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.
convincing the founding fathers to choose a secular form of government clearly separating church and state
.........
blur the boundaries between church and state
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.
'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??
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.--
You missed with your emphasis there, thought I'd tighten in up for you a little bit.
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.
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.
This country was founded on a belief in a creator god and is is ALL of our major documents and mottos.
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....
(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.
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.
"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
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.
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.
"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
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
You missed with your emphasis there, thought I'd tighten in up for you a little bit.
No, the emphasis was exactly where I wanted it, thanks. Namely, in the word CREATOR, meaning the founding fathers believed in a Creator God.
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.
So? It's still in there, isn't it?
Which in no way takes away from the idea that others should be able to worship, or not, as their beliefs dictate.
I absolutely agree. That's what this country was founded on.
The governmental imprimatur, as alluded to in your above statement is what is used as a hammer on people of alternative, or no, religion.
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.
However, there is no such thing as an "image" of the ten commandments, imo.
If there isn't an iconic image of the ten commandments, why do all the carvings of them look the same?
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"?
(No one has mentioned the fact that God is on all our money yet....)
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.
How many ways can you depict "two large tablets made of stone"?
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.
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.
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.
You can do way better than that, can't you??
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?
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 pledge? The coins?
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.
the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them
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:
The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.
He spoke OF religion, but wanted to ensure that the nation would never be bigoted, never promote persecution.
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?
"God" is [size=5]
NOWHERE[/size] 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 [size=5]
PREACHER[/size] in [size=5]
1892[/size]. 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".
see, i told you other people who know their shit better than me would chime in
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.
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.'
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 ".
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.
And then
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?
Hopefully she won't bring up the pledge and coins anymore with regard to the founding of the country...
Hopefully...
*tip of my hat*
Thank you sir.
How many ways can you depict "two large tablets made of stone"?
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
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
the will of secular law is not enough, and never will be.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
All law is rooted in religion.
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.
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.
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
It's amusing to hear this coming from someone who so eloquently chastisted others on picking and choosing from Christian doctrine.
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?
...I seem to remember there was evidence that Roman law was descended from the code of Hammurabi...
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
In future time, through all coming generations, let the king, who may be in the land, observe the words of righteousness which I have written on my monument; let him not alter the law of the land which I have given, the edicts which I have enacted; my monument let him not mar. If such a ruler have wisdom, and be able to keep his land in order, he shall observe the words which I have written in this inscription; the rule, statute, and law of the land which I have given; the decisions which I have made will this inscription show him; let him rule his subjects accordingly, speak justice to them, give right decisions, root out the miscreants and criminals from this land, and grant prosperity to his subjects.
Just in case that was unclear:
If a succeeding ruler considers my words, which I have written in this my inscription, if he do not annul my law, nor corrupt my words, nor change my monument, then may Shamash lengthen that king's reign, as he has that of me, the king of righteousness, that he may reign in righteousness over his subjects. If this ruler do not esteem my words, which I have written in my inscription, if he despise my curses, and fear not the curse of God, if he destroy the law which I have given, corrupt my words, change my monument, efface my name, write his name there, or on account of the curses commission another so to do, that man, whether king or ruler, patesi, or commoner, no matter what he be, may the great God (Anu), the Father of the gods, who has ordered my rule, withdraw from him the glory of royalty, break his scepter, curse his destiny. May Bel, the lord, who fixeth destiny, whose command can not be altered, who has made my kingdom great, order a rebellion which his hand can not control; may he let the wind of the overthrow of his habitation blow, may he ordain the years of his rule in groaning, years of scarcity, years of famine, darkness without light, death with seeing eyes be fated to him; may he (Bel) order with his potent mouth the destruction of his city, the dispersion of his subjects, the cutting off of his rule, the removal of his name and memory from the land.
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.
I've had 7 hours sleep since sunday
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.
...
a general spirtuality engenders compassion,
I've seen no evidence of this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Government must be steered by something other than itself.
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.
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.
Well, that's a non-sequitur. Government isn't a corporation, it is the mechanism to regulate the smooth operation of society.
Government for government's sake is self-serving and illogical.
True. Government isn't for government's sake, it is for the sake of doing things collectively that we can't do individually.
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
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'm arrogant enough without rubbing that stuff into my gums.
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
Adolfo Scilingo
"They were unconscious. we stripped them, and when the flight commander gave the order, we opened the door and threw them out, naked, one by one. That is the story, and nobody can deny it." With these words, former Argentine navy Captain Adolfo Francisco Scilingo, 48, spilled one of the dirtiest secrets of the "dirty war" that raged in his country from the mid-1970s through the early '80s. Human-rights workers and relatives of at least 9,000 Argentines who "disappeared" under military rule have long contended that the missing were systematically murdered by troops acting on orders from the ruling generals. But Scilingo is the first ex-officer to echo these charges in public.
For the next two years, he remembers, some 15 to 20 prisoners were trucked every Wednesday to the Buenos Aires airport, put on a military plane, and then dropped, drugged but alive, from a height of about 13,000 ft. into the Atlantic Ocean.
Scilingo estimates that between 1,500 and 2,000 people "disappeared" in this manner from his base alone. He admits responsibility for 30 of them. He says he was ordered to participate in two of the death flights in 1977, adding that his fellow officers drew the same sort of assignment: "It was to give everyone a turn, a kind of Communion." On his first flight, Scilingo helped strip and then throw 13 victims out of a coast guard Sky Van; on his second, he did the same to 17 more out of a navy Elektra.
"Personally, I could never get over the shock," he says now, even though he still feels the fight against "subversives" was for a righteous cause. His first death flight so disturbed Scilingo that he went to a navy chaplain: "He told me that it was a Christian death because they did not suffer, that it was necessary to eliminate them." The Roman Catholic Church, long criticized for tolerating the military, responded last week with a veiled mea culpa chastising priests who may have condoned the "dirty war." But human-rights activists still called upon the church to acknowledge openly its sins of omission.
