the apostles said, "Hey Jesus is God, so he better be talking about Jesus."
Then people who do speak against God/The Force/Whatever are excluded from your religious freedom.
quote:Your original contention is that the Bible does not support certain key rights found in our constitution.
Well, you are refusing to make the obvious distinction between "appears in" and "supports."
quote:Were we to discuss that, we'd still have to accept that the founding fathers, as well as many of the philosophers they read so enthusiastically from, would have been very well versed in the Bible. When you are exposed deeply to something you are often influenced by it to a degree.
Having said that, I don't think it would have necessarily been wise to quote direct verses from the Bible as a means to make an affirmative statement in a legal document, or to support it.
And this is what alllllll the "Christian nation" defenders eventually come down to. Faith statements about the minds of the framers.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Were we to discuss that, we'd still have to accept that the founding fathers, as well as many of the philosophers they read so enthusiastically from, would have been very well versed in the Bible.
Mm. looking at, say, Jefferson's interpretation of the bible ...
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Having said that, I don't think it would have necessarily been wise to quote direct verses from the Bible as a means to make an affirmative statement in a legal document, or to support it.
But there isn't even incidental mention of the Bible in *any* of the documents that mention the development the Constitution or supporting its ratification (though some ratification opposition was Biblically based). It's not in personal letters, journals, nothing. If it was a source, it was an incidental or indirect one.
The primary law of the Bible, the Ten Commandments, would largely be not only incongruent with our legal system but actually in direct violation of its governing principles. It seems odd that a claim could be made that our government was founded on Biblical principles, but only the lesser principles that appear in scattered parables and anecdotes.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Darth, Catholics quote the same Scripture that Protestants and Jews do. The only difference comes in the way that Catholics SUMMARIZE the Ten Commandments in their catechisms. Maybe someday the Ark of the Covenant will be found, and the original tablets of stone on which the Ten Commandements are inscribed can be witnessed by the world. Then we will know how the commandments are listed. Hopefully they will be grouped in separate paragraphs.
Glenn, the Bible does explicitly refer to them as the Ten Commandments. Ex. 34:28: "And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments."
Also as definite is Deut. 4:13: "And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone."
Likewise Deut. 10:4: "And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me."
"Be fruitful and multiply" may have been the first command the Bible records that God gave to mankind, but is a "command" the same thing as "commandments," especially when specified as "the ten commandments"?
Actually, the Hebrew for "commandments in the texts I quoted is dabar, which according to Thayer's Bible Dictionary means "words." So the original literally calls them "the ten words." But context, refering to them as the ones written by God on tables of stone and spoken by God from Mt. Sinai amid the smoke and fire, leaves no doubt which writing this is.
Gen. 1:28 says: "God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply...." The Hebrew for "said" here is amar. So this does not say "command" either.
The first time the actual word for "command" is used, tsavah, is in Gen. 2:16, 17: "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it...."
So the first explicitly stated command by God to man was the one that our first parents disobeyed, and brought the inheritance of sinful rebellion upon all their progeny.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron I understand the difference is only in the way that they enumerate them, but I've yet to see a copy of the 10 commandments outside the Bible that isn't enumerated for the reader. In fact they are usually dressed up to look like ancient stone tablets with Roman Numerals before each one (which is strange as they predate Rome and Roman Numerals).
So wouldn't having such a display in a Governmental building be sanctioning the religions that enumerate them that way over those that do not?
Further, if you insist that such displays are only reflections of where our law originated, shouldn't we use the Jewish numeration? After all it is the most historical.
Or if you insist that since our law is based on English law we should then use the Catholic numeration. After all there are 17 centuries of Catholic influence on European and English law, while at the time of the writing of the constitution, less than 2 centuries of Protestant influence.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And yet, the idea neither appears in nor is solely supported by the Bible. You can't make an argument that a free press is a "God-given" right.
You're right, I don't think I was trying to contend that it was. I took issue with Matt asking for Biblical support of a device that did not exist.
quote:Your last sentence would still be true even if Paul had been executed at that point, and you can draw that conclusion with or without divine commands.
We are not discussing about whether these principles can be independently reached without the Bible's assistance. We are discussing whether the Bible supports those principles either in commandment, or discussion, and if the founding fathers were influenced by the Bible when they wrote up the constitution.
The Bible allows for the existance of good outside of what it discusses. Look at Paul's statement in the new testament,
Phillipians 4:8, "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."
If something leads you to believe that it increases any of those things, it becomes a commandment from God that you endorse it and learn to apply it properly.
I admit, the Bible does not do much of a job in discussing how to create a secular republic, but that is because the people who it discusses were attempting to live in theocracies. So in that sense the Bible is handicapped in how much use it could be to the founding fathers. Having said that, Biblical studies were still required in many of their schools, if you quoted a passage from the Bible you would expect your average founding father to at least know the passage, if not the reference.
quote:Then people who do speak against God/The Force/Whatever are excluded from your religious freedom.
