American Wahabbis and the Ten Commandments
 

Whole article here.

American Wahabbis and the Ten Commandments
By William Thatcher Dowell, Tomdispatch.com
Posted on March 8, 2005, Printed on March 9, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/21441/

For anyone who actually reads the Bible, there is a certain irony in the current debate over installing the Ten Commandments in public buildings. As everyone knows, the second commandment in the King James edition of the Bible states quite clearly: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth below, or that is in the water under the earth." It is doubtful that the prohibition on "graven images" was really concerned with images like the engraving of George Washington on the dollar bill. Rather it cautions against endowing a physical object, be it a "golden calf" or a two-ton slab of granite, with spiritual power.

In short, it is the spirit of the commandments, not their physical representation in stone or even on a parchment behind a glass frame, which is important. In trying to publicize the commandments, the self-styled Christian right has essentially forgotten what they are really about. It has also overlooked the fact that there are several different versions of them. The King James Bible lists three: Exodus 20:2-17, Exodus 34: 12-26, and Deuteronomy 5:6-21. Catholic Bibles and the Jewish Torah also offer variants.

If the commandments are indeed to be green-lighted for our official landscape, however, let's at least remember that Christianity did not exist when the commandments were given. It might then seem more consistent to go with the Hebrew version rather than any modified Christian version adopted thousands of years after Moses lived. Since the Catholic Church predates the Protestant Reformation, it would again make more sense to go with the Catholic version than later revisions.

It is just this kind of theological debate which has been responsible for massacres carried out in the name of religion over thousands of years. It was, in fact, the mindless slaughter resulting from King Charles' efforts to impose the Church of England's prayer book on Calvinist Scots in the 17th century which played an important role in convincing the founding fathers to choose a secular form of government clearly separating church and state. They were not the first to recognize the wisdom in that approach. Jesus Christ, after all, advised his followers to render unto Caesar what was Caesar's due and unto God that which was due God.

The current debate, of course, has little to do with genuine religion. What it is really about is an effort to assert a cultural point of view. It is part of a reaction against social change, an American counter-reformation of sorts against the way our society has been evolving, and ultimately against the negative fallout that is inevitable when change comes too rapidly. The people pushing to blur the boundaries between church and state are many of the same who so fervently back the National Rifle Association and want to crack down on immigration. They feel that they are the ones losing out, much as, in the Middle East, Islamic fundamentalists fear they are losing out – and their reactions are remarkably similar. In the Arab Middle East and Iran, the response is an insistence on the establishment of Islamic law as the basis for political life; while in Israel, an increasingly reactionary interpretation of Jewish law which, taken to orthodox extremes, rejects marriages by reform Jewish rabbis in America, has settled over public life.

In a strange way, George Bush may now find himself in the same kind of trap that ensnared Saudi Arabia's founder, King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud. To gain political support, Saud mobilized the fanatical, ultra-religious Wahabbi movement – the same movement which is spiritually at the core of al Qaeda. Once the bargain was done, the Saudi Royal Family repeatedly found itself held political hostage to an extremist, barely controllable movement populated by radical ideologues. Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has found himself in a similar situation, drawing political power from the swing votes of the ultra-orthodox right-wing religious and fanatical settler's movement, and then finding his options limited by their obstinacy to change. President Bush has spent the last several months cajoling evangelicals and trying to pay off the political bill for their support.

In Saudi Arabia, the Wahabbis consider themselves ultra-religious, but what really drives their passions is a deep sense of grievance and an underlying conviction that a return to spiritual purity will restore the lost power they believe once belonged to their forefathers. The extremism that delights in stoning a woman to death for adultery or severing the hand of a vagrant accused of stealing depends on extreme interpretations of texts that are at best ambiguous. What is at stake is not so much service to God, as convincing oneself that it is still possible to enforce draconian discipline in a world that seems increasingly chaotic. We joke about a hassled husband kicking his dog to show he still has power. In the Middle East, it is often women who bear the brunt of the impotence of men. Nothing in the Koran calls for the mistreatment of women or even asks that a woman wear a veil. What is at stake here is not religion, but power, and who has a right to it.

The rest of the article here.

We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

(Typed entirely from memory, thank you schoolhouse rock.)

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--

(On every coin in the country) In God We Trust

I pledge allegience to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands: One Nation Under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.