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.
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.
Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen. In compiling what has come to be called "The Jefferson Bible," he sought to separate those ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels. He presented these teachings, along with the essential events of the life of Jesus, in one continuous narrative.
Thomas Jefferson...
I keep trying to imagine what Jefferson, or someone like him, would do today.
I think that it would get really ugly, really fast.
He would be labeled as a nut and ridiculed on the 24 hour news networks.
"Tom, your union held. It took another three generations and a civil war to free the slaves, but it expanded and developed over pretty much the entire known useable land mass. By 150 years later, through the freedom found by the nature of government you proposed, and the ingenuity of its people, it has become the strongest nation on earth. In fact it helped save England from Prussian takeover by joining on its old foe's side. Now its currency is the most traded, its culture the most copied, its incorporations the most valued, and its military completely without equal."
OK TS, you give him the bad news.
I keep trying to imagine what Jefferson, or someone like him, would do today.
I think that it would get really ugly, really fast.
WWJD~~ What Would Jefferson Do? :biggrin:
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.
Well it's nice to see that there are still blatant elitists/pompus asses/clods still walking around on earth, sometimes I get worried that aren't enough of you around. You still haven't gotten my point and doubt you ever will. I was making reference to the authority of the king through God, and that this code was constructed to see that goodness and greatness of God bestowed on all his people. In the Epilogue of the code it also states that Hammurabi also condems destruction to whomever breaks the code to the God of righteousness, because he would be dead you brute, of course it was supposed to go past the lives of kings. Men carrying on man made tradition is fool hearty and ill-advised, but as exhibited by the ruin of Babylon. Your continued obsession over the word divination gives me a hint that you are probably nothing more than a hyped up bean counter with time to waste posting here for all the many years you've been spouting your nonsense. I would love to scrutinize one of your posts, but they seem to be attack oriented and of a venomous and contemptious nature with little more than negative dim whitted sarcasm attached to each worthless word.
To my point:
"Hammurabi, the king of righteousness, on whom Shamash has conferred right (or law) am I. My words are well considered; my deeds are not equaled; to bring low those that were high; to humble the proud, to expel insolence. If a succeeding ruler considers my words, which I have written in this my inscription, if he do not annul my law, nor corrupt my words, nor change my monument, then may Shamash lengthen that king's reign, as he has that of me, the king of righteousness, that he may reign in righteousness over his subjects. If this ruler do not esteem my words, which I have written in my inscription,
if he despise my curses, and fear not the curse of God, if he destroy the law which I have given, corrupt my words, change my monument, efface my name, write his name there, or on account of the curses commission another so to do, that man, whether king or ruler, patesi, or commoner, no matter what he be, may the great God (Anu), the Father of the gods, who has ordered my rule, withdraw from him the glory of royalty, break his scepter, curse his destiny"
- This section binds his curse to future leaders by the will of God, which is my point on the code it's bound by God, the king is just the God's representative, that was my contention, you chose to view it as only the king's authority, that's your problem.
"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"
- this goes to my point on divination, in many accounts of Hammurabi's inspiration of the law, and in the very text of the code, he makes reference to divine inspiration, in the name of righteousness, being spoken to and so forth. This isn't even taking into account that he consulted an oracle from time to time.
On the issue of my use of divination, my usuage of the word was in reference to what Hammurabi felt was his calling. My usage was as such: Example: Oxford English Dictionary: "the practice of divining or seeking knowledge by supernatural needs" Example : American Heritage Dictionary: "Something that has been divined"
Whether Hammurabi believed it to be set from high or not, which I believe he did, the fact remains that the authority set out in the law stems from God, or Gods in this case, that's it, and frankly I refuse to be daunted by your chastising, it's a matter of interpretation on the usage of this word. Your chose to look at any possible given meaning to the contrary, avoiding the fact that, although this set of laws had many secular applications and regualted many mundane processes, the prologue and the epilogue make reference to the heavenly nature of its origin. The concept of doing good is the key point here, why do good, because its the right thing to do? Says who? Some guy, no it's the representive of God in this case, that's all. I refuse to address any further commentary my spelling mistakes, I think a simple spelling error says nothing about comprehesion or knowledge of a subject if done in haste and in an informal medium such as this.
-Walrus
If I tell you that you are never again allowed to put salt on your food and my authority to make that decree comes from God, then of course you will stop using salt because it is God's will. Right? :eyebrow:
"Tom, your union held. It took another three generations and a civil war to free the slaves, but it expanded and developed over pretty much the entire known useable land mass. By 150 years later, through the freedom found by the nature of government you proposed, and the ingenuity of its people, it has become the strongest nation on earth. In fact it helped save England from Prussian takeover by joining on its old foe's side. Now its currency is the most traded, its culture the most copied, its incorporations the most valued, and its military completely without equal."
OK TS, you give him the bad news.
While I'm certainly no stranger to sarcasm, you needn't be so heavy handed with it. :)
I don't think that our accomplishments to date are as important as our current direction. I'm hoping that things will be smoothed over when we take the average down the road, but I'm rather sure that our current vector would not please him as they are now.
God either exists or does not.
Random thing I noticed... you used to write it as G-d. Did you have a change of heart about that rule as it applies to digital writing, or did you just forget? Just curious.
"Tom, your union held. It took another three generations and a civil war to free the slaves, but it expanded and developed over pretty much the entire known useable land mass. By 150 years later, through the freedom found by the nature of government you proposed, and the ingenuity of its people, it has become the strongest nation on earth. In fact it helped save England from Prussian takeover by joining on its old foe's side. Now its currency is the most traded, its culture the most copied, its incorporations the most valued, and its military completely without equal."
OK TS, you give him the bad news.
We're starting to act like England.
absolutely not. we still visit dentists.
