Christians who opposed slavery did so in spite of what the Bible explicitly says about slavery. I know very well that Christians are often at the forefront of such movements. But you can bet your ass that on the other side were plenty of Christians spouting Bible verses that supported their position. For example, here is a nice excerpt from an Evangelical historian on the role that the Bible played in the arguments supporting slavery:

quote:

Kevin Giles: The Old School (Presbyterian) General Assembly report of 1845 [16 years before the war] concluded that slavery was based on ‘some of the plainest declarations of the Word of God.’ Those who took this position were conservative evangelicals. Among their number were the best conservative theologians and exegetes of their day, including, Robert Dabney, James Thornwell and the great Charles Hodge of Princeton - fathers of twentieth century evangelicalism and of the modern expression of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. No one can really appreciate how certain these evangelicals were that the Bible endorsed slavery, or of the vehemence of their argumentation unless something from their writings is read. I can only give a pale reflection of their righteous zeal for ‘the biblical case for slavery.’ -"The Biblical Argument for Slavery," The Evangelical Quarterly

So rather than tell me that there were Christians who opposed slavery, which I am not disputing to begin with, how about showing me where in the Bible that slavery is explicitly condemned rather than condoned.


richard

quote:

Originally posted by devonian rabbit Christians who opposed slavery did so in spite of what the Bible explicitly says about slavery. I know very well that Christians are often at the forefront of such movements. But you can bet your ass that on the other side were plenty of Christians spouting Bible verses that supported their position. For example, here is a nice excerpt from an Evangelical historian on the role that the Bible played in the arguments supporting slavery: So rather than tell me that there were Christians who opposed slavery, which I am not disputing to begin with, how about showing me where in the Bible that slavery is explicitly condemned rather than condoned. richard

Will be searching,don't be to shocked when I find something,alright?

further more...What is your age? You wouldn't happen to be college age,Now would you?

___________________
~Nessa

I think the most amusing thing out of this whole post is that you referred to me as Athiest. That's Digi, not me. I could be one of the farthest things from Athiest.

Please do not sit there and try to assume what I believe in. I believe that the commandments have no place in front of a courtroom, because it is not the unanamous beliefs of the country. This has little, in fact nothing, to do with my religious prefrences.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 You aren't listening to a word I said. I didn't state anything other than " Yes I am a Christian " that doesn't mean I'm religious. Let me put it this way. God-is God. Not religion. I listen to God,Not religion. All better now?

Okay, enough of this nonsense. Since you refuse to look it up, I'll bring the definition to you.

Main Entry: Chris·tian·i·ty
Pronunciation: "kris-chE-'a-n&-tE, "krish-, -'cha-n&-, "kris-tE-'a-
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : the religion derived from Jesus Christ , based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies
2 : conformity to the Christian religion
3 : CHRISTENDOM 2

Now that we have that all cleared up.

quote:

Now atheism...That's religion.

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Notice, how no where in there it says that Atheism is a religion. Can't say the same for Christianity.

quote:

Oh and when you look up the work Denomination you find "a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single body" Remeber,I'm NON denominational

Did I comment on that? I don't think so.

quote:

It is only a ritual if you are doing because you"are expected to", it is not a ritual if you are doing it because you enjoy worshiping God. One is done becuase you think you have to do something because of a guilt feeling, the other is a relationship based event. "Religion" is what man makes up that he needs to do so that he feels right with God, a Christian relationship with God is something that a Christian truly desires, not to simply carry out the motions of a hollow belief.

Main Entry: 1rit·u·al
Pronunciation: 'ri-ch&-w&l, -ch&l; 'rich-w&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin ritualis, from ritus rite
Date: 1570
1 : of or relating to rites or a ritual : CEREMONIAL
2 : according to religious law or social custom
- rit·u·al·ly adverb

It says custom. Says nothing about doing anything because you're expected to. Nor does it say anything about doing it because of a guilty feeling. Actually on that note:

I wrote this down from a lecture. Might interest you a bit.