Separation of church and state my ass. This country was founded on a belief in a creator god and is is ALL of our major documents and mottos.

'secure the blessings of liberty' has nothing to do with god, too much bible study is warping your mind.

Oh, I'm sorry. ONE of the examples I gave has only a passing reference to blessings, a word used almost exclusively in conjunction with religion. Come on, Jag. You can do way better than that, can't you??

You missed with your emphasis there, thought I'd tighten in up for you a little bit.

Published in 1891, the original states, 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

'To' was added in 1892.

Which in no way takes away from the idea that others should be able to worship, or not, as their beliefs dictate. The governmental imprimatur, as alluded to in your above statement is what is used as a hammer on people of alternative, or no, religion.

*to possibly include Vishnu, Odin, Marduk, etc., etc....

Here are two more that were added later on - hardly evidence one way or the other for "This country was founded on a belief in a creator god ".

And the term "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", given the attitude of the time, is remarkably ambivalent on the subject of God. Little more than lip service, really.

The US was founded to protect God given rights
 

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." - John Adams

The founding fathers and the genesis of America is the protection of inealieble rights given by the creator, plain and simple. For human secularists to interpret or misuse the provision for the seperation of church and state to question the effect of cannon on law is presumptious and short sighted. A representation of the ten commandments sit in the highest court in this land, the supreme court. Why people would want to strictly limit the law to what Adams called, "human laws" is unclear. No matter what you think of the Universe, no man can say with complete assuredness what someone else deserves or doesn't deserve. There has been a general, almost ignorant resitance by evangelicals in this country to thwart this trend, but there are those that do understand what a major shift this represents, not only culturally, but to the country overall. The justice system, laws, and the sanctity of human rights will be assaulted by efforts to minimize the concept of the creator in our legal system and society. The Creator can be defined as creation itself, even an atheist has to see that. Fate, nature, or just plain coincidence far exceeds any human's comprehension, that in and of itself has to be respected.

In the end to rest the entirety of law on "human law" is dangerous and weak. There needs to be a recognition of a higher power, otherwise what is to keep the justice system in check? magistrates? yeah right. The details of whatever God, or existence is, really is irrelevant, it's truly the fact that we are here, and we didn't ask to be here, and men are flawed and weak. To allow secular thought pervade every aspect of public life is a mistake.

-Walrus

Iconoclasm, the heresy of creating images of human form is thought to be a Muslim influence on the Catholic church as persecutions related to it began to appear around the ninth century. Islam forbids the creation of human likenesses. The above passage has been understood to include animal forms as well.

However, there is no such thing as an "image" of the ten commandments, imo. They are but words and I think the author is making a hell of a stretch to imply that carvings of the ten commandments fall under the iconoclasm heresy. Basically, I think he's dead wrong and is fabricating an irony to piggyback some substance on an otherwise empty argument.

An image of a cow refers to a cow. An "image" of the ten commandments refers to the ten commandments - the word of God. So, to "worship" the image of a cow is to worship a cow - heresy. However, to "worship" an image of the ten commandments is to worship that to which they refer: the word of God - not a heresy. In Christianity, God and the word of God are indistinguishable.

Whether they appear in the text of the Bible, spraypainted on the side of a building or etched in granite is, imho, an utterly meaningless distinction.

I too can play Quote The Old Dead White Guy(tm) game...

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

"Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," Thomas Jefferson

No, the emphasis was exactly where I wanted it, thanks. Namely, in the word CREATOR, meaning the founding fathers believed in a Creator God.

So? It's still in there, isn't it?

I absolutely agree. That's what this country was founded on.

I don't care who you worship or IF you worship. That was not the point of my post. Since this is one of those cases I was obtuse, let me try to clarify my point:

The founding documents of this country have not one thing to do with separation of church and state, or else they would not be worded as they are. (No one has mentioned the fact that God is on all our money yet....)

I have a problem with the author (of the quoted first post)s repeated use of the separation of church and state, as if it was a mandate from the founding of this country that there will be no mix of the two, when obviously that's not the case.

If there isn't an iconic image of the ten commandments, why do all the carvings of them look the same?

How many ways can you depict "two large tablets made of stone"?

I did. That (and the pledge) was added later, so it says nothing about how the country was founded, just that there was a period of self-righteousness later on.

Just about infinity. And if it were truly about the words and not the image, there is no reason for it to look like two stone tablets in the first place.

?? How do you figure?