Random thing I noticed... you used to write it as G-d. Did you have a change of heart about that rule as it applies to digital writing, or did you just forget? Just curious.
It was a conscious decision. In my mind at least the idea of using G-d is not to 'use the Lord's name in vain'. In Orthodox Judaism, I believe that they limit themselves, in both Hebrew and English, to using G-d or a Hebrew equivalent for everything outside of prayer. In addition, when reciting a prayer for practice or scholarly purposes, they will change the normally recited name of God, which is itself not a direct phonetic translation of the word as it is written. The word used for non-religious purposes is Hashem "the name". The word used in synagogue translates as 'Lord'. The word actually written in text and never used is the "Y" word, thought to be the proper name of God.
IMO, discussing religion and advancing knowledge in general are not light pursuits and so I am moving away from worrying about it being 'vain'.
P.S. I just did a fact check and found
this link which gives two of the names discussed above, along with others I had never heard. "Hashem" is not listed, possibly because it is a spoken convention. I also found that I was wrong about the 'Y' word never being used. There is one exception in English, but I am pretty sure I have never heard it used in synagogue.
Oh dear.
Time for a recap because it's getting lost in the noise and there's come serious cognitive dissonance and cross talking going on.
A very, very long time ago you stated, incorrectly:
The code of Hannuarabi got it's punch from the fact that the king was descended from God.
I've been trying to get that though and you've been dodging the point ever since. The only other point I made, etymology & definition of divination aside, was that the code was not meant to be changed by future kings - it was meant to be a fundamental legal construct beyond their power. I mean this is the thing, I'm well aware the King got his mandate of sorts from the gods but regents and vice regents aren't normally related are they? (we're not talking prince-regents here obviously)
What I don't get, is where you got the idea I was denying the King's authority came from god. It has no bearing on whether the code itself was largely secular, which is what I posted to start this. You seem to have problems with separating the two, maybe we're talking at cross purposes. I obviously feel that the code can be secular in a theocratic governmental structure and that while the code may have been obeyed for religious reasons it was still a largely secular system of laws. Do you disagree? To save hunting around:
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...
Judding by:
and that this code was constructed to see that goodness and greatness of God bestowed on all his people.
I'd say yes. This is the core of the whole thing, I think he was a wise bloke that realized that a separate code of laws was key to stable and just government, you think it was a religious thing.
you chose to view it as only the king's authority, that's your problem.
I did? I said that the king was not descended from the God
s, that's all.
On the issue of my use of divination, my usage of the word was in reference to what Hammurabi felt was his calling. My usage was as such: Example: Oxford English Dictionary: "the practice of divining or seeking knowledge by supernatural needs" Example : American Heritage Dictionary: "Something that has been divined"
That is (Oxford at least, not sure about that crappy American dictionary since you didn't post how it defines divined) the same as the Cambridge one. It however makes no sense contextually.
You stated:
and kings are afforded their rule through divination
.
So you think so the kings were afforded their rule though seeking knowledge by supernatural deeds? Rightyo.
Men carrying on man made tradition is fool hearty and ill-advised, but as exhibited by the ruin of Babylon.
Yea, secular liberal democracy is a silly idea, let's go back to a dark-ages theocratic government, that rocked. And you wonder why I think you're a halfwit, it's pompous, ludicrous twaddle like this.
If I tell you that you are never again allowed to put salt on your food and my authority to make that decree comes from God, then of course you will stop using salt because it is God's will. Right?
Well
if you believe god will smite you down with a whacking great thunderbolt for doing so, yea. Cultural paradigms and all that anthropological claptrap.
I wasn't being sarcastic at all. I think Mr. Jefferson would be utterly pleased with the outcome AND the direction. I wanted to put a fine point on it by telling the story of what happened in the big picture. And with the lack of any truly negative narrative offered so far I have to assume I was right.
Wouldn't the old boy be a touch pissed about the federal government gradually grabbing power?
Wouldn't the old boy be a touch pissed about the federal government gradually grabbing power?
Basically, Jefferson coming back to encounter the modern US would have the same net result as Jesus coming back to encounter the modern church. Something along the lines of "The Man in the Iron Mask" comes to mind. :eyebrow:
I think he would find the modern world different from the post-colonial one, in ways that make federalism less of a concern. The main issues would be whether the government remains representational and the country free and productive. Check check and check.
The difference in perspective between you two is intersting. I don't knwo nearly enough to know who is right but while UT has a point, he always seemed to be jolly pragmatic surely the erosion of lot of rights would have been....unwelcome.
I think he would find the modern world different from the post-colonial one, in ways that make federalism less of a concern. The main issues would be whether the government remains representational and the country free and productive. Check check and check.
He would approve of international kidnapping? Unilateral invasion of sovereign nation without one valid reason and without even a declaration of war. Mandating the principles of one religion on all other people? Running up debts at record levels using accounting that would be fraud anywhere else. Government free access to a person's home and of personal papers without even a court order (Patriotic acts). Government approved torture as long as the body damage is not permanent. And a people who would even encourage this - with veins hanging from their teeth. Clearly Jefferson would be happy?
Jefferson owned slaves. Jag's hit on it, I think he would have been pragmatic about it.
One of my points is skew to the politics involved. The big picture is what's really important. We can always find faults and we perceive some problems as being just enormous... when perhaps they aren't, and it's just our perception that's at fault.
Look at surveys of public opinion and you see that lists of the "most important issues" change constantly. One year the economy is the most important issue. Next year the war is the most important issue. Next year the environment is the most important issue. Next year crime is the most important issue.
9/11 was a perfect example of this. Clearly, the most important issue in the USA in the year 2000 was terrorism. In surveys of public opinion it would not have made the top 100.
