Wow, so many of you are athiest.I like to call myself an athiest but i still haven't renounced my crappy christian faith.All the lies in the bible piss me off.Oh yeah noah's ark really happened.the stories are all incredibly simplistic with little to no detail and always have a very obvious moral meaning.The concept of god being on some magical plane(not an aeroplane) above us makes no sense.It physically, technically and scientifically impossible for him to exist yet people still believe he exists because there scared they'll go to hell, which doesn't exist either, nor does heaven.when we die, we just die, our brain dies and therefore we have no conscious, which i assume the bible means is our soul.The only reason any of us know about god is because it's been passed around by word of mouth, meaning that it had to begin somewhere by some radical who made up god and started ranting about it in the middle of a town square.you think god's gunna be there when you die, no he isn't, the CEO of interplay will be there laughing at you for buying BOS you damn queer.So many stupid people in the world. and what about all those other faiths, who think there god is the only god that exists.why are catholics/christians so right.and why are all the disciples white and male.It's only to obvious the concept of god and heaven and evrything was made up to make people feel like they had a goal in life, which was getting to heaven, because life back in like the 1500's was pretty shit and dying and ascending was the only thing they could look forward to.
Religion
- Thread starter Ruzdur
- Start date
Dixie_Rebel
Still Mildly Glowing
I think you guys are forgetting that we (Mormons) are led by a prophet that receives revelation from God. I do not feel like explaining how Joseph Smith translated the Bible but I will say he was worthy and used a special tool given to him by God. Revelation is one thing that our church has that other churches do not really have. Another thing is the priesthood authority. There are many things in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that makes it very different than any other church. It is the restored church. (you believing any of this or not is a different story) That is how we know that Joseph Smiths translation of the Bible is correct. I do not really think there is a point as to debating over the fact of religion being real or not. The bottom line is you need to figure that out on your own. As for the debate about religion being in government…. I think it is good to have religion in government but if it is not then I think it is just going to hurt our country. It seems like the more this country pulls away from religion the more it is going down hill. Do some research for yourself. These are my beliefs.
welsh
Junkmaster
Here we go again.
Dixie- just a couple of things. -
While I am sure you believe in the right of your faith, it's a matter of belief. But the notion that you have that your faith is correct- and thus unique, is shared by most other faiths about themselves.
Most people who are religious think they are correct in their faith, for a variety of reasons. They also think the others are wrong. Just as you think that the Mormons have it right, many Christians, for example, don't consider LDS a christian faith at all.
As posted above, the irony is that, in fact, church and state have been coming together even during a period that think it has not. If you like I can point out some of the recent Constitutional cases that illustrate this re-establishment of church and state.
This comes at a time when there are more Americans going to church than in our history. The country with the largest number of fundamentalists is not Iran, its the US. If society is becoming more religious and vote on their convictions, and if choosing a state sported religion is potentially dangerous by alienating faiths, then why would you really want to go further in mixing the two together?
Dixie- just a couple of things. -
While I am sure you believe in the right of your faith, it's a matter of belief. But the notion that you have that your faith is correct- and thus unique, is shared by most other faiths about themselves.
Most people who are religious think they are correct in their faith, for a variety of reasons. They also think the others are wrong. Just as you think that the Mormons have it right, many Christians, for example, don't consider LDS a christian faith at all.
As posted above, the irony is that, in fact, church and state have been coming together even during a period that think it has not. If you like I can point out some of the recent Constitutional cases that illustrate this re-establishment of church and state.
This comes at a time when there are more Americans going to church than in our history. The country with the largest number of fundamentalists is not Iran, its the US. If society is becoming more religious and vote on their convictions, and if choosing a state sported religion is potentially dangerous by alienating faiths, then why would you really want to go further in mixing the two together?
Ancient Oldie
Still Mildly Glowing
syko said:
No offense syko, but that is a rather shallow interpretation of the bible. I can't really comment (nor will I comment) on how other denominations interpret the bible, but as a Catholic, I was taught that you can't take everything in the bible literally. I personally think that even if you are an Atheist, the bible can still provide you with a good, solid moral code and that much can be learned from reading it.
That is as much as I will speak about religion itself because it will often only lead to pointless arguments. Empirically, you can't prove either that there is or that there isn't a god or an afterlife, and logically both points of views can be proven. And deciding which religion or belief is the best, ultimately depends on the personal opinions, ethics, and morals of the individual. Therefore, a debate on religion will only create a lot of friction and bumping of heads, neither of which are constructive.