In the bible it says very clearly two stone tablets. So of course there is reason for them to look like two stone tablets...? I don't understand your post, HM.

Moses brought the first set of tablets, written with God's hand himself, down tot he people, and about 3,000 of them were dancing naked around an idol.

So Moses smashed em on the ground and had them all killed, and went back up the mountain and brought down a SECOND set of tablets, into which he had carved God's word.

They are significant in and of themselves because the words were "written in stone", a symbol of permanancy, which I'm sure struck a chord.

I was attempting to show that the popular depiction of the ten commandments is indeed an iconic image, recognizable even when it is small enough for the words to be illegible. If the words are more important than the icon, you could just as easily engrave them on an obelisk, or emboss them on hide.

And the words, engraved in an obelisk or branded on cowhide, are still words - not a representation of something other than God or his word. The ten commandments are not "objects of worship" like the classic icon of a golden calf. The calf itself is being worshipped whereas the words merely refer back to God himself.

You are mixing the definition of icon in the artistic sense with the definition in a religious sense. Purposefully, I think.

Well, I'm not going to argue scripture. I was just noting that there most certainly was such thing as an image of the ten commandments separate from the word content, and recognizable even when the "words" are nothing more than a wiggly line per commandment.

Oh I could but there are others here who know the origins, history and interpretations of US docs, constitutional history & figures involved far better than I do, I'll leave them to it. However I seem to remember something about a treaty with Tripoli that made the feelings of the founding fathers rather clearer than some would like. I would furthermore add that the inclusion of an amendment to me at least makes it very clear while some or all may have been religious men they felt that religion should not extend into government. References to god alone to not usurp that principle. The argument for the commandments seems to rest in a similarly warped way to the creationist one - that because something can't be ruled out or isn't entirely clear that given that inch, you should be allowed to take a mile.

And what then, do you make of the repeated inclusion of the idea of a creator in nearly all of the big US documents and coins?

If they really wanted complete and utter separation of religion and government, why put it in all those documents? The pledge? The coins?

Its always been my understanding that separation of church and state was meant to prevent the affiliation with or endorsement of any particular religion by the government. Belief in God, in and of itself, is not a religion, imho.

The first was done to show we weren't commies, and the second was in response to increased religious fervor in the Civil War, which is more of an argument against war than for religion.

That's great, what about the rest of it?

The rest of it goes out of its way to avoid Christian terms.

Nature's God...that's Cerrunos, right? :D

It is certain that the Judeo-Christian ethic has affected western civilisation in many ways. Certainly it has affected the set of laws we now have.

On the other hand, "When religion and politics ride in the same cart...". (Dang can't remember the rest of the quote. Herbert or Heinlein, I think.)

I'm Catholic. How about we put a statue of Mary in the state capitols? See the kind of trouble this can lead to?

I'd rather keep religion and politics separate.

One more 'however'. I do vote based on my morality.

The pledge and coins are irrelevant. The founding document of the country and the document that determines how things operate is the Constitution. The establishment clause tells us that it has no official religion. The words of Jefferson and Washington on the matter are clear. Here's what Washington wrote, just after the Constitution was accepted, to a bunch of Jews in RI who were worried about the nature of the new country, that it may shut them out like they had been before:

He spoke OF religion, but wanted to ensure that the nation would never be bigoted, never promote persecution.

"God" is NOWHERE in the Constitution. (Written by the founding fathers, to be known as ODWG from now on.)

The pledge was written without any referrence to God by a PREACHER in 1892. See a previous post with the writer's words. Again.

Here is a greenback, the first national currency, I'm still looking for the word "God".

http://www.frbsf.org/currency/indust...rst/c185fr.jpg
http://www.frbsf.org/currency/indust...rst/c185bk.jpg

see, i told you other people who know their shit better than me would chime in

I'm glad somebody noticed. If OC didn't actually quote me every now and then I'd think she had me on ignore.

And then
Hopefully she won't bring up the pledge and coins anymore with regard to the founding of the country...

*tip of my hat*

Thank you sir.

Um...