Santeria

Syncretic religion fusing with West African religions and CHRISTIANITY.

The ritual of skulls recovered as a center piece of an alter. Placed in a cauldron.

quote:

I haven't been able to make it to church, in a VERY long time. Mind you. But, I'm not religious because I go to church.

You said you went to church every Sunday. Can't make up your mind?

quote:

we [ wee ] 1. refers to speaker and others: refers to the speaker or writer and at least one other person ( first person plural personal pronoun, used as the subject of a verb ) We are going on vacation. We grown-ups should protect our children’s rights. We all want our children to have a better future. 2. refers to people in general: refers to all people or to people in general We are getting closer to the election. 3. used instead of “I”: used by a writer or speaker to include the listener or speaker in what is being said, used especially to talk about how a book or talk is organized We will now consider the causes of World War I. 4. used instead of “you”: used sarcastically or condescendingly by a speaker How are we today? Are we getting better? Gee, I don't see anything about being a part of a "religious organization"

I was referring to your usage of the word "we" in the statement you had made. You said it as though you were part of the religious organization. Go back and re read.

quote:

The 10 commandments ARE NOT a part of religion.. And you don't have to bring up the ammendments like I'm stupid. I studied government, all last year. I know what the ammendments state.

Main Entry: bi·ble
Pronunciation: 'bI-b&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Medieval Latin biblia, from Greek, plural of biblion book, diminutive of byblos papyrus, book, from Byblos, ancient Phoenician city from which papyrus was exported
Date: 14th century
1 capitalized a : the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament b : the sacred scriptures of some other religion (as Judaism)
2 obsolete : BOOK
3 capitalized : a copy or an edition of the Bible
4 : a publication that is preeminent especially in authoritativeness or wide readership
[bible table]

And since we already established that Christianity is a religion, I think I need to say no more.

quote:

And further more, My question yet again. If it is conflicting with another religion, Where is it the governments place to deconflict it? Since you are always whining about church and state being seperated. And what church are the 10 commandments supporting? What are they representing?

Um, at what point did I "whine". Wouldn't that be your dreadful name calling being used?

*sigh* The 10 commandments support a religious backround. The government should not keep them there because not every religion follows it. What can you not see? We have laws for a reason. We don't need the 10 commandments to back it up.

quote:

Oh and this.. Religion in America Oct. 14: Fully 92 percent of Americans say they believe in God, 85 percent in heaven and 82 percent in miracles

What does that have to do with anything? You don't have to be of a certain religion to believe in God. You can be of a completely different religion and follow completely different practices, but still believe in God.

quote:

I'm not forcing anything.I'm standing up for my rights-I have that right. Who is "digi" to judge me? Or tell me,and my country we can't have the 10 commandments in the courthouse? Beliefs, they are important to a lot of people. Keep that in mind. I'm not forcing someone to see things the way I do, but I'm sure as heck not going to let them tell me what to do. Yes, That's right. All my job is to do is plant the seed and let it go from there. But, I'm not going to be a doormat either, also remeber that.

Your country? You own it now? You are part of a country. And I don't believe I should have to state why it shouldn't be in the courthouse again, but I suppose I shall, since you're obviously not getting it.

The Ten commandments refer to a RELIGIOUS backround. It has no need to be in a courtroom. Not everyone follows the 10 commandments. The law, yes. The commandments, no.

quote:

And they aren't harassing what I believe in?

Just as you aren't by assuming I'm Athiest?

quote:

It is only a ritual, IF you do it because you think that is what opens the doors to Heaven for you, not if you do it because you believe it is the right thing to do. A ritual done out of a hollow desire to go through the motions is meaningless, but a rite or ritual done out of respect for God has absolutely no negative conotation.