Well, yes. If they act on their beliefs then I certainly can't be expected to sit there while they molest me. I wouldn't expect an atheist to just sit there while I invoke God's name and declare that I am comitted to opposing them as much as I can.
quote:If you want to expand the concept of due process so ridiculously as to include the Torah, then you're stuck admitting that every culture that has ever had anything like laws has also had due process. Again, no need of the Bible, and there isn't even a close appearance between our system and anything in the OT.
I think you are wrong. The law provided for the accused to face their accusers, limitations on penalties for certain crimes, a requirement of witnesses, in many cases a jury, a requirement that a trial not be completed in haste, etc.
Not every place with laws also had a tradition of due process. China for example has as long a history as any country, along with laws, but they did not provide for much of a due process if you were not an aristocrat. Even then if enough people believed specific charges were true, you were expected to save everybody the trouble by killing yourself.
quote:I'm getting tired of following your moving goal posts, you're pushing my lazy buttons. Now you're appealing to what Jesus might have said?
I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I'm either shifting my goal posts or too lazy to take you or what I am saying seriously. I assure you I'm trying hard to be an interesting conversant. I tend to forget sometimes what our focus is as thread drift does tend to catch me off guard.
Plainly put, I believe that at the very least the Bible would have been a major source of the founding father's moral framework by virtue of it being such an integral part of the society they lived in. I don't necessarily believe that had the Bible not existed that they could not have come up with many of the ideas that they did, there are many philosophers who are arguably bigger influences than the Bible.
quote:Yes, the NT is packed full of morally neutral narrative, and of course it is also packed full of moral teachings. There is no reason why it can't be both
The Bible is not packed with neutral narrative as it exists to setup the moral lesson. When we read about all the places Paul went to we are meant to draw lessons from it like, "Paul was tireless in promoting his new faith." or "Paul relied on God to preserve him while he was working as his emmissary, rather than the resources he had saved."
The descriptions of Jesus' conduct are just as instructive as the dialogue when learning about how his actions. For example when it says Jesus could do no miracle in Capernaum because of unbelief, the indictment on Capernaum is as loud as if the text had said, "These people are not to be emulated."
----------
MattP: If your statement that there are absolutely no references to biblical verses or ideas in any of the correspondence or debates are true that certainly leads me to believe that you are more likely right than I. I can't say reliably if your claim is false or true, I'd need to do research.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I took issue with Matt asking for Biblical support of a device that did not exist.
The claim was that western society was Biblically based. I was asking for support of that claim by iterating a list of core elements of western society. Freedom of the press (the institution, not the device) is one of those elements. If the answer is that "the press didn't exist in Biblical times" then that is a simple enough admission that the principal is not Biblically based rather than something to "[take] issue with".
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would think that Freedom of the Press is an extension of the notion that a common man can see the Truth themselves and that official experts do not need to tell them what to think - which in turn is a theme in the Protestant interpretation of the New Testament.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I took issue with Matt asking for Biblical support of a device that did not exist.
The claim was that western society was Biblically based. I was asking for support of that claim by iterating a list of core elements of western society. Freedom of the press (the institution, not the device) is one of those elements. If the answer is that "the press didn't exist in Biblical times" then that is a simple enough admission that the principal is not Biblically based rather than something to "[take] issue with".
You are of course right, I think I disagreed amiss with that part of your list.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Darth, I had not considered before that having Roman Numerals on modern depictions of the Ten Commandments posted in public buildings, besides being anachronistic, might constitite official endorsement of the Roman-Christian tradition. If God numbered the commandments, He would have used Hebrew numbers (i.e. the Hebrew letters used as numbers, such as aleph, beth, gimel, etc.). But probably they were not numbered.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Plainly put, I believe that at the very least the Bible would have been a major source of the founding father's moral framework by virtue of it being such an integral part of the society they lived in. I don't necessarily believe that had the Bible not existed that they could not have come up with many of the ideas that they did, there are many philosophers who are arguably bigger influences than the Bible.
If this is your claim, everyone from Nietzsche to Dawkins could agree with you. So I take it you're not on the side of those who want the US to be run on "Christian principles" because its origins were "Christian"?
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, perhaps I used the word enumerate incorrectly.
The point I was getting at is this, if you list the 10 Commandments you have to choose who's list to use. When the government chooses one version as the "correct" version it condemns the others as incorrect.
Now, if you weren't numbering them, but just taking a slice out of the old testament and posting it as the 10 Commandments, you still have to make a decision where to begin? Is it the modern Protestant version or the original Torah version? Since we are all talking historic relevance and in no way trying to advertise Protestant Christianity in our governmental space, we should use the historic Jewish version.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