Religion has been said to coincide with morality. We live in difficult times. Where is morality in the political arena we live in today. I keep hearing our country was founded by religious views. History reinforces these facts. However, religion has no place in politics today. George washington rode a horse. George Bush does not. We live in a religious society, as well as a secular one...... Religion has it's place. Church, mosk,etc....politics given it's roots must steer clear of religion today. We have enough problems now. We live in a very diverse country, with many religious groups. When our forces leave Iraq, what do you think is going to happen between the different religious factions; especially after being run by a secular dictator for so many years. We don't want to go there. Leave it where it belongs, in the history books, such as the study of western civilization......Religion is fine, but don't force it on me, and citizens who have their own beliefs.... Someone said each man is equal. Let him have his beliefs.
"Religion can can be an opiate for the pains created by society."-Marx

Religion may have no place, but spirituality is needed
 

It's all well and good to compartmentalize like that, no religion in politics, but secualrism isn't enough, I'm sorry. It's literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. State sponsored religion is one thing, but not to acknowledge the existence of something above man's world is narrow. The simple fact that GW rode a horse, and George Bush drives around in a bulletproof Cadilac means nothing, what does that have to do with anything. Both share death. Both need and needed to take a shit at least 3-5 times a week too. These types of details are irrelevant. I think it's wrong to strafe America just for it's economic system, it removes the underlying forces that created it and fostered it's growth. This ardent move toward overt secularism is a shift wrought at the hands of humanist slime willing to deep six the spirit of this country for there pocket book and they're plithy world view. Politics must be guided by some moral conscious, the will of secular law is not enough, and never will be. Fine remove more organized religious idealology, ie. evangelical Chrisitainity, from the core of political motivations, but never allow the belief that something created us all, be tampered with. Whether it be fate, science, or Hashem, there needs to be a recognition of a higher power. That's the core of all of our legal documents, unalieable rights, given from up on high, not by man!

-Walrus

Secular law is enough for government and always wil be. Religious law is for individuals. If the government starts to think that its actions are the will of God, it becomes a theocracy.
The move toward overt secularism is ONLY TARGETED AT GOVERNMENT. Government is for all the people, not only for the "spiritual". There is no movement to shut churches or prevent kids from going to Sunday school.

We are all doomed then
 

This type of rhetoric is a prelude to a new tyranny. Furthermore, if you read my reply I came out against religion and government, a general spirtuality engenders compassion, we are not androids here. In addition western secular law is based on religious teachings, laws, and philosophy. Without it there would have been no secular law as we know it. Without the concept of inherent rights there would be no United States, or great modern republics to speak of. Rights given by man, can be taken away by man, it's a simple as that. To move towards a completey secular government is dangerous, and contrary to the history of the US. A government devoid of concious going forward is anterior to humanist aims as well. The seperation of church and state was intended to thwart undue influence of clerics in government as well as religous persecution. What is to guide government in the future without a higher order. Government can't guide itself, governments then would become a religion un to itself. Government is meant to protect the rights of the people, spirtual or not, but to have a mentality that reflects all or nothing in government is illogical. Because there is a small quotient of people who don't not belive in anything, governemt should bend to they're whim? Hogwash! Government must be steered by something other than itself. If not than the federal government should stop being in the business of tax collection and intrusion into the lives of the inhabitants of this continent and serve itself. I decry overt mentioning by our fearless leader about Christ directly, but I don't disagree with trying to bestow a blessing on this land in public speeches. To ask for providence to bestow it's better graces on us is to recognize how lucky we are to even have a government like this, or how lucky all of us are to have food or housing. Government for government's sake is self-serving and illogical.

-Walrus

All law is rooted in religion. Religion was the first political structure that could outlast the lifespan of a secular ruler.

The trick is to weed out the specific religious aspects that protect or aid one religion for a broader secular/philosophical structure that protects and aids all.

Couldn't one say modern law dates back to Hammurabi's Code which was in essence (It's not a subject I've taken but I'm led to beleive) largely secular? Babylon was a theocracy to be sure but the code of laws itself...

Walrus, HINT: just because YOU can't think of a valid secular approach to natural law doesn't mean there ISN'T one.

No one has Toad
 

Please enlighten us Toad. What's yours?

-Walrus

I'm not going to branch the thread that direction; it should be enough to say I've developed one, and it's sophisticated and deep, and so have many others.

And to claim that it's invalid and that I should be *governed* by a take on natural rights based on the teachings of what I believe to be rumor and fairy tale? Sounds like worse than tyranny to me.

The first written laws in Greece were set down by Draco in 620 BC and are not regarded to be inspired by religion (guess where the word Draconian came from).