Read the definition provided above.

quote:

Nope, I understand,just fine. The 10 commandments DO NOT support a religion. I'm not blind. ^_^ I see just fine, infact..Take this to mind... a good mind,is like a parachute..It only works when it's open.Remeber that,It will help you in the future.

Refer to the definition above. It refers to Christianity. Then refer to that definition. It says it is a religion. Kthxbye.

quote:

Yes, That's right. You have the freedom here in the USA of what you want to believe.

Then why and try and force the belief of the 10 commandments?

quote:

This country was founded by the Christians..and it is a part of our history.. To say it's no longer a part of our history is taking the country away from it's founders.

It was built off of millions of religions. There is no need to concentrate on just one when it is the combination of them all that makes this country what it is.

quote:

That's not true. Just read them,They are our moral laws. It's not of a certain religion. And have you noticed,It's only the atheists having a problem with this? First you wanna screw with our pledge, then mess up our money.Now this? When are you all going to quit? When the country falls apart?

Referring to me as an Athiest. Big mistake. I am one of the farthest things from one. You don't know me. Don't try to assume what I believe in. Mess up our money? Um, which religion passes around a collection basket?

quote:

Read this,my friend. The Capital Building in D.C. has a statue of Moses and the 10 Commandments, because they are throught to be the basis of all law.

We are not friends. Do not refer to me as one. He carries blank slates. Maybe there was a significance in this.

quote:

God is our heavenly father, if you want to accept it or not.You're choice. Just don't go around telling myself,and other Christians he isn't.

At what point did I say that God wasn't? I said that you are trying to force the belief that God is. I stand by that. Here you are doing it again. If people don't believe that, don't force it.

quote:

The first ammendment states many things. It says it won't "Established" and official state religion. But it goes on further to say... That it is prohibited to interfere with the free practice of religion.

At what point did the government become religious? Placing the ten commandments is a religious preference, as stated numerous times aboce.

quote:

The supreme court recongnizes atheism as a religion and by interfering with the free practice of religion they are favoring a religion in itself.. Secularism is a form of religion, humanism is a form of religion.

What does this have to do with anything?

quote:

Who do you bother most? Christians? Are you trying to prohibit the buddhists, hindu's and muslims their beliefs? No you are always dogging on the Christians.

I'm not dogging on Christians. I'm dogging on you. There's a difference.

quote:

To add-The basis of the first 10 Ammendments or the "Bill of Rights" was authored by James Madison. I believe he was also a minister. The Bill of Rights would be based upon his own faith.

The Bill of Rights was signed by many people, and was agreed on by many people of many different backrounds. He made up the Bill of Rights based on what the foundation of a country should be. In no way whatsoever did he mention anything about a Sabbath day, which your ten commandments does.

quote:

and also, No need for name calling (such as the name ignorant) when you can't answer me in a respectable manner.

Silly, that's what makes this fun.

Maybe after reading those definitions, you will see the error in your ways.

quote:

Originally posted by devonian rabbit Christians who opposed slavery did so in spite of what the Bible explicitly says about slavery. I know very well that Christians are often at the forefront of such movements. But you can bet your ass that on the other side were plenty of Christians spouting Bible verses that supported their position. For example, here is a nice excerpt from an Evangelical historian on the role that the Bible played in the arguments supporting slavery:

Richard, I don't disagree with you here. However I will point out that despite what or what not the bible explicitly says, Christianty was the only religion to adapt from within itself a justification for the abolishment of slavery. All other religions had just the same explict justification for slavery, yet never evolved from it.

I am not a religious person by any stretch of the imagination, however one must always remember there are two sides to every angle. Religion is both a blessing and a curse, just like bread.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

Post note: The first people in this country, were Native Americans. They were not Christian. To say that the founders of America were Christian, would be false.

Post note: The reason why no one dogs on any other religion is because they are peaceful, and do not try and force their beliefs upon others. Also, they don't try and monument their testaments and beliefs in front of courthouses.