As for religion and government, I believe that a government should steer clear of even partially advocating any single belief system, thereby allowing all forms of thought and religion to flourish. If they did endorse a belief, it would create a sense of "all belief's are good, but our belief is better" in the country, and, in a sense, would lead to many people inadvertingly becoming socially inferior. For example, if our country officially endorsed protestant christianity, a Jew or a Catholic would have less of a chance of becoming president. It's already difficult enough for people that have a different belief system other than christianity to become president as it is (remember the hoopla of Gore choosing Leiberman as his running mate). We don't need to create more tensions by officially endorsing a religion.
Dixie_Rebel
Still Mildly Glowing
If you think about it, wether you are religious or not, the basic principles of basic Christianity are very good. Look at the 10 commandments. People fear their God. Now days when people kill, steal, etc. they usually afraid of getting caught by authorities like the police instead of fearing God. If there was no God or religion on earth at all people would not fear anything but each other. What I am saying is people that fear something bigger and more powerful than man they tend to commit less crimes etc. So even if some guy made religion up by preaching in some town square it still causes people to think twice about doing something bad. So what is wrong with the ten commandments then? Our law is based on the law of Moses if I am not mistaken.
I recommend reading this book....
I recommend reading this book....
welsh
Junkmaster
Well Dixie, it's like this.
I went to a Catholic University's law school and we did have a big Ten Commandments on display. But then it was a catholic school, and as private property, it had the right to display what it wants. THere was also a magna carta and a hannurabi's code- the monument was about the history of law and part of that history includes religion. But the key issue, its private advocacy or private property.
The ten commandments case to which I think you refer (in Alabama?) that the judge was holding on to is a different matter.
Couple of reasons-
(1) He's advocating a set of religious beliefs that not everyone upholds. Not everyone traces their religious beliefs to the judeo-christian society and the US is a society that should not stigmatize one set of citizens in favor of the other.
(2) By setting out the 10 Commandments he basically utilizing political property to advocate a personal religious conviction. Now if you were to go into the court house with a tee shirt that said, "Ten Commandments Rule" or "Fuck Islam" then you'd be ok. That's free speech. But the judge is an agent of the state, responsible for carrying out judiciary functions. He's not allowed.
(3) Because his function is to enforce the law, he should not be in breach of the law. At this point he has moved past his judiciary function to become a political advocate (a private capacity). That the other judges and the higher courts had told him to cut it out also means that he's in breach of his responsibilities to the state, even if he personally feels that he's being true to his religion.
Now had he kept a bible in his office, or even a picture of the ten commandments, or one of those plaques that list the ten commandments, I doubt anyone would have cared. But by putting out a monument to the ten commandments, well, that's a bit much.
There are a lot of laws out there granting the church significant access to public property. Church groups have the same rights to access as private, secular groups. In some ways even, church groups are better off than the private sector. So its not like the law is punishing a religious view here.
Rather the law is interested primarily in making sure that its servants actually do their job and that the state gets out of the role of being an advocate of a set of religious beliefs.
So don't get confused on this. Its not that the state is telling you not to practice a faith (the state can't really do that either). Rather, its the state trying to stay out of the business of religion which, I think you will agree, is best left in the church.
I went to a Catholic University's law school and we did have a big Ten Commandments on display. But then it was a catholic school, and as private property, it had the right to display what it wants. THere was also a magna carta and a hannurabi's code- the monument was about the history of law and part of that history includes religion. But the key issue, its private advocacy or private property.
The ten commandments case to which I think you refer (in Alabama?) that the judge was holding on to is a different matter.
Couple of reasons-
(1) He's advocating a set of religious beliefs that not everyone upholds. Not everyone traces their religious beliefs to the judeo-christian society and the US is a society that should not stigmatize one set of citizens in favor of the other.
(2) By setting out the 10 Commandments he basically utilizing political property to advocate a personal religious conviction. Now if you were to go into the court house with a tee shirt that said, "Ten Commandments Rule" or "Fuck Islam" then you'd be ok. That's free speech. But the judge is an agent of the state, responsible for carrying out judiciary functions. He's not allowed.
(3) Because his function is to enforce the law, he should not be in breach of the law. At this point he has moved past his judiciary function to become a political advocate (a private capacity). That the other judges and the higher courts had told him to cut it out also means that he's in breach of his responsibilities to the state, even if he personally feels that he's being true to his religion.
Now had he kept a bible in his office, or even a picture of the ten commandments, or one of those plaques that list the ten commandments, I doubt anyone would have cared. But by putting out a monument to the ten commandments, well, that's a bit much.