We are not immune. Right here on the cellar is a thread asking whether we "feel safe" - I might have asked the question, even. But the question is silly. On 9/10/2001 100% would have answered YES. Everyone felt completely safe. The real question is ARE we safe, not do we FEEL safe.
Each and every one of us here is perfectly convinced we know the most important issues to our nation and the world. A third of us believe it is the environment, another third believe it is military/governmental overreach, and another third believe it is following the will of their god. Two-thirds of us are wrong!
Sorry for the threadjacking...
Quote:If I tell you that you are never again allowed to put salt on your food and my authority to make that decree comes from God, then of course you will stop using salt because it is God's will. Right?
Well if you believe god will smite you down with a whacking great thunderbolt for doing so, yea. Cultural paradigms and all that anthropological claptrap.
I was being sarcastic, Jag. Anyone can set down rules and claim it's god"s will. Don't make it so.
Look at surveys of public opinion and you see that lists of the "most important issues" change constantly. One year the economy is the most important issue. Next year the war is the most important issue. Next year the environment is the most important issue. Next year crime is the most important issue.
Which is why Bush stonewalls knowing the public will lose interest shortly and move on to the next subject at the water cooler. Also why Nixon would have succeeded had it not been for people like TW with the tenacity to beat the drum till the public took notice.
The real question is ARE we safe, not do we FEEL safe.
I disagree. The truth is we are never safe, be it a terrorist, rabid mailman of diseased mosquito. But feeling safe has a great deal of effect on our quality of life. People in jail have much less chance of being killed in a car crash but I think they'd rather be driving. :)
looks like iamthewalrus109 has bitten the dust, oh well, wheat from the chaff.
I was being sarcastic, Jag. Anyone can set down rules and claim it's god's will. Don't make it so.
Yea my bad there but my point stands, build up enough stuff around it and people start believing you, look at all the wacky cults and their followers out there, all you need is good salesmanship. Soon as that happens whether it is or not is moot.
Oh No! Not LumberJimism! :eek:
I've been waiting for LJ to get tired of the car game and go into televangelism.
He's got the look for it.
And the necessary gregariousness.
They'd have to put him on tape delay to bleep out the naughty words :D
I think that Jefferson would be amazed at the way things have turned out. Remember, in his day, they left the only home they'd ever known to go to a new country that was barely habitable except in the few "urban" centers, and create an entirely new way of running a country. There were some monarchists in the new world, but the majority of the folks were into freedom and becoming something more than just another British colony (not that there's anything WRONG with that). The FF's had the backing of the populace.
Today, Jefferson would see a country with an unfathomable number of citizens, living in conditions that are downright Utopian for the most part, arguing the finer points of government and Constitutionality, arguing WITH the government without fear of reprisal (for the speech, anyway). I'd think he'd be beside himself. Plus, he'd think airplanes are cool.
Jesus, on the other hand, would probably need some Alka-Seltzer.
They'd have to put him on tape delay to bleep out the naughty words :D
He's cable-ready. I think it would work.
All things considered, I'd be a _lot_ more comfortable with the God Squad if their Congressional representatives didn't keep submitting bills like the Constitution Restoration Act to Congress. What in the blue fuck is _wrong_ with people, my alleged district representative among them, who have attempted to make this bill a law _twice? (It was introduced last year by Zell Miller and Sam Brownback with Judge Roy Moore present, reached subcommittees and died there, and was reintroduced a few weeks ago.)
Text of <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1070:">House bill</a>, companion <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00520:@@@L&summ2=m&">Senate bill</a>
Summary:
<i>Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.
Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of adoption of the U.S. Constitution.
Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.
Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution.</i>
Let's break this down, shall we?
The second paragraph is a direct slap at O'Connor, Ginsburg, Kennedy and the others in the "liberal-moderate" wing of the Supreme Court, who have cited international law on several occasions as being worthy of examination and comparison when judging our own law. However, that's not the spookiest part.
Paragraph one: The Federal Courts, including the Supremes, would now have _zero_ jurisdiction over any case involving Christianity. Paragraph three removes past findings in these areas as binding precedents on state courts.
Roy Moore's Ten Commandments idol? Replaced. Sodomy laws? Back in black. Laws banning abortion or a variety of other things on the explicit grounds that "God says it's wrong?" Suddenly quite possible.
Imagine a state whose courts are packed with fundies. (If that sounds like a stretch, imagine Alabama.) Its state legislature passes some noxious and discriminatory bill on religious grounds. If the highest state appellate court upholds the bill, it's DONE, because it cannot be appealed to and overturned by ANY federal court.
Extra incentive for that? Paragraph four. If a judge violates this new jurisdiction and tries to overturn some blatantly unconstitutional law that's religion-themed, it's considered an offense worthy of impeachment and removal from the bench.
Fucked if I even want to _think about_ driving through the South if this bill somehow passes.
The political ju-jitsu involved is both clever and dangerous. Goes something like this:
* Congress: Hey! Supreme Court! You now have no jurisdiction over God-related laws. We can put up the Commandments, enshrine Old Testament law into American law, and do anything we want in the name of God. Nyahh.
* Supremes: Fuck THAT. That's unconstitutional.
* Congress: Ah, but we've removed your ability to judge that to be unconstitutional, using Article III of the Constitution as our basis. Better yet, if you _try_ to rule that way anyway, we can impeach any of you who do so.
* Supremes: ... Shit.
CAN Congress pass a law that specifically exempts itself, much less an entire class of laws, from federal court jurisdiction and Constitutional scrutiny without amending the Constitution itself? Do they have the independent authority via Article III to do this? It's a Constitutional clusterfuck waiting to happen that'd make Watergate look like a parking ticket hearing.
Now, is this likely to pass or even reach the floor for full consideration? No. It'd be a very open admission of "We want theocracy" by the hard right, and thus would have its share of Republican defectors. It's been submitted once before, and went nowhere. Many lawmakers have a habit of submitting bills that are more symbolic than serious. I'm not losing too much sleep over the possibility.