___________________
aka Tits McGee
aka Chesty LaRue
aka Busty St. Claire

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487

Please God... make her stop.

quote:

Yes I am a Christian " that doesn't mean I'm religious. Let me put it this way. God-is God. Not religion. I listen to God,Not religion. All better now? Now atheism...That's religion.

It's taking a lot of self-discipline not to scream at the 5th time reading this sophomoric stultiloquence from you, so let me just put it in BIG BOLD letters in hope that it may help you understand better:

Christianity is a religion. If you have a problem with that, take your complaints to Merriam-Webster.

quote:

Oh and when you look up the work Denomination you find "a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single body" Remeber,I'm NON denominational.

Yes, and your claim of non-denominationalism rest entirely upon the asinine argument that Christianity is not a religion. This is not true, no matter how many times you try to tell us it is!

quote:

It is only a ritual if you are doing because you"are expected to", it is not a ritual if you are doing it because you enjoy worshiping God. One is done becuase you think you have to do something because of a guilt feeling, the other is a relationship based event. "Religion" is what man makes up that he needs to do so that he feels right with God, a Christian relationship with God is something that a Christian truly desires, not to simply carry out the motions of a hollow belief.

Regardless of whether or not you enjoy doing it, when are a member of the Christian faith (let's drop the term "religion" to make you happy for a minute), you are expected to! Whether or not that expectation is what causes you to pray is completely and utterly irrelevant here.

quote:

I haven't been able to make it to church, in a VERY long time. Mind you. But, I'm not religious because I go to church. If that were the case, Then it would be like saying " going to a garage would make you a car " or " going to McDonalds would make you a hamburger"

Are you really this obtuse, or are you just being belligerent? The sheer stupidity of this incondite argument almost makes it comical - in fact, I'm considering putting it in my signature as I write this.

quote:

we [ wee ] ... Gee, I don't see anything about being a part of a "religious organization"

So let me get this straight, you looked up the word we in the dictionary and expected to see a religious reference? You'll have to excuse my ignorance, but I seem to have completely missed your point.

quote:

The 10 commandments ARE NOT a part of religion.. And you don't have to bring up the ammendments like I'm stupid. I studied government, all last year. I know what the ammendments state.

Correction: The 10 commandments are a part of religion. Anything that makes reference to God cannot possibly be secular.

quote:

And further more, My question yet again. If it is conflicting with another religion, Where is it the governments place to deconflict it? Since you are always whining about church and state being seperated.

I'm trying to make sense of your question here, but what I think you mean is, what gives the government the right to step in and take action? And the answer is simple - the answer is to remove any and all religious references. No religion, no conflict.

quote:

And what church are the 10 commandments supporting? What are they representing?

They obviously don't "support" a specific church, they just reference a specific religion. And that religion simply depends on which version of the 10 commandments you pick. In this particular case, it is Christianity.

quote:

Oh and this.. Religion in America Oct. 14: Fully 92 percent of Americans say they believe in God, 85 percent in heaven and 82 percent in miracles

Relevance of this to the discussion is _________ ? (fill in the blank)

quote:

I'm not forcing anything.I'm standing up for my rights-I have that right. Who is "digi" to judge me? Or tell me,and my country we can't have the 10 commandments in the courthouse?

By insisting that your religion holds some kind of factual/secular merit, you are in fact forcing it on everyone.

I'm not judging your religion, but I am judging your sad attempt to pass it off as being somehow independent of personal belief. Nobody is forcing you to give up your religion by taking the monument away from the courthouse - however, by insisting that it stay there, the insistent ones are attempting to force their religion down the throats of people who walk into it.

quote:

Beliefs, they are important to a lot of people. Keep that in mind.

Never disputed that.

quote:

I'm not forcing someone to see things the way I do,

You may not be doing a very good job of it, but you're sure as hell trying to.

quote:

but I'm sure as heck not going to let them tell me what to do. Yes, That's right. All my job is to do is plant the seed and let it go from there. But, I'm not going to be a doormat either, also remeber that.