There are a lot of laws out there granting the church significant access to public property. Church groups have the same rights to access as private, secular groups. In some ways even, church groups are better off than the private sector. So its not like the law is punishing a religious view here.
Rather the law is interested primarily in making sure that its servants actually do their job and that the state gets out of the role of being an advocate of a set of religious beliefs.
So don't get confused on this. Its not that the state is telling you not to practice a faith (the state can't really do that either). Rather, its the state trying to stay out of the business of religion which, I think you will agree, is best left in the church.
OnTheBounce
Still Mildly Glowing
Dixie_Rebel said:
DR, Machiavelli says essentially the same thing in his Art of War and that was in 1512. He insists that the oath of enlistment for an army has to be of a religious nature since if a man breaks that he fears retribution from above, while with a purely secular one he fears only his fellow man, which he can escape.
My question to you is why you are seeking to shore up a theological position with pragmatic, anthrophological issues. Perhaps there would be less crime in a devoutly Christian nation -- I seriously doubt that, however -- it does not give you or anyone else the right to cram their cosmology down anyone's throat.
As for our laws being based on the 10 commandments, that's not really true. Yes, there are judeo-christian influences, but the we really owe more to the classical mediteranean world (Greece and Rome) than we do to pack of pastoral herdsmen. This is especially true in cases dealing w/legal abstractions, such as corporations.
welsh said:
Another issue is the financial cost of this sort of thing. First, state money is used to set up the monument. Then, when someone challenges it, the state ends up picking up the tab for the court costs. So basically the tax payers get stuck paying for something that they will have to pay to have removed as well. This in a time of near bankrupcy on the part of many states!
OTB
Dixie_Rebel
Still Mildly Glowing
"We must acknowledge God because our constitution says our justice system is established upon God."
Compare the law of Moses and the constitution.
Compare the law of Moses and the constitution.
welsh
Junkmaster
Dixie- although the notion of God and the rights of man as by God's rule were part of out constitutional heritage there are a couple of things to consider.
There is a large section of our population which would say that our constitution is a living document, that it changes over time to adapt. It's not just issues like slavery, but even notions of structure, how we appoint Senators and who gets to vote. While Christians made up the overwhelming majority of early Americans, since then there have been a great many people who have come to the US, become citizens, and share in our society. To favor one faith is to treat them as second class. IF you want to go back to our Constitutional history, we are talking about a voting population of white-over-21 land owning men.
We also have to understand other aspects of the mindset of the early framers, and be careful that we don't interpret their intentions as we might think today. The Americans who formed the Constitution where also highly influenced by the "Enlightenment" period, the notion of the social contract and the idea of Religious Freedom. When Thomas Jefferson forms the Universal Unitarian Church, that's part of the reason- so that men can share ideas freely. Jefferson is also highly involved in articulating religious freedom in his other writings.
So yes, there is an idea of God. But there is also an idea of God as granting the rights of man, and that includes the opportunity to practice religion as he pleases. There is also the realization that the Americans are escaping the problems of Europe, of creating a different world that draws on the best that Europe has to offer and leaves behind its problems.
One of the problems were the lingering issues of when church meets state. A quick read of much of European history of that time and the preceeding centuries involve the story of mixing church and state, and the prosecution of minority.
It is not, for example, without consequence that the perhaps the most important wars are between Catholic France and Protestant England, or that the notion of the sovereign national state is born from wars that are in part a consequence of religious differences. This is not Islam vs. Christianity, but Protestant vs. Catholic.
When you say look to the law of God, the question then becomes whose interpretation of that law. Being Catholic, if we are going to have church and state mix, then it should be Catholic (and my beliefs may be that Catholicism is correct and Protestantism is wrong). If its to be Protestantism is it to be Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist? What about LDS- as many of the Mormons have advocatged here. But what if one state is able to elect a Muslim?
Do you see the problem. If we divide, by law, based on religion, we divide the union that we have. Our community, based on the notion that a person has the right to practice their faith or even absolve themselves of faith, will be divided between people who argue that their faith is better. Where unity exists, we have division.
And for what? More Americans are going to church now then ever before. Should we not expect more Baptist politicians from the South, more Mormons from Utah, or Catholics from New York or Massachusetts? As we americans get to vote, doesn't our vote reflect that moral guidelines our churches advocate? Our society is already based on a mix of judeo christian values that responds to those different faiths without giving preference to any one.
One finds the acknowledgement of God in our law. But not one vision of God. Rather the notion of our God is also vested in the idea, coming from the Framers, that God gave man reason to understand and learn, and that through this good reason man can make a better world for himself, to give birth to the ideas of society which God would want. It is that faith in man's reasoning that is part of the basis of the social contract, but there is also an awareness of the danger of man's tyranny.
