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 would agree they are partially influenced by Judeo-Christian values, but I think the Founding Fathers took great pains to make sure that we were protected from non-secular laws.
[snip].
What you say is basically true, but only for the new Federal government. States were free to enact religious laws and they did. Keep in mind that the governments that most affected people's lives then were the state and local governments, not the feds.
What you say is basically true, but only for the new Federal government. States were free to enact religious laws and they did. Keep in mind that the governments that most affected people's lives then were the state and local governments, not the feds.
Quite right, jazz. I should have specified Federal Government.
What you say is basically true, but only for the new Federal government. States were free to enact religious laws and they did. Keep in mind that the governments that most affected people's lives then were the state and local governments, not the feds.
States were free because at the time the US Constitution was written, they would have preferred to be free from joining the union if the rules established for the federal government, to secure and respect individual freedoms, were extended to the state governments as well. Consequently, and weighing the pros and cons, the founders merely requested all states to adopt similar discipline as they were devising for the central government.
"I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against."
- James Madison (Introduction of the Bill of Rights to the US Congress)
Firstly, let me apologize for my tardy response. Secondly, thanks for the kind words - I'm enjoying this exchange, as well.
No apologies necessary, believe it or not, I actually have a life that extends beyond the City-Data Forum as well. Please feel free to take all the time you wish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I would agree they are partially influenced by Judeo-Christian values, but I think the Founding Fathers took great pains to make sure that we were protected from non-secular laws.
I have to protest here. I absolutely would agree that the Founders did not want to have anything to do with the sort of arrangement going on in Great Britain at the time i.e., an official state church and state imposed "religion." For instance, the wording in the Constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..." I think gives clear and precise articulation of where they were coming from. However, they never ever had ANY illusions about the ability of Government, via the Judiciary or otherwise, to parse between "secular" and "non-secular" law. You apparently disagree. I would be most keenly interested if you were to elaborate upon this notion that they actually did intend for Government officials to parse between the "secular" and "non-secular" laws, proposed legislation or the supposed thought motivations of government officials. I certainly see no evidence of this idea contained in the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
The population in its entirety? For a certainty. The world view of the folks running our new country? Not so certainly.
I see your point. However, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that the majority in the government would be a basic reflection of the majority of the electorate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
You're also asserting that the fact that the person in question is a theist or atheist requires that their opinions be different on all of them, no?
No. I'm not trying to assert that all theists and atheists would disagree on everything. However, I'm sure you understand the stark differences between these views and the obvious political implications. It just seems to me that one who takes the view that moral absolutes exist, for instance, would most always tend to view moral issues quite differently from those taking the view of moral relativity and vice versa. Which would make me even more curious as to how government officials might be assumed to have any powers and abilities to make restrictions with respect to secular and non-secular motivations (thoughts in the minds of various government executives/legislators/judges) which they would be forced to do under the rubric imposed by the modern view of the definition of "separation of church and state."
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
On many, or likely most, aspects of what constitutes a "world view"? Yes. Will the theist and atheist disagree on every aspect? I see no reason that they would have to, no.
Agreed, they wouldn't necessarily disagree on every aspect.
Hypothetical question: Let's assume that we have a combined group of individuals of the theistic world view seeking, within the limits of the law, to implement laws restricting abortion. Let's also assume that there is another group of individuals of the atheistic world view seeking, within the limits of the law, to implement laws that favor/promote the expansion of abortion.
Would not both groups be guilty of attempting to impose their individual world views upon the populace?
Would you also agree, that in any society such as ours, that laws (imposition) are an absolute must? That there is no realistic choice between imposing and not imposing, only the choice as to which laws (imposition) are to be established?
I doubt if I would trust any translation unless it was by a devout Rabbi. I would not agree with it, but I would know it is the way the Jews understand it. What is read as a translation of it is a mis-interpretation and has very little in common with how the Jews understand it.
Then you need to study up on how accurate the current major Bible translations are compared to the orginal transcript ; and a great source for this is at www.impactapologetics.com .
Then you need to study up on how accurate the current major Bible translations are compared to the orginal transcript ; and a great source for this is at www.impactapologetics.com .
There is only one Bible, or, if you prefer, the Jewish Bible; and, there is separately, the Christian Bible.
There is only one Bible, or, if you prefer, the Jewish Bible; and, there is separately, the Christian Bible.
The 'Christian' Bible as you put it...has the Hebrew Old Testament in it. And true, there is only One complete Bible...and it is the O.T. and the N.T. --- the predictions of Messiahs coming...and the fulfillment of that . You need to have the whole story, so read the N.T. as well.
You need to have the whole story, so read the N.T. as well.
According to Maimonides (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, otherwise known by the acronym Rambam, 1135-1204 C.E.), one of the greatest sages of all time, "The Written Torah (first 5 books of the Bible) and Oral Torah (teachings now contained in the Talmud and other writings) were given to Moses and there will be no other Torah (Source: Rambam's thirteen principles of faith).
Did the second part of my post fail to register with you?
A discussion is supposed to be a two-way street. I'll answer your questions as long as you are willing to answer mine. If you are willing to have a two-way conversation, please answer (ANSWER vice merely responding to) the questions I posed to you in post #100 of this thread.
Lol ok whatever you say.
q1: I can't think of an example that isn't.
q2: most people at least.
Now, will you give examples as I asked here: Your whole point is that we immediately dismiss anything proposed by anyone who did it for religious reasons, right? Can you give some examples of laws, potential or enacted, that do have secular purpose but are dismissed because the ones who proposed them did so with religious intent?
Right, take it from Mr. 'Hit-and-run' who doesn't have the courage to engage in an open and honest ongoing one-on-one discussion - even under the cover of a pseudonym.
"Fire when ready, Gridley . . ." I accept your challenge.
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.