The first Roman laws (the legal system of pretty much the entire western world is based on the Roman legal system) were written in 449 BC (The Twelve Tables) and there is no evidence that they were religiously inspired.

And while the Code of Hammurabi (1755 BC ±) did have sections devoted to regulating a class of citizens devoted to the service of God, it could hardly be considered to be theocratic as most of it dealt with matters of civil responsibility and ownership rights (even laws governing property leases and building codes).

Modern US law probably has more sections inspired by religion than the Big Three legal systems of the ancient world.

I was speaking more along the lines that before codification, it was the religious structure that maintained a running set of rules that were more long standing than those handed down by the changing list of rulers. As time would go by, the core components would become more concrete and eventually blur with the secular aspects of society. That's why when we have "Murder in the first degree" and "Thou shalt not kill" we get people screaming about how it was founded on religion.

Selective weeding and aid are paradoxal
 

It's amusing to hear this coming from someone who so eloquently chastisted others on picking and choosing from Christian doctrine. The very act of aiding anybody comes from a sense of compassion, which is only fostered in a government operating with some sort of conscious. Without that it is just a apparatus, working without feeling, period. As far as Hammurabi's code, the man was a king, and kings are afforded their rule through divination, hence making his word law being that he was . When you look at the body of the law, many exemptions existed for the clerics of the empire, while taxing and punishing many of the lower classes. The code of Hannuarabi got it's punch from the fact that the king was descended from God. This was the basis for rule. The Hannurabi Code had secular applications but was based on the authority of the king. That's the only way something like that could be enforced.

-Walrus

Thanks. I think...:eyebrow:

Anywho, you can't take out the law against murder just because it says "thou shalt not kill". More to the point was that over time you could show people that not killing each other is just, generally, a good idea for everybody because it is sound reasoning not just because your invisible entity(ies) say so.

Fuck, you're in need of a while on the whetstone aren't you? The whole goddamn point of the code of Hammurabi was that is NOT from the fact he was king, until then that's what a law meant - a king's edict, he changed all that. Fundamental to the code was the idea that some laws were too fundamental for even the king to change! Learn how to spell Hammurabi before you mouth off too. Hammurabi didn't believe he was descended from the gods either. Divination is what you're doing when you look for water with a forked stick or spend too long looking into your green tea, pick up a dictionary while you're looking for the history book.

Beestie - I seem to remember there was evidence that Roman law was descended from the code of Hammurabi, can you confirm/deny?

No one can say for sure. But many have compared the two and some reasonable conclusions suggest the answer is yes while others suggest perhaps not.

Hammurabi's Code had 281 provisions - most of which were extremely specific (e.g., the eye for an eye as well as one for a bone for a bone) where as The Twelve Tables (Roman) are very brief and very general with few specificly outlined offenses. The Tables are half procedural and half actual laws. The Code tried to anticipate every wrong that might be done and specifically outlaw it whereas the Tables (with remarkable forsight) instead created a structure for resolving wrongs between citizens and actual criminal activity and, therefore, basically created the explicit distinction betwen criminal and civil law. You could essentially sue someone in ancient Rome. Another interesting thing about the Tables is that they were originally Ten. Two were later added: one for prohibiting marriage between the classes (codifying a 200 year old class struggle) and one that said essentially: "the laws and judges verdicts that preceded the Tables are still in effect". Such a provision is, one could say, the origin of common law - the notion that the collective decisions of judges actually becomes incorporated into subsequent interpretations of the law.

Since the Code predated the Tables by over 1,000 years, its hard to imagine that the Romans were not at least aware of it although they certainly did not simply adopt a marked-up version of it. They really started from scratch and created an entire legal system whereas the Code was really a comprehensive set of rules. Hammurabi indicated that he wrote the Code so that "men might know what is expected of them." The Romans, I think, were more concerned with coming up with a consistent and systemitized way of dealing with criminal and tortuous behavior over the entire Empire.

Good question, though.

Testy, testy. Must be on one of your cycles Jag or should I call you rag. If you noticed I spelt Hammurabi right the first time, I guess mispelling isn't part of your set of faults now is it, or wait your perfect, you've never hit a key one key stoke away in error. In any event, the term divination has more than that meaning associated with it than that, which includes: "uttered under divine inspiration" basically refering to the king's supernatural connection as a representative of a god here on earth. If I wanted to use the term divine right I would have used it. Furthermore, I would like to say one can pick apart any of your posts, but most of them are too short and emotional to take anything away and have a true discussion. Furthmore, there's no need for personal insults or profanity, let's look at the reality of the code.