But when the House Majority Leader has come right out and declared war on the judicial branch, he's under severe scrutiny and may be on the way out, and there's a bill in the House and Senate _already_ that would clamp down severely upon the "activist judiciary" who are "tyrannizing" the country (a country whose former president he attempted to impeach, citing "He holds the wrong Biblical worldview" as one of the justifications)... well... I itch.
Just a bit.
One more time, just in case you didn't get it ...
Freedom of is not freedom from.
One more time, just in case you didn't get it ...
Freedom of is not freedom from.
And I have no idea what that has to do with a proposed law that would not only specifically endorse Christianity, but remove all judicial checks and balances ensuring freedom OF.
--snip--Now, is this likely to pass or even reach the floor for full consideration? No. It'd be a very open admission of "We want theocracy" by the hard right, and thus would have its share of Republican defectors. It's been submitted once before, and went nowhere. Many lawmakers have a habit of submitting bills that are more symbolic than serious. I'm not losing too much sleep over the possibility.
But when the House Majority Leader has come right out and declared war on the judicial branch, he's under severe scrutiny and may be on the way out, and there's a bill in the House and Senate _already_ that would clamp down severely upon the "activist judiciary" who are "tyrannizing" the country (a country whose former president he attempted to impeach, citing "He holds the wrong Biblical worldview" as one of the justifications)... well... I itch.
Just a bit.
Nice post and analysis vsp. But I would look into getting my dosage of anti-itch medication reduced, because this kind of story is not the warning of an attack, it
is the attack.
You and I both have seen the most unrealistic proposals gain traction and reality from sheer repetition. By saying it over and over and over again, it becomes familiar, and from familiar to reasonable. Look at our police officers--how they're always having to arrest criminals. I mean they wouldn't arrest them if they weren't guilty, right? But what happened to the presumtion of innocence? Oversaturation by the idea that we arrest guilty people leads to belief. Repetition doesn't create truth, but it can create belief.
Which is why this story is dangerous.
Ironically, the way to combat this insidious attack on the foundation of our nation's guiding priciples is MORE discussion. This kind of story can not live in the light of day. Even loud long exclamations like the chicken little lies we've heard this week from both the President and the Congress about "saving" Terri Schaivo did not mislead the majority of the population. When the ridiculous anti-constitutional idea of having Congress write a Federal law to "save" one person (that's how it was spun), was revealed to the people, they saw how wrong it was and rejected the Fed's attempt to extend it's control into our lives.
This power grab you write about is much more frightening, but still has the same vulnerabilities. When people see and hear this wrongness, they will reject this one too.
Except that the entire law is itself unconstitutional and the if the court rules it so, cannot be enforced. The only way for that kind of change to be made is a Constitutional amendment and there the checks and balances will work.
Maybe. It's a stretch, but the proponents of this bill claim that Article III of the Constitution gives Congress the right to restrict the judiciary's oversight of the Constitution, literally locking away entire classes of laws and saying "You _can't_ rule these to be unconstitutional, because we've taken away your right to do so." That's a Pat Robertson wet dream right there, as it would give states the ability to become miniature Christian-right fiefdoms without federal recourse.
Would it work? Which side (the legislature saying "No, you can't" or the courts saying "yes, we CAN") would be enforceable, and how? Hopefully, it'll never be tested.
Maybe. It's a stretch, but the proponents of this bill claim that Article III of the Constitution gives Congress the right to restrict the judiciary's oversight of the Constitution, literally locking away entire classes of laws and saying "You _can't_ rule these to be unconstitutional, because we've taken away your right to do so."
Man, this could get seriously ugly. Maybe we need for it to.
Man, this could get seriously ugly. Maybe we need for it to.
I've been of the opinion, for a few years now, that it isn't nearly bad enough to get better yet.
It's also been a theory of mine that America as we know it is only a stepping stone on a still rather long and bumpy road.
Maybe. It's a stretch, but the proponents of this bill claim that Article III of the Constitution gives Congress the right to restrict the judiciary's oversight of the Constitution, literally locking away entire classes of laws and saying "You _can't_ rule these to be unconstitutional, because we've taken away your right to do so." That's a Pat Robertson wet dream right there, as it would give states the ability to become miniature Christian-right fiefdoms without federal recourse.
Would it work? Which side (the legislature saying "No, you can't" or the courts saying "yes, we CAN") would be enforceable, and how? Hopefully, it'll never be tested.
Let's see
Article III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
If Congress intends to say that displeasing members of Congress is bad behavior, than the courts will have every right to strike down the law. Just like a cop can't get fired for giving a speeding ticket to the mayor, a judge can't be fired for doing his or her job.
If they try this, then it will be the wake-up call for anybody who is anywhere to the left of rabidly stupid right-wing, which includes true conseratives, moderates, libertarians, liberals, .....
From
here:
[INDENT]RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS SEEK THEIR OWN 'ACTIVIST' JUDGES
Sat Apr 2, 8:25 PM ET
By Cynthia Tucker
Friends of Florida judge George Greer describe him as a low-key conservative Christian, a Republican, a family man, a dog lover. Appellate courts have found over and over again that Greer simply followed the law in deciding a sad and controversial case.
But for that sin, the Pinellas County Circuit Court judge was invited out of his Southern Baptist Church.
Apparently, Greer's critics, including his pastor, didn't like his rulings in the Terri Schiavo case, which landed in his courtroom in 1998. They wanted him to be an activist judge -- a jurist who ignored the law and ruled according to the passions of a group of partisans.
Ultraconservatives want you to believe the term "activist judge" applies to a group of determined liberals whose rulings have overturned historic precedent, undermined morality and defied common sense. But the controversy that erupted around Schiavo, who died on Thursday, ought to remind us once and for all what "activist judge" really means: a jurist whose rulings dissatisfy a right-wing political constituency. [/INDENT]emphasis mine.