THe framers had no faith in Kings who, at the time, often declared themselves sovereign because of divine right, because God wants them too. No, the early framers were aware that religion could be used for corrupt purposes.
Which I think is what's happening now. People would divide us into thinking that what's wrong in our society is a lack of God. But these are people who would force you to adapt their vision of God, not your own. These are folks who would use the power of the church for political ends, not godly ends. For as God is divine, man is not. This was raised in an earlier post- Some of the leading religious leaders of today have used that power for very corrupt ends.
The problems with our society is not a lack of God. It is perhaps an overabundance of God. By concentrating on issues of religion we have neglected the problems of our society- why is that both parents have to work to raise a family these days? That wasn't true 30 years ago? Why have salaries not kept up with prices? Why have the rich got richer, the poor have gotten poorer and the middle class is fading away?
That's where the problems are. Not in God. For when most of the country is going to church and more people can vote now than ever, than it shouldn't be lack of God.
We have talked about this earlier in this thread. Take a look. The issues that you are raising have been discussed before. Be careful of slogans. They have a long and dishonorable history. God gave you the power to reason, think it through.
There is a large section of our population which would say that our constitution is a living document, that it changes over time to adapt. It's not just issues like slavery, but even notions of structure, how we appoint Senators and who gets to vote. While Christians made up the overwhelming majority of early Americans, since then there have been a great many people who have come to the US, become citizens, and share in our society. To favor one faith is to treat them as second class. IF you want to go back to our Constitutional history, we are talking about a voting population of white-over-21 land owning men.
We also have to understand other aspects of the mindset of the early framers, and be careful that we don't interpret their intentions as we might think today. The Americans who formed the Constitution where also highly influenced by the "Enlightenment" period, the notion of the social contract and the idea of Religious Freedom. When Thomas Jefferson forms the Universal Unitarian Church, that's part of the reason- so that men can share ideas freely. Jefferson is also highly involved in articulating religious freedom in his other writings.
So yes, there is an idea of God. But there is also an idea of God as granting the rights of man, and that includes the opportunity to practice religion as he pleases. There is also the realization that the Americans are escaping the problems of Europe, of creating a different world that draws on the best that Europe has to offer and leaves behind its problems.
One of the problems were the lingering issues of when church meets state. A quick read of much of European history of that time and the preceeding centuries involve the story of mixing church and state, and the prosecution of minority.
It is not, for example, without consequence that the perhaps the most important wars are between Catholic France and Protestant England, or that the notion of the sovereign national state is born from wars that are in part a consequence of religious differences. This is not Islam vs. Christianity, but Protestant vs. Catholic.
When you say look to the law of God, the question then becomes whose interpretation of that law. Being Catholic, if we are going to have church and state mix, then it should be Catholic (and my beliefs may be that Catholicism is correct and Protestantism is wrong). If its to be Protestantism is it to be Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist? What about LDS- as many of the Mormons have advocatged here. But what if one state is able to elect a Muslim?
Do you see the problem. If we divide, by law, based on religion, we divide the union that we have. Our community, based on the notion that a person has the right to practice their faith or even absolve themselves of faith, will be divided between people who argue that their faith is better. Where unity exists, we have division.
And for what? More Americans are going to church now then ever before. Should we not expect more Baptist politicians from the South, more Mormons from Utah, or Catholics from New York or Massachusetts? As we americans get to vote, doesn't our vote reflect that moral guidelines our churches advocate? Our society is already based on a mix of judeo christian values that responds to those different faiths without giving preference to any one.
One finds the acknowledgement of God in our law. But not one vision of God. Rather the notion of our God is also vested in the idea, coming from the Framers, that God gave man reason to understand and learn, and that through this good reason man can make a better world for himself, to give birth to the ideas of society which God would want. It is that faith in man's reasoning that is part of the basis of the social contract, but there is also an awareness of the danger of man's tyranny.
THe framers had no faith in Kings who, at the time, often declared themselves sovereign because of divine right, because God wants them too. No, the early framers were aware that religion could be used for corrupt purposes.
Which I think is what's happening now. People would divide us into thinking that what's wrong in our society is a lack of God. But these are people who would force you to adapt their vision of God, not your own. These are folks who would use the power of the church for political ends, not godly ends. For as God is divine, man is not. This was raised in an earlier post- Some of the leading religious leaders of today have used that power for very corrupt ends.