Here's a good example taken from a Fordham paper on the subject:

'The Code did not merely embody contemporary custom or conserve ancient law. It is true that centuries of law-abiding and litigious habitude had accumulated in the temple archives of each city vast stores of precedent in ancient deeds and the records of judicial decisions, and that intercourse had assimilated city custom. The universal habit of writing and perpetual recourse to written contract even more modified primitive custom and ancient precedent. Provided the parties could agree, the Code left them free to contract as a rule. Their deed of agreement was drawn up in the temple by a notary public, and confirmed by an oath "by god and the king." '

'The judges' decision might, however, be appealed against. Many contracts contain the proviso that in case of future dispute the parties would abide by "the decision of the king."'

The god of a city was originally owner of its land, which encircled it with an inner ring of irrigable arable land and an outer fringe of pasture, and the citizens were his tenants. The god and his viceregent, the king, had long ceased to disturb tenancy, and were content with fixed dues in naturalia, stock, money or service.

Bibliography.
Contracts in general: Oppert and Menant, Documents juridiques de l'Assyrie et de la Chaldee (Paris, 1877); J. Kohler and F. E. Peiser, Aus dem Babylonischen Rechtsleben (Leipzig, 1890 ff.); F. E. Peiser, Babylonische Vertrage (Berlin, 1890), Keilinschrifiliche Actenstucke (Berlin, 1889); Br. Meissner, Beitrage zur altbabylonischen Privatrecht (Leipzig, 1893); F. E. Peiser, "Texte juristischen und geschaftlichen Inhalts," vol. iv. of Schrader's Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek (Berlin, 1896); C. H. W. Johns, Assyrian Deeds and Documents relating to the Transfer of Property (3 vols., Cambridge, 1898); H. Radau, Early Babylonian History (New York, 1900); C. H. W. Johns, Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts and Letters (Edinburgh, 1904).

In reviewing the literature it is apparent that the code was a refinement of laws, deeds, and policy as put down and recorded by the temples and clerics. This was to consolidate cities, and remove many of the vestiges of nomadic life. In the end the king still held powers over the social strata that was also laid out in the code. This power was dervived not from popular will but by sucession and blood lines. Do you really think that individuals in 1780 BC would listen to any other authority?

"When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind." - Hammurabi's code of laws (translated by L.W. King)

-Walrus

Let's see a ref for that thanks, personally I use the Cambridge dictionary, I see no reference to this in there. You didn't mean to use divine, that wouldn't have made any sense. Stick to shorter words, they suit you. I have a long history of some impressive typos here, some of the older users will be able to attest to that one however misspelling the key term doesn't bode well for your understanding of the topic. It didn't. If you wish, with the ease and grace that the awesome latent powers as you suggest you possess would imply, go ahead and pick apart my posts. Don't hold back now, I'd hate to get the wrong impression of you because you were debating with one lobe tied behind your back.

Now while you've managed some impressive use of cut and paste there, bonus points for that. You seem to have failed to make a point though, pity about that. Yes, in the event of disputes the king was the final authority. I never denied this. You know most people would have been happy to accept that statement without a bibliography longer than your post content, you're wasting precious electrons.

I will however reinforce my position with these little quotes from the code epilogue.

Just in case that was unclear:

Both taken from this translation.
Aren't primary sources great?

I hope this makes it clear, the code was meant to be above kings, this was key. There aren't many ways of making this clearer than hoping someone's scepter breaks, them's fightin' words. Hammurabi wrote the code to please his gods but did not consider himself of divine lineage. I cannot make this any clearer. Go on, prove me wrong.

Personally, I feel there is a need for personal insults and profanity. A condition brought on by this flagrant case of not knowing what the fuck you're talking about exacerbated by insipid flirtations with the moral high ground. I make no attempt not to be abrasive when I feel the need, of course that need tends to be linked to displays of intemperate stupidity.

watch it jag - we may have to send you to a reform school for the anti-social.

Hey, it's cathartic, I've had 7 hours sleep since sunday and I'll be redlining it till tuesday, get it out my system here I'm less likely to do it to a client or some random unfortunate.

lay off the meth, man. it is bad for your skin.