I can see inviting the judge out of the church. It's a private organization, like, say the Atlanta Country Club where the Masters Tournament is held that prohibits women from playing. Whatever. Stoooopid, but not really my business. They wouldn't want me, and I f'sho don't want them.
But the whining and clamoring about "activist judges" is a drum I'm worn out beating.
To be plain:
Coming from people who don't get their way, the decisions are coming from "activist judges". When they do get their way, the decisions come from "stalwart constructionists".
This kind of partisan rooting and cheering is something that lends spice to the local football game, but on a national level, um, aren't we all Americans rooting for the Con-sti-too-shun?
Hey, can I get a show of hands here? Who thinks the actions of the courts in the latest round of this story rises to the level of jurisIMprudence, judicial activisim, etc?
Hey Wolf, what kind of bulk discount does
Cheaper Than Dirt offer?
You might actually be able to do better if you have stuff drop-shipped from the manufacturer.
True, I hadn't thought about that.
I may go ahead and order that
carbine I was looking at as well.
If I might suggest this ...
It's available in a variety of grip styles, so you can match your carry to your carbine ... oh, and yes, the 30 rnd stick mags work just fine. Don't worry about how I know ...
If they try this, then it will be the wake-up call for anybody who is anywhere to the left of rabidly stupid right-wing, which includes true conseratives, moderates, libertarians, liberals, .....
That sound’s logical but what about when a 6.7 magnitude, shallow crust earthquake hits Seattle. 39,000 buildings destroyed, 130 simultaneously burning fires, 7700 dead or badly hurt, every major bridge down, hillsides sliding, a 10 foot wave through the waterfront and emergency services non-existent.
Or a tsunami hits any coast.
Or a dirty bomb in any city.
Now you have martial law in an ever expanding swath to prevent looting, clear the way for emergency services and prevent the spread of disease/contamination. For the children, damn it!!!
It’s a national crisis....unusual measures for unusual times.....we certainly need God’s help in this disaster.....these new laws and “adjustments” are only temporary until......damn it, we don’t have time to debate this......per order of Homeland Security.....if ya got a problem, write your congressman, now get on the damn truck.........cuff him, Dano. :whip:
If I might suggest this ...
It's available in a variety of grip styles, so you can match your carry to your carbine ... oh, and yes, the 30 rnd stick mags work just fine. Don't worry about how I know ...
I had looked at it, and a friend of mine has a pistol of their's. It's rather ugly, although neither of them is a beauty queen.
I don't like the skeletal look and it's a bit pricier.
It's around $350, doesn't have to be beautiful to be functional, and it folds in half. How cool is that?
They also have the SU-16 line, which fires .223, and has a fold down bipod integrated into the design. Oh, and it also folds in half for compact storage.
I want to move to some uniformity in ammunition across my line. It's going to be .40 cal all the way.
All I need is a sub-gun, and the carbine. Or the two combined...
I understand about uniformity of caliber, I'm a .40 woman myself, which is why I selected the KelTec ... not only is it in my favored caliber, but it uses the same magazines.
wolf, TS, I lost the track of the beginning of the weaponry discussion... could you guide me back to the start of it so I can understand what in the world y'all are talkin about, please?
It's my fault. I mentioned buying bulk ammo after seeing
the post about the religious wackos who are getting ready to try to take over America.
I will not go quietly in the long night, etc, etc, etc...
I believe that TS is half-jokingly discussing the possibility of a "constitutional crisis". I'm just along for the ride.
I believe that TS is half-jokingly discussing the possibility of a "constitutional crisis". I'm just along for the ride.
Only half?
That reminds me. Where's Slang?
Good question ... what does is location say on his profile right now? That's the only way to keep track.
Location:
rural Minnesota - It could be worse
Ugh...
It's cold it's closer to the Artic Circle, so the days stay darker longer, I could live with that. And they got concealed carry now, I believe.
I may be going to a conference at the Mall of America in Sept 2006 ... okay, in the Hotel connected to the MOA, but you know what I mean.
Do they let you get drunk and then ride on the rollercoaster at Camp Snoopy?
Hey Wolf,
I spoke to my gunsmith today about the Keltec/hi-point carbine question and he said that he has a keltec. So I guess that answers my question, he said the hi-point is the gun to buy if you have to have a gun but don't have much money to spend and since this is not the kind of item you want to cheap out on Keltec it is.
Have fun with it.
Oh, and it makes a hell of a stir when you take it to the range and unfold it.
I had mine right after they came out ... so there weren't a lot of them in the distribution stream at that time. I was shooting it for the first time and everybody in the place wanted to try it ... the range master even came in for a look-see, and he went and got the salesmen from out front ...
Not that this is an issue for you ... but it's New York (State, not city) legal, last time I checked. It's a rifle, so there are fewer restrictions on where you're allowed to transport it and how.
Living In Interesting Times, Vol. 495:
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38308-2005Apr8.html">And The Verdict On Justice Kennedy Is: Guilty</a> (washingtonpost.com)
I am clasping my head like a stunned monkey over ultraconservatives <i>quoting Joseph Stalin approvingly</i>, even at one of their own gatherings.
Ominously, (lawyer-author Edwin) Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.
<b>The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem."</b> Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme than Stalin did and was not actually advocating violence. But then, these are scary times for the judiciary. An anti-judge furor may help confirm President Bush's judicial nominees, but it also has the potential to turn ugly.
A judge in Atlanta and the husband and mother of a judge in Chicago were murdered in recent weeks. After federal courts spurned a request from Congress to revisit the Terri Schiavo case, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) mused about how a perception that judges are making political decisions could lead people to "engage in violence."
I am clasping my head like a stunned monkey over ultraconservatives <i>quoting Joseph Stalin approvingly</i>, even at one of their own gatherings.