Plant what seed? Let who tell you what to do? No one's telling you to do anything!

quote:

And they aren't harassing what I believe in?

Who? What? Where?

quote:

It is only a ritual, IF you do it because you think that is what opens the doors to Heaven for you, not if you do it because you believe it is the right thing to do. A ritual done out of a hollow desire to go through the motions is meaningless, but a rite or ritual done out of respect for God has absolutely no negative conotation. Who is this bozo that thinks he can read your mind and know what is the difference in your mind?

Referring to me ad hominem as a bozo doesn't provide any foundation to your vacuuous and fallacious argument that a "true belief" in a ritual somehow makes it more than just a ritual. A ritual is, quite simply, a ceremony which occurs on a repeated basis. It does not even have to be a religious ceremony!

Nobody was trying to give it a negative connotation.

quote:

The 10 commandments DO NOT support a religion.

Wrong, again. It depends on which version you use, but all of them support some religion (claiming once again that "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship" will not help your cause here because it's blatantly incorrect and becoming downright offensive).

quote:

a good mind,is like a parachute..It only works when it's open.

And you're being very closed-minded. Realize that not everybody is a Christian, and not everybody cares what you believe in.

quote:

This country was founded by the Christians..and it is a part of our history.. To say it's no longer a part of our history is taking the country away from it's founders.

This country was invaded and colonized by the Christians. Let's not forget that there were native people indigenous to the land that are, most certainly, not being honoured in any courthouse or other place.

quote:

Just read them,They are our moral laws. It's not of a certain religion.

They are your moral laws, and the moral laws of other Christians. Morality does NOT exist in an absolute sense.

quote:

And have you noticed,It's only the atheists having a problem with this? First you wanna screw with our pledge, then mess up our money.Now this? When are you all going to quit? When the country falls apart?

It's the atheists, in addition to agnostics, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Islamics, and basically every other non-Christian that has a problem with this. To claim that your opinion somehow holds any more meaning or moral superiority is precisely the problem of religious freedom that we are talking about here.

quote:

Read this,my friend. The Capital Building in D.C. has a statue of Moses and the 10 Commandments, because they are throught to be the basis of all law.

Thought by who? Source?

quote:

God is our heavenly father, if you want to accept it or not.You're choice. Just don't go around telling myself,and other Christians he isn't.

Now this is starting to make me seriously angry. Here you are talking about how wrong it is to force your beliefs on other people and then you say "God is our heavenly father." The word "hypocrite" comes to mind here.

Please understand that not everybody beliefs in your God, or your religion, or any of your other beliefs. It's not a fact that God is our heavenly father, it's your belief. If you are going to tell us that he is, then I am free to tell you he's not. But then, this is such a massive digression from the original argument in the first place, so why not just let it go?

quote:

The first ammendment states many things. It says it won't "Established" and official state religion. But it goes on further to say... That it is prohibited to interfere with the free practice of religion.

Christians don't practice their religion in the courthouse. Taking away the tablets is not interfering with anyone's religious practices.

quote:

The supreme court recongnizes atheism as a religion and by interfering with the free practice of religion they are favoring a religion in itself..

Atheism is not really a religion, but even if it is, the removal of the monument in no way promotes atheism. There is no interference, no favouring involved in taking it away.

quote:

Secularism is a form of religion, humanism is a form of religion.

That is absurd.

quote:

Who do you bother most? Christians? Are you trying to prohibit the buddhists, hindu's and muslims their beliefs? No you are always dogging on the Christians.

Because the Christians are the ones that try to prove their moral superiority and force their beliefs onto everyone else. If they had a giant statue of Buddha in the courthouse, that would bother me too.

quote:

To add-The basis of the first 10 Ammendments or the "Bill of Rights" was authored by James Madison. I believe he was also a minister. The Bill of Rights would be based upon his own faith.

