Terri Schiavo's Parents Seek Divorce on Her Behalf

[Happy Monkey]

Only for Christians/Jews. Unless you think they invented the prohibitions on murder and theft.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Only for Christians/Jews. Unless you think they invented the prohibitions on murder and theft.

*insert speech about the 10 commandments being about 4000 years old, and therefore predating just about every civilization that we still have records for*

Jews were the first to have the codified Law prohibiting it. Christians obviously came later, but still follow those laws, if nothing else.

[Kitsune]

Jews were the first to have the codified Law prohibiting it.

I thought it was The Code of Hammurabi...? (just curious)

They throw a fit anytime God is mentioned, whether it be a schoolkid praying at lunch or a cross on a roadside memorial on a federal highway.

I've not seen anyone protest a child praying at lunch or a roadside cross. What I have seen, however, are people protesting prayers endorsed by public schools and crosses on erected using taxpayer money on government property. But, ah, if you prefer the twisted version of it that is heard on talk radio and Toby Keith songs, go right ahead...

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

*insert speech about the 10 commandments being about 4000 years old, and therefore predating just about every civilization that we still have records for*

And before that, theft and murder were A.O.K.!

Come on. Theft and murder are as close to universal crimes as you can get. Different civilizations and different religions differ over where the line is between killing and murder or taking and theft, but just about every (or maybe every? not sure) human society has rules against killing without justification and taking what you aren't entitled to.

[OnyxCougar]

And I want to mention here that the Schindlers are being hypocrits right in everyone's face but no one has mentioned this particular aspect:

They are seeking divorce on Terri's behalf while claiming she wouldn't go against the Pope's decree about withholding food and hydration.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

They are seeking divorce on Terri's behalf while claiming she wouldn't go against the Pope's decree about withholding food and hydration.

Most non-Catholics don't get this ... divorce is not technically "illegal" under catholic canon law. You're allowed to get divorced.

What you're NOT allowed to do is receive communion if you remarry or marry someone who is divorced without first obtaining an annullment (church divorce). Excommunication doesn't throw you out of the church in it's entirety, it does restrict your access to the sacrements, which, I suppose is pretty much the same thing. You can still confess your sins, receive absolution, and so on, but you're out on marriage and taking holy orders, I believe.

There is a similar process, called a get in Jewish Law. You have to go through the civil and the religious ceremonies.

[mrnoodle]

The anti-christian zealots aren't worried about religious tenets being codified into US law. They throw a fit anytime God is mentioned, whether it be a schoolkid praying at lunch or a cross on a roadside memorial on a federal highway.

[vsp]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

The anti-christian zealots aren't worried about religious tenets being codified into US law. They throw a fit anytime God is mentioned, whether it be a schoolkid praying at lunch or a cross on a roadside memorial on a federal highway.

Horseshit. When I was in school, I could sit in the lunchroom and pray if I wanted to pray. Who could stop me even if they wanted to do so? Who could get into my head, figure out what I was thinking about and somehow prevent me from having a little private chat with God?

What _couldn't_ and _shouldn't_ have happened was for my day to begin with the loudspeaker saying "Let us now stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by our daily prayer."

Religion practiced on an individual basis is one thing. Religion specifically endorsed in public forums, such as public schools and courthouses, is a _very_ different concern.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by vsp

Horseshit. When I was in school, I could sit in the lunchroom and pray if I wanted to pray. Who could stop me even if they wanted to do so? Who could get into my head, figure out what I was thinking about and somehow prevent me from having a little private chat with God?

What _couldn't_ and _shouldn't_ have happened was for my day to begin with the loudspeaker saying "Let us now stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by our daily prayer."

Religion practiced on an individual basis is one thing. Religion specifically endorsed in public forums, such as public schools and courthouses, is a _very_ different concern.

They had a "moment of silence" in my schools every morning. If you wanted to pray you could, but most kids just stood there and were bored.

[mrnoodle]

Time for links!