The problems with our society is not a lack of God. It is perhaps an overabundance of God. By concentrating on issues of religion we have neglected the problems of our society- why is that both parents have to work to raise a family these days? That wasn't true 30 years ago? Why have salaries not kept up with prices? Why have the rich got richer, the poor have gotten poorer and the middle class is fading away?
That's where the problems are. Not in God. For when most of the country is going to church and more people can vote now than ever, than it shouldn't be lack of God.
We have talked about this earlier in this thread. Take a look. The issues that you are raising have been discussed before. Be careful of slogans. They have a long and dishonorable history. God gave you the power to reason, think it through.
Dixie_Rebel
Still Mildly Glowing
Please read the whole post so you can understand what I am saying please.
Religion is a part of people so of course it is going to influence them to make decisions. I agree that government should not revolve around religion but I do think people have the right to allow religion to have an influence on their decisions. But the bottom line is this country has let it become a big deal because it has become a Democracy. When this country was formed it was a self governing republic. If I am not mistaken the founders of this country thought it could be self governing because they had religion to look to to make laws and people would abide by them out of fear of God. (also abiding the ten commandments which is basically what this countries law is formed from) The government has become pretty much the structure of this country when it was not supposed to. The government was supposed to stay out of the states affairs. The government was supposed to be representative. This country was not formed from Roman beliefs. (something you said) The Romans started off as a Democracy (something that we were not supposed to be) and turned into a dictatorship. (Caesar, etc.) Look at Germany before World War 2.... it started off as a Democracy and turned into a dictatorship. Democracy just does not work. THAT is what the founding fathers wanted to avoid. (government rule) So whether this country becomes a dictatorship through religion, race, money, etc. or not that is what we should be focusing on.... not just religion. I am not a fortune teller so I do not know if this country will actually become a dictatorship or not but I can tell you by looking at history that the chances are pretty high that we will. I am not changing the subject. I am making the point of if it is not religion it will probably something else. The problem lies in our government not the fact that religion is a part of it.
"A general dissolution of Principles and manners will more surely overthrow the Liberties of America than the whole force of the Common Enemy." - Samuel Adams
The fact of the matter is if we lost religion there would be total chaos.
"There is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and I believe, further, that this [the Constitution] is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other." - Benjamin Franklin
You said the founding fathers of this country were religious. They were. As more people came and continue to come to this country and change things the more corrupt this country gets.... not to mention how the government grows because of this.
"The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own.... The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army.... Let us therefore rely on the goodness of the cause and the aid of the Supreme Being, in whose hands victory is, to animate and courage us to great and noble actions." - George Washington
"Let divines and philosophers, statesmen, and Patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age, the impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity and universal philanthropy, and, in subordination to these great principles, the love of their country; of instructing them in the art of self-government, without which they can never act a wise part in the government of societies, great or small; in short, of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system...." - Samuel Adams
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the ten commandments." - James Madison
Definitions for the words in red....
Main Entry: des•po•tism
Pronunciation: 'des-p&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
Date: circa 1727
1 a : rule by a despot b : despotic exercise of power
2 a : a system of government in which the ruler has unlimited power : ABSOLUTISM b : a despotic state
Despot is....
a : a ruler with absolute power and authority b : a person exercising power tyrannically
---------------------------------------
Main Entry: de·i·ty
Pronunciation: 'dE-&-tE, 'dA-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English deitee, from Old French deité, from Late Latin deitat-, deitas, from Latin deus god; akin to Old English TIw, god of war, Latin divus god, dies day, Greek dios heavenly, Sanskrit deva heavenly, god
Date: 14th century
1 a : the rank or essential nature of a god : DIVINITY b capitalized : GOD 1, SUPREME BEING
2 : a god or goddess <the deities of ancient Greece>
3 : one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful
Religion is a part of people so of course it is going to influence them to make decisions. I agree that government should not revolve around religion but I do think people have the right to allow religion to have an influence on their decisions. But the bottom line is this country has let it become a big deal because it has become a Democracy. When this country was formed it was a self governing republic. If I am not mistaken the founders of this country thought it could be self governing because they had religion to look to to make laws and people would abide by them out of fear of God. (also abiding the ten commandments which is basically what this countries law is formed from) The government has become pretty much the structure of this country when it was not supposed to. The government was supposed to stay out of the states affairs. The government was supposed to be representative. This country was not formed from Roman beliefs. (something you said) The Romans started off as a Democracy (something that we were not supposed to be) and turned into a dictatorship. (Caesar, etc.) Look at Germany before World War 2.... it started off as a Democracy and turned into a dictatorship. Democracy just does not work. THAT is what the founding fathers wanted to avoid. (government rule) So whether this country becomes a dictatorship through religion, race, money, etc. or not that is what we should be focusing on.... not just religion. I am not a fortune teller so I do not know if this country will actually become a dictatorship or not but I can tell you by looking at history that the chances are pretty high that we will. I am not changing the subject. I am making the point of if it is not religion it will probably something else. The problem lies in our government not the fact that religion is a part of it.