That is also absurd. It makes about as much sense as saying that a minister who wrote a personal cheque would have based it on his own faith.

quote:

and also, No need for name calling (such as the name ignorant) when you can't answer me in a respectable manner.

I didn't mean to call you ignorant (I don't think I did), but the notion that "Christianity is not a religion" is ignorant. It makes no sense. It simply demonstrates (a) a lack of understanding of the definition of religion, and (b) an inflated sense of moral superiority toward other religions. Frankly, I'm offended by both.


In closing, I'd like to point out one more thing:

If the monument was truly there as simply a historical reference, why would the authorities be generating so much steam over the request to remove it? One would think that they would simply say "OK, I don't see why it bothers you, but fine." Instead, they flat-out refuse and throw a tantrum, and that is precisely what annoys me about the whole situation.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Yoepus....

That friesze pic you posted made me sidescroll

Jerk.




MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel That friesze pic you posted made me sidescroll

That's what you get for having no resolution!

quote:

Jerk.

Eat my nuts

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Maybe the reason that Moses is holding blank tablets is that it repersent the tablets before God wrote them, hinting that the Supreme Court has the final say over the law. Or perhaps the sculpture refused to do it because it was too hard and would break the statue, maybe he wasn't getting his fair pay and refused to put a depicition on the tablets as a way to get back at the man. Or perhaps the artist simply could not devise away to print all 10 commandments in length on thos small tablets, nor could he devise a way of repersenting it otherwise. These are all options as far as I know which would be much more sensible then the reason you gave.

I'll defer to the artist:

quote:

Hermon A. MacNeil: Law as an element of civilization was normally and naturally derived or inherited in this country from former civilizations. The "Eastern Pediment" of the Supreme Court Building suggests therefore the treatment of such fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East. Moses, Confucius and Solon are chosen as representing three great civilizations and form the central group of this Pediment. Flanking this central group- left - is the symbolical figure bearing the means of enforcing the law. On the right a group tempering justice with mercy, allegorically treated. The "Youth" is brought into both these groups to suggest the "Carrying on" of civilization through the knowledge imbibed of right and wrong. The next two figures with shields; Left - The settlement of disputes between states through enlightened judgment. Right - Maritime and other large functions of the Supreme Court in protection of the United States. The last figures: Left - Study and pondering of judgments. Right - A tribute to the fundamental and supreme character of this Court. Finale - The fable of the Tortoise and the Hare.

Again.. Law is the focus of the East Pediment, not Yahweh.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Afterall if it point you hold that "God" is not the focus of the scuplture because their is no depicition on the tablet, then howcome the south frieze has a depicition on the tablet from then 10 commandments - God's law?? Moses is carrying a tablet on it is an inscription in hebrew that reads "thou shall not murder/kill" (he's #3 look at the video link above I posted it is a bit better zoom).

Well what do ya know! One of the commandments was actually written out in the Supreme Court building, (though it wasn't the 1st Commandment for some reason).

Here is what the curator said about the North and South Friezes:

quote:

"Weinman's training emphasized a correlation between the sculptural subject and the function of the building and, because of this, Gilbert relied on him to choose the subjects and figures that best reflected the function of the Supreme Court building. Faithful to classical sources, Weinman designed for the Courtroom friezes a procession of "great lawgivers of history," from many civilizations, to portray the development of secular law." (emphasis mine)

Again.. Law is the focus of the USSC friezes, not Yahweh.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus This is different, it is an engraving on the doors into the courtroom, and in the roman numerals are incased in tablets so it is with little doubt that their depecition was meant to be the 10 commandments.

The one I was talking about was on a single tablet.
At any rate, the Commandments are not even written out. None of the USSC depictions are comparable to Moore's monument.

(nitpick: you said the engraving was at eye level.. it is actually on the bottom-inside of the door. Here is an image of the whole door:
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/scdoor.jpg)

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Again though, how could you legally define context? Because their were other secular lawgivers, its ok to depecit the 10 commandments, but if there are no other secular lawgivers its not??

