Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm merely making the point that, in whatever form "Thou shalt not kill" found it's way into early American society and considering the overall (majority) religious make-up of the electorate of the time (overwhelmingly Christian), again, we have a clear and direct link between "religious law" and the societal "secular law." In other words, the imposition of "religious" law upon the populace. That is, if we are to take the modern definition of "separation of church and state" at face value.
And we're making the point that just because "do not murder" is written in a few religious books, does not mean it doesn't have a secular purpose.
Case in point, only two of the 10 commandments are actually laws in the US. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" for example is purely religious, and has no place in secular law. Thus it should never enter into the US lawbooks. You can vote for that kind of law, but even if it passes, a competent court will throw it out on grounds of unconstitutionality.
I would agree that *IF* all of those conditions were true, which I don't believe they are, that would be evidence for objective/absolute morality. However, to call all other moral codes copies would be to assume that there was never a subjective moral code that deemed murder, rape, theft, etc to be immoral that pre-dated the 10 commandments. No?
I really do appreciate and honestly value your assessments. For whatever it's worth, I love having discussions of this nature.
That said, the explanation contained in my previous post pertained to the basic makeup of the Judeo-Christian world view - that's all. I was not trying to argue for it's acceptance - just explaining how it's viewed.
This view (world view) permeated early America at the time of the founding. The founders naturally understood that, if we were to be a nation ruled by the people (electorate/majority), the laws of the day would BY NECESSITY be influenced by the pervasive culture (world view) of the day. In short, that the imposition of law is a must and, in this situation, these laws would naturally take on a Judeo-Christian flavor. They certainly did not intend for Christianity to be imposed in any particular form or established as a state religion. Again, they merely realized that the Judeo-Christian world view would quite naturally have a major impact on which laws would be enacted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Agreed, but that still assumes that those things were not considered immoral before Moses and the Bible.
I'd be more likely to believe that attributing this moral code to an omniscient and omnipotent "god" was an attempt to keep citizens in line, despite their ability to circumvent any societal laws and "get away with it". That's just an assumption, though.
Understood. For the purposes of staying on track with the main topic, we can agree to disagree on this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I think you're taking the separation of church and state too far. There are obvious secular benefits to having laws preventing murder and theft on the books that are not tied to a specific religious belief, or lack thereof.
Right, these things are debatable. However, I'm convinced that the predominating world view of early America is not debatable - it was without any doubt the Judeo-Christian world view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Existence of God? Certainly competing there. Objective morals? Yep, I would think so. Supernatural? No, there is no need of a god figure in order for supernatural events to exist.
They would simply have an opinion about it one way or the other, unless they were brain dead - would they not?
I'm merely asserting that a mere opinion, one way or the other, about these things, is what would constitute a world view.
Would you agree that theism and atheism are competing world views?
Last edited by tigetmax24; 09-05-2011 at 11:05 AM..
There were 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) given at Sinai, and the Ten Commandments, or, more correctly, the Ten Utterances are the chapter headings under which the other 603 Mitzvot (Commandments) are organized, and these Mitzvot (Commandments) are only binding on those taken out of bondage in Egypt and present at Sinai, their descendents and those who voluntarily accept them through conversion.
And we're making the point that just because "do not murder" is written in a few religious books, does not mean it doesn't have a secular purpose.
Case in point, only two of the 10 commandments are actually laws in the US. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" for example is purely religious, and has no place in secular law. Thus it should never enter into the US lawbooks. You can vote for that kind of law, but even if it passes, a competent court will throw it out on grounds of unconstitutionality.
Let's not get side-tracked. My main point is to state that this (belief in the 10 Commandments and, by extension, the existence of moral absolutes) is the sort of view that influenced the founding of America - it was the predominate world view of the day.
Can you explain how supernatural events happen naturally then, and without a Will or Intelligence as a catalyst ?
If someone could explain the "how", it would cease to be supernatural, no?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