If I was going to use anything it'd be coke but let's face it, i'm arrogant enough without rubbing that stuff into my gums.

I've seen no evidence of this.
That's insane. There simply is no way to support the concept that without religion there would be anarchy. I even will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you would not start murdering people if you lost your faith - likewise, even in the absence of religion, murder would remain illegal.
The exercise of all rights can be abridged by man, no matter where you claim the rights came from. Hopefully, other men will attempt to prevent the abridgement of those rights, but there are no divine guarantees of that. In the end, what we call inalienable rights are rights that we do not believe the government is ever justified in abridging. If the government disagrees, it is up to the people to stop it.

In fact, if religious people believe the government has a religious basis, they will be less inclined, not more inclined, to dispute any abridgement of rights, as is evident under kings and George W Bush.

Only if they are considered to be infalible. Governments should be secular and suspect. When a government gains a sheen of divine basis, that discourages suspicion.
It must be steered by compassion and the people. Not all of us require God's orders in order to be compassionate, and I suspect that even most people who believe that morality comes from God would have still been moral if raised as atheists.
Well, that's a non-sequitur. Government isn't a corporation, it is the mechanism to regulate the smooth operation of society.
True. Government isn't for government's sake, it is for the sake of doing things collectively that we can't do individually.

Come on now, I think you know what my analogy mean't concerning Gw And Gb. I think you chose to oversimplify my point purposely. You know, this country was founded on christian theology. At that time, secularism was not prevalent. I agree politics should be guided by basic morality. However, that does not mean religion. We have a president, that based his election on morality. He was backed by the likes of Jerry Faldwell and other right wing religious groups with money as well as public media attention. I don't ever remember seeing the word "higher power" in the constitution. Also, I have never heard that term used by GB. I have seen the word God used in the pledge of allegiance. I have heard our president speak of God, But I have never heard him say the word "higher power". You did not address the rest of my post. We are promoting democracy in Iraq. What happens when one sect of the Islamic faith rules the country. Will that be democracy. I don't think so
I think it will be closer to cival war, which in the long road will lead back to a dictatorship of some kind. I hope not. However, societies appear to be cyclical........ :(

i once new a guy who rubbed it on his cock between innings. what an obscene waste of money, eh?

I don't know what's worse, fucking on coke and thinking you're god's gift while you probably can't get it up of doing the equivalent or smoking by sticking it in your ear.

From here


I have read claims that religion is the source of law, and that human law is derived from religion. In my opinion, the opposite is true. Religion is created, and is amended, in response to human desires for order and absolution. I added the quote from the Argentine trial to illustrate that when circumstances changed in Argentina, as they have changed in the US, even religious authorities changed in their response. Instead of religion providing leadership, religious authority was lead by events and moral cowardice into ignoring their responsibility.

God either exists or does not. If God exists, he existed before religion because religion was created by men. Religion is to spirituality and God what farming is to plants growing, it is an attempt by man to domesticate what occurs naturally. Saying that you need religion to experience spirituality or God is like saying that plants only grow on farms.

Natural law exists for all animals, especially mammals. Most animals are arranged in groups - prides, flocks, packs, etc. Many of these groups have some form of natural law. In most cases, the natural law is brutally efficient. Man's law probably started out as primitive as that of a wolf pack. It was only later that any attempt to protect the weak was considered, probably when conditions improved to allow it.

Saying that religion is the only path to social order is almost as bad as saying that one specific religion is better than all of the others at providing social order. History pretty much disproves that idea. If God instilled in us, through divine spark or evolution, the qualities of compassion which most animals lack, he did it before there was any religion to worship him for it.

Mankind is perfectly capable of seeking social order without religion. Sometimes this is through positive efforts like charity and inclusion. Sometimes this is through negative efforts like authoritarianism and tyranny. Either of these types of efforts can be wrapped in religion, but they do not have to be. Roosevelt's "New Deal" was not religious.

In general, without knowing anything else, I can trust a man who declares himself an atheist as much as I can trust a man who wears his faith on his sleeve. I don't know many atheists, but I do know some self-proclaimed 'righteous men' who I wouldn't trust with a nickel.

Men imprint themselves on their religion, not the other way around.

Point of interest.
 

Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian, maybe that's why writing the basis of our government was left to him. :eyebrow:
He was his own man with his own beliefs similar to deism
He even wrote his own bible.