The Lemon Test is probably the most common method used to decide whether or not a government display is religious and therefore unconstitutional.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Really where did it say that it was explicitly placed their for that reason? Did it come with a plaque or something. I never got to here the whole side of it... What other statues are present in the courtroom, what other works of art grace it? I don't know, so I won't comment on it, but do you?

I'll let the Eleventh Circuit comment on it, Glassroth v. Moore:

quote:

Chief Justice Moore testified candidly that his purpose in placing the monument in the Judicial Building was to acknowledge the law and sovereignty of the God of the Holy Scriptures, and that it was intended to acknowledge “God’s overruling power over the affairs of men.”

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus This is complete blasmphemy! First repersentative democracy aside (as it can be argued it was practiced in Rome),

Rome? You think so?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus seperations of powers, and freeomd of religion are completely and uniquely derived from the bible! So again is the freedome of man!!! Christianity is not unique in that it accepts slaves, every relgion has, it is unique however in have causing a movment that has read and interperted the scriptutres to achieve some natrual laws. These natural laws originate from the interperation of the scriptures according to Luther, Calvin, Hobbes and Locke <- these are the guys who made natrual law, and they did it in the confines of christanity. These natural laws provided both for the development and understanding of the abolishment movment for slavery and the sperations of powers (as they searched for the divine rule of government on earth). The freedom of religion is completely a christian ideal and is enumerated by these early natural lawyers.

Wow.. This is all news to me. Locke, Hobbes, et al "made natural law," and did so in the confines of Christianity eh? Well, I think Aquinas had them beat by a few years; and Aquinas, like both the Romans and the Enlightenment era philosophers, adapted natural law from the ancient Greeks, specifically the Stoics.

And speaking of the Stoics, here is what Zeno had to say about slavery:
"No matter whether you claim a slave by purchase or capture, the title is bad. Those who claim to own their fellow men look down into the pit and forget the justice that should rule the world." (note: while it was the later Stoics that formulated natural law and not Zeno, he was the founder of Stoicism)

Oh, and 'separation of powers' was derived from the works of Polybius, another ancient Greek.

Many of the most influential founders were intimately familiar with classical Greek philosophy (ie. the works of Cicero on equality, which was based on Stoic natural law). To say that the Enlightenment era philosophers came up with natural law in the confines of Christianity, and that "seperations of powers, and freedom of religion are completely and uniquely derived from the bible!" is patently absurd, IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus So to say that the bible did not bring about these thing is both arrogant and completely ignorant. You might have a point in arguing that the bible can be interpurted in any which way, as natural lawyers derived different conclusions from the same source. But the origins of the abolishment movement, freedom of religion, and seperation of powers is completely traceable back to these very natrual lawyers who came up with their laws from their interperations of the bible.

All you've done is erroneously argue that natural law was derived from the Bible. So I'm going to have to ask you to indulge my arrogance and complete ignorance, and spell out explicitly where in the Bible separation of powers, freedom of religion, etc... are derived from.
__ _ ____ _ _ _ _____________ _ __ _______


And I'll leave you with the Ten Commandments of Solon:

1. Trust good character more than promises.
2. Do not speak falsely.
3. Do good things.
4. Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made.
5. Learn to obey before you command.
6. When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful.
7. Make reason your supreme commander.
8. Do not associate with people who do bad things.
9. Honor the gods.
10. Have regard for your parents.
--


richard

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Will be searching,don't be to shocked when I find something, alright?

I'll try not to act too surprised.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 further more...What is your age? You wouldn't happen to be college age,Now would you?

I am 25.


richard

quote:

Originally posted by devonian rabbit I'll defer to the artist:

I still think he couldn't of made them fit, he's just not man enough to admit it :P

quote:

Again.. Law is the focus of the East Pediment, not Yahweh.