"A general dissolution of Principles and manners will more surely overthrow the Liberties of America than the whole force of the Common Enemy." - Samuel Adams
The fact of the matter is if we lost religion there would be total chaos.
"There is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and I believe, further, that this [the Constitution] is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other." - Benjamin Franklin
You said the founding fathers of this country were religious. They were. As more people came and continue to come to this country and change things the more corrupt this country gets.... not to mention how the government grows because of this.
"The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own.... The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army.... Let us therefore rely on the goodness of the cause and the aid of the Supreme Being, in whose hands victory is, to animate and courage us to great and noble actions." - George Washington
"Let divines and philosophers, statesmen, and Patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age, the impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity and universal philanthropy, and, in subordination to these great principles, the love of their country; of instructing them in the art of self-government, without which they can never act a wise part in the government of societies, great or small; in short, of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system...." - Samuel Adams
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the ten commandments." - James Madison
Definitions for the words in red....
Main Entry: des•po•tism
Pronunciation: 'des-p&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
Date: circa 1727
1 a : rule by a despot b : despotic exercise of power
2 a : a system of government in which the ruler has unlimited power : ABSOLUTISM b : a despotic state
Despot is....
a : a ruler with absolute power and authority b : a person exercising power tyrannically
---------------------------------------
Main Entry: de·i·ty
Pronunciation: 'dE-&-tE, 'dA-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English deitee, from Old French deité, from Late Latin deitat-, deitas, from Latin deus god; akin to Old English TIw, god of war, Latin divus god, dies day, Greek dios heavenly, Sanskrit deva heavenly, god
Date: 14th century
1 a : the rank or essential nature of a god : DIVINITY b capitalized : GOD 1, SUPREME BEING
2 : a god or goddess <the deities of ancient Greece>
3 : one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful
Dixie_Rebel
Still Mildly Glowing
A lot of the population can not score above basic level on SAT tests.... what are you trying to say? I think you are implying the errors of democracy.... majority rules. Change is not always good.
Hehe i´m soo glad there is a huge secularisation in Norway right now.
We have just right now a priest as a prime minister, and he is a weakling that has had mayor psychic breakdowns when in work, and he has sent this country into war more times than any other norwegian prime minister.
We have just right now a priest as a prime minister, and he is a weakling that has had mayor psychic breakdowns when in work, and he has sent this country into war more times than any other norwegian prime minister.
welsh
Junkmaster
Dixie_Rebel said:
Dixie- an interesting post.
But then what you are advocating is that dumb people shouldn't get to vote? Or is that we need to improve the educational system so people are better informed?
My point above is that there is a large feeling within the country that the constitution needs to be interpreted broadly to adapt to how our country has changed over 200 + years. For example, when the constitution was passed we were a pre-industrial, agricultural based nation, where slavery was widespread and economic power and political power was held by a small group of people. That's not the nation we have today, and I think we are better off for it. There is a good argument that the US is not fully democratic until as late as 1965 when the Voting Rights Act is past, which finally enfranchises minorities into the political system despite the post-civil war constitutional amendments.
Fair enough, there are plenty of folks on the other side of this too, that our constitution should be strictly construed, that we should go back to what the framers intended to keep our constitution and political order straight.
In fact there are strengths and weaknesses in both positions.
With regard to your quotes, yes, there is a strong identification of them as being tied to the very Christian values of the day. As mentioned before, the founders of this country were Christians generally and they aspired to a more perfect society based on what they felt was best- something that respected the rights of man and protected him from human tyranny. Those notions are actually trace them selves to natural law (and the ecclesiastic courrts) but also can be seen in contemporary notions of human rights law.
That said, your quotes also make a strong case for trusting in the rights of man to figure it out, to create a system in which tyranny is avoided, in which reason rules. That the motivation for that is based on Christian doctrine can also be seen in Max Weber's discussion on the origins of rational capitalism (the rise of Protestantism). However, faith in a church is inherently an irrational idea, even if it has rational effects on society or pushes a society to pursue rational processes to ascertain that belief.
So based on the mindset of the time, the framers would have thought that "what is best" in a Christian way. But they created a document in which is based on the idea of "what is best" can be figured out by a society and which limits the danger of tyranny. Thus the constitution can survive generation, even if the ideas of "what is best" change.