I suppose that it is unusual for you to hear conservatives referencing someone that the liberals have been worshiping and apologizing for for the last 60-odd years ...
I think somebody at the Post needs to readjust their tinfoil hat, and take a couple Xanax for the hysteria ...
It's not hysteria when they're quoting. :worried:
You seem to be receiving some Stalin-approving liberals in your tinfoil hat, while the Washington Post has an actual quote:
Invoking Stalin, Vieira delivered the "no man, no problem" line twice for emphasis. "This is not a structural problem we have; this is a problem of personnel," he said. "We are in this mess because we have the wrong people as judges."
The title of the discussion they were attending was "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny". This is the current goal of the current Republican leadership - to remove the Judicial branch of government as a check to the others. You can only keep pretending that this is just some fringe group for so long.
The title of the discussion they were attending was "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny". This is the current goal of the current Republican leadership - to remove the Judicial branch of government as a check to the others. You can only keep pretending that this is just some fringe group for so long.
'First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.'
Pastor Martin Niemöller
You know, I wonder what it was like to be one of the groups on the 'list' in 1930's Germany, watching the government crack down on some other group, and then watch them pass the first laws restricting your movements or other freedoms. A lot of people, at least the majority who still believe the Holocaust actually happened, probably believe that the death camps went up overnight and caught everyone by surprise.
A lot of people thought the Nazi's were a 'bunch of crackpots' or 'a passing fad'. Some even allied themselves with the group in the hopes of gaining some benefit or saving themselves from harm.
By the time the hammer came down, the victims were so legally and politically marginalized that there was no legal solution, since the law itself had been corrupted.
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. - George Santayana
I suppose that it is unusual for you to hear conservatives referencing someone that the liberals have been worshiping and apologizing for for the last 60-odd years ...
Hysteria? "Liberals worshiping Stalin?" Physician, heal thyself.
If there's one thing that most ultraconservatives have always had in common, it's been their staunch belief that Communism is THE ENEMY, to the point that some are _still_ flinging "socialist" at American leftists as the ultimate pejorative. (Which dates them nicely, as Communism is old and busted and Islamofascism is the new hotness. Didn't you get the memo?)
So when an ultraconservative endorses one of the slogans of the most infamous and brutal Soviet leader of the 20th Century, pointing at him and saying "Hey, here's a guy who said something intelligent that we should learn from, and it involves
killing those who oppose your goals," am I entitled to allow my jaw to drop a little bit?
Just a little tiny bit?
Thanks.
EDIT: No, I'm not done after all, because this is the second time Wolf has snipped at me in this thread, and I'm more than a little annoyed at being dismissed again like a know-nothing conspiracy crank or a Phil Hendrie caller.
You can call them "Dominionists." You can call them "Christian Reconstructionists." They have a variety of names, organizations and support structures. But the bottom line is this: there _are_ a bunch of people out there who want nothing less than to replace as much of our American system of government and laws as possible with a system that'll govern according to a much stricter Biblical worldview.
Are they the majority (or even a sizeable minority) among religious people in general or Christians, Republicans or conservatives specifically? No, which is what allows me to sleep at night. But they're out there, and you can't just fucking wish them into the cornfield and pretend that they don't exist.
Randall Terry just spent a couple of weeks on CNN and Fox News and such as a high-profile spokesman in an issue of high national interest, and they treated him like someone with a shred of credibility rather than as a raving fucking loon, someone who matches the definition of "terrorist" more closely than a lot of people in Guantanamo Bay and someone who's openly stated repeatedly that the US needs to become a theocracy yesterday. RANDALL FUCKING TERRY!
Things like that wouldn't unsettle me so much if _some of our elected officials_ weren't openly receptive to these people. This isn't just Sean Hannity saying "I need ratings and the far right watches me, so I'll invite some fundie huckleberries onto Hannity and Idiot tonight"; there are far too many Dobson-types who have at least some of the ear of Bush and some of Congress. The Republican Party grew and nurtured Frankenfundie through the 80's and 90's as part of their support base, and they have to feed it once in a while; some of them aren't even shy about throwing red meat to that crowd. DeLay. Santorum. Brownback. The dearly departed Zell Miller. Shelby. Coburn. Musgrave. My OWN REP, Joe Pitts, isn't too far off; he's cosponsored both years' versions of the Constitution Restoration Act.
When my own rep wants officials to be able to "act in the name of God being the sovereign source of law and government" without any federal judicial review, and when one of my own senators feels that the government _should_ be able to prohibit consenting adults from playing with each other behind their own closed doors, I have to whack myself in the head with a Wiffle Ball bat and remind myself that I'm _not_ in deepest Alabama, I'm _not_ in Mississippi, I'm _not_ in some heavily segregated Bible Study university somewhere in the hinterlands, I'm living in an affluent suburb of a major city that's _supposed_ to have joined everyone else in the 21st Century a few years back instead of regressing to the 17th.
Am I going to wake up tomorrow in Gilead, with cross-wearing troops at my door ready to drag me off for heresy? No, of course not. There will be no "Oh, by the way, GOD is in charge now and we're about to nuke the heathens" coup in America. But the fundies _are_ calling in their markers and saying "We voted you in, you have both houses of Congress and the Presidency, now
give us what we want." Even incremental change along the lines of what they really want is detrimental to this nation, because the average church-going person won't wake the fuck up and oppose it until laws and "judicial reform" have changed to the point where he's personally affected, and by _that_ time it may be too late to easily rectify things. It's a good thing that the Constitution is very difficult to amend, else the _real_ fun would've started already.