But Moses is in the center... hmmm

quote:

Well what do ya know! One of the commandments was actually written out in the Supreme Court building, (though it wasn't the 1st Commandment for some reason).

I think it was the only one they could fit in there seeing a theme are we?

quote:

The Lemon Test is probably the most common method used to decide whether or not a government display is religious and therefore unconstitutional.

Can you expand on lemon test?

quote:

I'll let the Eleventh Circuit comment on it, Glassroth v. Moore:

They believe its intent was religious so they removed it, but was this exactly the case?

The point I was initially trying to make is that the Supreme court of course would not want to associate itself with the hypocrisy of trying this case. The works in the supreme court itself are cited in the opinons however against the Alabama statue.

quote:

Rome? You think so?

Well I guess one could try Sparta, and argue other greek polis had this form of government much earlier then Rome, but even that would probably be just 100-200 years apart.

quote:

Wow.. This is all news to me. Locke, Hobbes, et al "made natural law," and did so in the confines of Christianity eh? Well, I think Aquinas had them beat by a few years; and Aquinas, like both the Romans and the Enlightenment era philosophers, adapted natural law from the ancient Greeks, specifically the Stoics.

Undoubtetly St. Thomae Aquinatis can be viewed as father of natural law, however the natural law we use today is much more comparble to Locke, especially considering it includes property rights.

Of course using such logic as you, we can say that the Phonecians were the first ones to develop natural law as they were the ones who created the alphabet who the Greeks then used to formulate stocisim etc...

quote:

And speaking of the Stoics, here is what Zeno had to say about slavery: "No matter whether you claim a slave by purchase or capture, the title is bad. Those who claim to own their fellow men look down into the pit and forget the justice that should rule the world." (note: while it was the later Stoics that formulated natural law and not Zeno, he was the founder of Stoicism)

Good for him, but history has been absent of abolishment movements till Christian enlighten thinkers came around. Even the famed Sparticus cared little against the institution of slavery, he simply didn't want himself and his comrades to be slaves.

quote:

Oh, and 'separation of powers' was derived from the works of Polybius, another ancient Greek.

And many greek polis did exercise a system of serpation of powers. The Roman republic was surely setup with serpation of powers and checks and balances, but it is not the exact ideals that our current systems are based upon today.

Charles Louis de Secondat Baron de Montesquieu is what many consider to be the origin of seperations of powers or checks and balances in our modern society, and he certainly was their strongest advocate in the modern era.

quote:

Many of the most influential founders were intimately familiar with classical Greek philosophy (ie. the works of Cicero on equality, which was based on Stoic natural law). To say that the Enlightenment era philosophers came up with natural law in the confines of Christianity, and that "seperations of powers, and freedom of religion are completely and uniquely derived from the bible!" is patently absurd, IMO. Well not, Locke (who argues it best, again not originally) has origins of the bible to extend our natural laws to property rights. Luther and Calvin are definetly the first to argue freedom of religion, and this is a theological discussion for them with the bible as their chief source. Enlightment era thinkers however did not come up with natural law per say, but they merged it with their interpertation of the bible to create the natural laws we use today. And although you may like to believe that stoics were against slavery as well, they never argued for its abolishment - something which the abolishment movement did by interperting scripture, not classics. [quote]All you've done is erroneously argue that natural law was derived from the Bible.

Natural law as we know it today in western society is indeed different from your classical natural law. The main consideration here is property rights. You can see the arguments Locke makes for poerty rights by opening your own copy and looking up the scripture he references.

Anyway ill be glad to get to this at another time... I'm still working on my term paper on Perioikoic military utility so all my research right now is going to that. Plus I lost my locke book must of left it at home.. and besides we are thread-jacking, lets move this somewhere else now that we are going to argue the origins of natural law.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

too.many.quotes.

___________________
"Those are my principles, if you don't like them... well, I have others.”