There is another problem raised by your quotes. It seems consistenly clear that what the major problem for the Founders were concerned with was that tyranny would come out of the apathetic will of the people to exercise their will as a political body and a society.
This is one of the reasons why the US has had, generally, a very stable political order- even if it were one that changes.
Now, fact of the matter, more people are voting in the US than ever before. The reason why so many people voted early in our history is in part because very few people could vote. There were limits on their ability to exercise the right of vote because of gender, skin color, and properity. We have gotten rid of much of that and there for, the voting population has grown even if the proportion of voters to voting class has declined. THat said, I agree, more people be active in the political process. To some extent being religiously active might inspire that. But forcing religion onto people would probably alienate more people than not. More people are going to church than voting. We don't need more religious sensitivity, but more political activism.
Most of your ideas are here, at the beginning-
Dixie_Rebel said:
Dixie_Rebel
Still Mildly Glowing
The federal government has made so many loopholes in those documents that they are pretty much obsolete. The government can pretty much do whatever it wants. Look at the Department of Homeland Security.
I do not know how you feel about the issue but I will say that if you take away guns it will not be hard for someone to take over this country from the inside. Hitler took away the peoples right to bear arms and that gave him the ability to take over with practically zero resistance.
So you are saying that the government can go take over a state because of laws the population willingly votes to enact? It is the states political beliefs. Don’t you think that kind of cancels out Democracy and makes it dictoral? Does that sound very free to you?
Taking over a country does not have to involve corruptness. All it would take is one presidential candidate to gain enough votes and or support favoring one political party (like Democrats, Republicans, ect.) so that political party gets so big that it turns into the only one in existence in that nation. I think you should study Rome and especially Germany before World War 2 a little more to better understand what happened.
As I said.... this country was NOT supposed to be a Democracy therefore Athens and Rome would be irrelevant to this topic. Rome fell, Germany fell, and it is just a matter of time before this country does the same.... unless of course religion is in fact true.... then it is a whole different story but since we of different faiths I do not think explaining that would do any good.
I think it is fine to make religious based decisions in politics as long as no one gets carried away with it and that is a problem when Democracy comes into play because majority rules.
welsh
Junkmaster
Dixie_Rebel said:
Sorry Dixie, you are right on one, wrong on the other.
With regard to free speech. That's not exactly true. In terms of free speech there has been a rather significant growth in our notion of the right to speak and think freely. For example religious organizations have done very well over the past 10 years on mixing religion and speech ideas. Personally I don't like that, but it does run counter to your position.
But if you want to talk about the Department of Homeland Security- well that's another issue. Here you are really talking about criminal law and lose of criminal rights. That's an issue which has been eroded over the past 20 years in a way that I find frightening.
It's really amazing how the idea of criminal rights had been lost these past 20 years or so. What is also amazing is how few people know this. In part its because constitutional law, and law in general, is thought to be some arcane topic. Its not and fairly approachable.
For those of you in college, a good text on US Constitutional Law is David O'Brien's two volume collection of Constittuional Law. The second volume is mostly civil rights (criminal law is extensively covered as is speech and religion) the first is about seperation of powers and state-federal rights. Its very readable and a popular standard in many colleges that teach Constitutional law. I use it in the classes I teach. Another good source is the aptly worded Constitutional Law in a nut shell, but it won't do the criminal rights stuff that O'Brien does.
I highly advise that anyone interested in these issues take an objective course in law. A lot of this argument is normatively driven- but often the law itself is missed and this is were constitutional law really becomes central to the debates.
Actually this issue has been raised and discussed on both the gun thread and on the imperialism thread. Better we keep the argument focused there then here.
You bet it does. As you posted below, there are political processes that occur that might take away the rights of insular minorities. One of the notions of our government is that majorities will not take away the basic rights of minority groups. That's an important principle- the Tyranny of the Majority. If a majority takes away the rights of a particular minority, what is it to keep it from taking away the rights of another minority group.
As the old bit goes- first they came after the Jews and I didn't speak, then they went after the slavs, then they went after the communists, and the mentally handicapped, and the left wingers, then they came after me.
Unless you protect the rights of a minority, you take substantial risks with the fundamentals of that democracy. If you are willing to tolerate the subordination of a class based on race, then you undercut the entire nature of the concept of citizenship.
So yes, I think the Ku Klux Klan's ideas are an abomination to democracy, to the notion of the right of the individual, to the concept of citizenship and democratic governance.