But in the short run, I'm damned glad that I'm not a judge or related to one, just like I'm glad that I'm not related to anyone who works in a facility that performs abortions. Why? Because I don't want to even think about knowing what it must feel like to feel an imaginary laser-sight or bull's-eye on my back 24-7, wondering when some ultrafundie with a gun and a grudge is going to take a shot at me. People like DeLay and Cornyn and those quoted in the article I linked are stirring up the anger as hard as they can, and if some Matt Hale/Paul Hill/Eric Rudolph/Hal Turner type decides to take action and snuff someone who he's convinced is An Enemy Of God, the blood will be on their hands. (The one good thing that the Schindlers did in the entire Terri saga was to come out in the end and specifically denounce violent action taken on "their behalf.")
There is scary shit in the works right now, more unsettling than anything I've seen or felt in the past 20-25 years. I don't think violence against judges is a possibility right now; I think it's a sure thing, and the countdown is ticking. And once it starts, this country is going to get ugly in ways not seen since the height of the Vietnam era. I hope I'm wrong. I really do. But I don't make a habit of making outlandish predictions often, because I'm not often far off.
And, quite frankly, I'm more than a little surprised to see someone whose own spiritual beliefs (as far as I've gathered from years of her posts) are most definitely on the Dobsonites' "Not Approved" list lining up to defend them.
They just went over this on Fox News.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) mused about how a perception that judges are making political decisions could lead people to "engage in violence."
Cormyn was on trying desperately to step away from these remarks. He swore he wasn't saying there should be violence and that it was poorly stated remarks and that they were taken out of context of a 30-minute speech etc. etc.
MICHAEL HOWARD PLANS WAR!
Conservative leader Michael Howard today pledged WAR as part of his contraversial election manifesto. He said we would engage in a
'Battle of*
Britain', spending £4billion which may include 2-tonne hand grenades and a brand new warship. It could lead to WW3, possibly even the end of the world, say well-informed spectators.
Mr Howard implored 'It's time for action', commenting on Blair's disinclination to go to war again, 'it's completely beyond Mr Blair'. Mr Howard is well known for racism and Anglocentricism, saying 'Surely it’s not that hard for an island nation to control its borders?' and 'People are longing for [snip] this government [snip] to [snip] be at [snip] war.'
It really couldn't be clearer.
Mr Blair responded to the threat of war by saying it would be a 'mess' and he could have organised it much better, although he did not directly refer to Iraq.
[size=1]*Note - mispelled 'for'[/size]
'People are longing for [snip] this government [snip] to [snip] be at [snip] war.'
That's a lot of snips. I mean, not that I don't completely trust The Sun, or anything, but are you sure the original quote wasn't something like
"People are longing for
a return to a brighter future for the children, and this government
is committed to
protecting the children from pornography--it is wrong for them to be
pawns at
the center of a censorship war."
or maybe
"People are longing for
the Parliament of this government
to take the sticks out of their ass and we would like to
help them with our new product, StickBeGone(TM). It will be
one of the first crucial steps at
winning the prostate cancer war."
I'm just sayin', it's a lot of snips.
A special bonus ponderance:
Many of these people are:
a) screaming loudly about the usage of "international norms" as a basis for law or judication
b) in favor of substituting Christian morality and the Bible for what we have now.
Wait wait wait. Christianity has circled the globe like a virus. The Bible has been translated into umpteen languages and was written many centuries ago, predating the United States by well more than a millenium. There is nothing in the Bible that can be considered uniquely American in any way, shape or form. How in the hell can the Bible and its teachings NOT be considered "international" by nature?
There's no [snip] between be and at. ;)
"People are longing for the Parliament of this government to take the sticks out of their ass and we would like to help them with our new product, StickBeGone(TM). It will be one of the first crucial steps at winning the prostate cancer war."
..I'm just sayin', it's a lot of snips.
NEWSFLASH!
A prolific internet user that goes by the name of Clodfobble has said (indirect quote) 'I wish to castrate the British Parliament'. Under US legislation this constitues breach of anti-terror laws and the FBI will henceforth be tracking the anonymous internet user's movements from a remote viewing panel located in West Virginia (subnote: the FBI are not all virgins ®). The mystery terrorist also said 'we would like [snip] them [snip] BeGone [ship] cancer [snip] war' betraying their cruel plans for British MPs who may already be penii deprived, and are currently shitting themselves over tea and toast.
This is more fun than watching the midgets fight on Springer today.
Cat, you need to lay off the espresso grandes for the rest of the day.
There is nothing unreasonable suggested in the actual linked article, even taking into consideration that it is The Sun.
Isn't it too late to castrate the British Parliament? On the plus side, they have lovely singing voices -- it nearly makes up for the fact that the only Brit public figures with any balls are Blair and Camilla.
...and Camilla.
But only just recently, now that they've been given the go-ahead.
So now,
according to Cheney, Democrats are "the other faith".
If we don't do anything at all, if we just stay where a lot of people have said we ought to stay -- there are a number of members of Congress of the other faith who have said that we don't need to do anything
Just temporary, HM. He'll be calling them Godless Heathens by the end of his term. :mad:
Vote for Kerry?
Excommunicated[size=1][wmv][/size]!
That's so incredibly stupid.
Why am I not surprised?
Probably because that's what drove me away from the church in the first place.....Bastards. :mad:
Imagine if <a href="http://www.forceministries.com/">this</a> were a Muslim group...
Imagine if <a href="http://www.forceministries.com/">this</a> were a Muslim group...
Same thing as riding into the village/camp on a camel. Just a way to get the kid's attention before pushing the agenda. :biggrinje
Paganism?
Not for kids! Now that's what I call an activist judge!
I'm not a big fan of any religion, but just dammit...
Like they asked in the article, what exactly is a mainstream religion?
Stoopid phukker.
I've seen lots of cases like this where one parent is Wiccan and the other Christian and uses the pagan faith system as leverage to get custody away from that parent, but this is the first time I've seen it where both parents are Wiccan and want to continue to instruct/involve their offspiring in the faith.
This is one of those activist judge moments, isn't it?