I was trying to find the story from my hometown where one of our local atheists defaced a memorial to a kid lost in the mountains because it was on state forest land. I can't find it at the moment. But it's silly for me to have do to that. You know good and well that the anti-god people aren't concerned about state-run religion. They're after EVERYONE who practices Christianity, trying to force them into little boxes where it's "acceptable" to practice their faith.

[vsp]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

You know good and well that the anti-god people aren't concerned about state-run religion. They're after EVERYONE who practices Christianity, trying to force them into little boxes where it's "acceptable" to practice their faith.

I _am_ one of those "anti-god" people, one of those dirty heathen atheists you read about in the news. Don't tell me what I want to do and what I don't.

Let's see...

Link one: a case that ended up being decided correctly, where the kindergarten girl _was subsequently allowed_ to say Grace on an individual basis. This was personal religious expression, not school endorsement, and thus the court came down on the individual's side.

Link two: a case of abused and vandalized crosses that even the article assumes wasn't due to disgruntled atheists (who probably wouldn't have jumped to use Satanic or KKK imagery), a cross removed by a self-identifying Christian, and the ACLU spokesman saying "If you allow roadside crosses, you'll have allow atheist roadside memorials as well" -- as if _that_ would be such a horrible fate.

Link three: a controversy over whether a church pastor (accused of "indoctrination" and evangelism, true or not) could lead a school-endorsed discussion group about Bible study on school grounds and on school time. Those last two clauses are important.

I don't see anything in any of those links worth getting upset about.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

You know good and well that the anti-god people aren't concerned about state-run religion. They're after EVERYONE who practices Christianity, trying to force them into little boxes where it's "acceptable" to practice their faith.

I know nothing of the sort. In fact, I know the opposite. Though I do know that that is the boogieman that is dangled in front of the faithful to get them to vote for government entanglement with religion.

Lets run down some of the poular issues:

Having "In god we trust" on money is not practicing the faith. Even if you are a Christian: the one time Jesus got angry was when religion and commerce were mixed. So removing the phrase from money does not hinder the practicing of anyone's faith.

Likewise the pledge of alleigance - You can pray any time you like. Not mentioning God in the pledge doesn't stop you from mentioning Him before or afterwards. Nobody's faith would be hindered by its removal.

Removing organized prayer in schools doesn't stop anyone from practicing their faith. It is not an article of anyones faith that the principal of your school must dictate the time and/or form of your prayers.

Likewise prayers in legislative sessions.

The availability of gay marriage doesn't affect those who don't believe in gay marriage in any way whatsoever, except giving them something to cluck over.


So even if every single one of those hot button issues occurred, not one Christian would be hindered in any way from practicing their faith.

[OnyxCougar]

All the estimates I've seen on the dating lead me to believe it's after the 10 commandments event. But I don't have a timeline on that, it's not something I've researched at all.

But this brings up a question I have:

Why is it that no one questions the legitimacy of the Hammurabi Code, even tho only a few copies survive and were rewritten over and over, but we have more fragments and copies of the books of the bible, but it's authenticy is questioned?

Lee Strobel brought this up in the Case for Christ, and I find it terribly interesting.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

All the estimates I've seen on the dating lead me to believe it's after the 10 commandments event.

The code of Hammurabi was published around 1750 BC.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Why is it that no one questions the legitimacy of the Hammurabi Code, even tho only a few copies survive and were rewritten over and over, but we have more fragments and copies of the books of the bible, but it's authenticy is questioned?

The code had one author and the original printing still exists. There is nothing to question.

[vsp]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Why is it that no one questions the legitimacy of the Hammurabi Code, even tho only a few copies survive and were rewritten over and over, but we have more fragments and copies of the books of the bible, but it's authenticy is questioned?

The Bible has been translated and retranslated and retranslated and retranslated and retranslated and interpreted and reinterpreted and reinterpreted and reinterpreted and reinterpreted over and over and over and over and over for centuries.

It passed through time periods where the only ones trained to read and write Latin (and, thus, the only ones capable of reproducing the Latin Vulgate and telling everyone else what it said and what that meant) were the churches themselves.

There are hundreds, probably thousands of variations of the Bible out there today.

Which one is the most correct, and how literally should we interpret the contents of the version in which we choose to believe?