But- I will earnestly defend the right of the Klan to say what it thinks is right, even if I don't agree with it. And, until the Klan breaks the law, will defend the rights of the Klan to be a minority entitled to citizenship.
One can do little else if one believes in the idea of free speech and democracy.
Well this, theoretically, happens every four years when one candidate gets the majority of vote and a new administration. Of course GB didn't get the popular vote, but did the electoral so its a bit fudged.
However, parties do get to live and die. The democrats and repubilicans have lived because, in part, they are so extensive.
But the reason why is because people have the right to disagree and no one is forcing anyone to adopt an ideology. Which is again the problem that could arrise if you mix church and state.
Values change too. I think if you asked most people if they would want us to give up democracy to be something else. Whatever you think the founders wanted for our country, I think most folks would be happy with what they had and not go back to then.
Not sure what you are meaning with the notion of religion. I can't think of religion as saving the US (any more than it was supposed to save any other system).
Whether the US eventually falls apart is perhaps just a matter of time. But that's a telos- there is no certain outcome, just a probability and one that no one, now can predict.
Are we currently moving in that direction- maybe. Especially if you listen to Democratic challengers. But that's what they are supposed to imply.
And as I argued, you already have that through the indirect process of religious practice in society translating to candidates of different faiths as representatives.
Dixie, I am recalling we had this dicussion before, and it was more heated then.
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Dixie, interesting. I to attend LDS serviecs, bit aganst my wishes unless I am looking for a good meal.
It's funny you mention the power of prophecy that Joseph Smith had, yet several of the "Witnesses" left the Church early on, he attempted a translation of the Rosseta Stone with his Seeing Stone and got every single aspect imagineable wrong. I was six when I realized that the "translations" of ancient Egyptian art was nothing but bullshit.
You know what Mark Twain called the Book of Mormon? "Oral Cloraform".
Dixie, you do not understand the strenghts of a Representative Democracy. The purpose of the Constitution and other original documents was to give the people a degree of power, yet at the same time insure stability and justice for all, because with straight out majority rules you get people like Hitler or Strom Thurmond in power, changing everything left and right.
It's funny you mention the power of prophecy that Joseph Smith had, yet several of the "Witnesses" left the Church early on, he attempted a translation of the Rosseta Stone with his Seeing Stone and got every single aspect imagineable wrong. I was six when I realized that the "translations" of ancient Egyptian art was nothing but bullshit.
You know what Mark Twain called the Book of Mormon? "Oral Cloraform".
Dixie, you do not understand the strenghts of a Representative Democracy. The purpose of the Constitution and other original documents was to give the people a degree of power, yet at the same time insure stability and justice for all, because with straight out majority rules you get people like Hitler or Strom Thurmond in power, changing everything left and right.
Dixie_Rebel
Still Mildly Glowing
What do you mean? In this post or somewhere else? If it is here that you are talking about then I do not know what you mean by heated.
Constipatedcraprunner.... please explain the differences between the German Democracy before World War 2 and our Democracy. It was pretty much the same thing.
Elaborate.... I am not the only Mormon here so explain it to us. Judging by your age at the time what you said means nothing to me.
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
There are copies of translations, or better fantasies that Mr. Smith had of Egyptian frescoes, with Biblical undertones. I was a bit of an Egyptologist, and was scolded for telling my teacher the truth about them.
The Weichmark was a highly unstable semi-democracy that had on-and off exsisted for thirty years. During it's thirty years, it had had two major rebellions (the Bavarain SSR and the first Right Wing takeover in Berlin), and was constantnly teetering between becoming a REAL communist, a REAL socialdemocracy, and a REAL National Socialist bloodmachine.
If you still canot understand, see the masterful film Cabarat. If you still cannot, then report yourself to a biologist so that we could finnaly have definate proof of the exsistance of bigfoot!
The Weichmark was a highly unstable semi-democracy that had on-and off exsisted for thirty years. During it's thirty years, it had had two major rebellions (the Bavarain SSR and the first Right Wing takeover in Berlin), and was constantnly teetering between becoming a REAL communist, a REAL socialdemocracy, and a REAL National Socialist bloodmachine.
If you still canot understand, see the masterful film Cabarat. If you still cannot, then report yourself to a biologist so that we could finnaly have definate proof of the exsistance of bigfoot!
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
It is impossible to have a hundread year old industrial democracy destrpy itself, anyway. And that is a concervative number.
To quote Bernard Lewis "Democracies are the hardest governments to create, but they are also the hardest to destroy."
To quote Bernard Lewis "Democracies are the hardest governments to create, but they are also the hardest to destroy."