Comment by Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur

I was just talking about this, in a place that needs to have it rooted out.

I like it and I’m stealing it.

August 15th, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Using Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows XP

Comment by Tonto

Ah sure am likin’ what this here feller said. :em93: :em69:

August 15th, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Using Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows XP

Comment by LC Roguetek

tasty… I’ll take a dozen please.

August 15th, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Using Opera 9.27 on Windows XP

Comment by Alan K. Henderson

Paine’s section on multiculture doesn’t quite hit the right notes. I’m sure he doesn’t mean to imply that we are some sort of monocultural Borg, but he doesn’t find the right words to explain himself. Every individual belongs to multiple cultures - a common national culture (ideally), and numerous other cultures reflecting those pursuits (religious, commercial, recreational etc.) that the indivudal shares with others.

(flag icon lifted from my own site)

August 15th, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Using Internet Explorer 6.0 on Windows XP

Comment by mindy1

If thomas paine really existed today he would have his own blog, and we would all read it :em02:

August 15th, 2008 at 9:30 PM
Using Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows XP

Comment by nerbygirl

Ahhhhh.
Teddy was brilliant. Wish we had a few more around like him.
Of course, today he would be deemed a racist by the politically correct police.

August 15th, 2008 at 11:35 PM
Using Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Mac OS X

Comment by Alan K. Henderson

TR would’ve keelhauled the lot of them.

Or sic his namesake on ‘em.

August 16th, 2008 at 3:00 AM
Using Internet Explorer 6.0 on Windows XP

Comment by LC Gunsniper

Doesn’t the former, rather entail the latter?

No.

And what, I wonder, would be this guy’s response to a burgeoning (hypothetical) movement to interpret “God” as “Allah”? It’s easy to advocate tainting the public discourse with religious metaphysics when it’s your God everybody’s talking about. Someone else’s? Not so much.

Islam isn’t as much a religion as a nasty, vicious, dysfunctional system of governance that’s completely incompatible with our Constitutional Republic.

August 16th, 2008 at 8:40 AM
Using Mozilla Firefox 3.0.1 on Mac OS X

Comment by Muzzy

LC Gunsniper.

Maybe we’re using different definitions of “Public life”. For me, if something is “Public”, as in ‘Public Property’ or ‘Public Schools’, that means it is funded by taxpayer’s money. The way I see it, if something is funded by taxpayers it should be run in an entirely secular way. Anything not funded by taxpayers is private, and can accommodate as much religion as those in charge see fit.

Also, Islam is entirely 100% a religion. That some countries have incorporated it’s principles into governance doesn’t make it any less a religion. If a government decided to rule by Christian principles, and it didn’t turn out so well, that wouldn’t make Christianity any less of a religion.

August 16th, 2008 at 8:57 AM
Using Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.16 on Windows XP

Comment by LC Gunsniper

The way I see it, if something is funded by taxpayers it should be run in an entirely secular way.

Which also violates the notion of “separation of church and state”. Secularism is as much a religion as Christianity.

Also, Islam is entirely 100% a religion. That some countries have incorporated it’s principles into governance doesn’t make it any less a religion.

Rubbish.

August 16th, 2008 at 9:34 AM
Using Mozilla Firefox 3.0.1 on Mac OS X

Pingback by What he said. « The View From Out Here

[...] The Anti-Idiotarian Rottwiler, its a place where I have no fear saying what I think. Today I found this post, with a modern Thomas Paine, I found my voice in that video. You must watch it if you care anything [...]

August 16th, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Using WordPress MU

Comment by 1idvet

Wow! :em69:

Absolutely spot on!

August 16th, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Using Mozilla Firefox 3.0.1 on Windows XP

Comment by Don_Meaker

Wrong on facts. So long as Rome expanded citizenship, her strength grew, despite barbarian hordes.
Emperors came from Rome, Illyria (now Albania), Isauria, Africa. Greek culture informed the best, and shamed the worst. (Gaius Marius was famous for ‘having no Greek’).

When Constantine focused on religion as an “unifying” factor, every minor deviation from orthodoxy became cause for murder or rebellion. Some unifying factor.

Despite the pernicious influence of Christianity, Rome survived from 753BC to 1453AD.

August 16th, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Using Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows XP

Comment by Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur

Muzzy,
I have to admit, you are something of a cypher to me. Sometimes, I read your comments, and I conclude that you choose to come here and leave the equivalent of intellectual vomit for the sole purpose of being contrarian, and then you say things like you have today which make me believe that you fundamentally misunderstand so many things about this nation that are necessary components of our historical core beliefs. I’m not surprised about this, and it saddens me to say that many young people in this country no longer understand it either since the teaching of history and government in our schools took a back seat to building esteem and taking over the various parenting roles that the boomers abandonned in their never ending quest for ‘personal fullfillment’.

“Separation of Church and State, yes. Separation of God from public life? Never intended by your Founding Fathers”

Doesn’t the former, rather entail the latter? And what, I wonder, would be this guy’s response to a burgeoning (hypothetical) movement to interpret “God” as “Allah”? It’s easy to advocate tainting the public discourse with religious metaphysics when it’s your God everybody’s talking about. Someone else’s? Not so much.

No, the former does not entail the latter. The nation and its government were established by a people who had attained a certain degree of religious homogenatity, that is to say, were overwhelmingly of a “Christian” extraction, and therefore possessed a common morality and code of conduct, yet many were not so far removed from recent experiences where only a certain stripe of Christianity was considered to be the approved brand by the state in which they dwelled, and the rest were relegated to a status less priviledged than the rest. They recognized that the STATE could not establish a religion if the grand experiment were to succeed, but there never was an intent exile God or religion from daily social or political discourse. You are free to dispute this is much as you wish, in fact, I would likely be disappointed if you didn’t. It doesn’t change the facts that are evident for all who read. The founding fathers were “mindful of him” in the texts of the very first documents. Every word was labored over, every phrase is deliberate. No single word was intended to be superflous or ‘dicta’. The tenants of christianity were understood to be the starting point for the laws that we would all live under, and even those who did not subscribe to christianity itself understood that the intellectual underpinnings of our law were rooted in common judeo-christian beliefs, and accepted this as necessary for the society to function. The Ten Commandments is as much a part of the law of Western Civilization as the Magna Carta or Bill of Rights, because it is a codification of conduct deliniating what society will and will not deem acceptable from its citizens. Later waves of immigrants with different religous backgrounds still came, at least implicitly understanding that our society worked and our nation was the destination of choice, because despite varied backgrounds, histories, and beliefs, we had accepted and lived by a common set of principals and morals that allowed predictability, intellectual and societal advancement based on the diligence and intellect of the individual, not a person’s lineage and race.

The Progressive or secular movement in the early twentieth century strove to upend the core beliefs of this society for a variety of reasons, and found many willing acolytes because the idea of a world without God, or his rules freed them from any sense of accountablity or shame for going their own way and doing whatever they pleased, even if it was damaging to the society that had been so successful under the rules and mores of God. You have stated that secularism is not a religion. I submit to you that secularism is indeed a religion, and the most dangerous one that any society seeking to avoid anarchy can be presented with. Even muslims, who violently react to any perceived slight or disrespect of their beliefs, and are therefore considered backwards savages by most thinking people who long ago learned that violence is one of the last resorts rather than the first, surpass the secularists in terms of preserving a society, because the common core of beliefs remain relatively unchanged, and believers acknowledge an accountablity to something outside of themselves. Secular humanists believe only in the primacy of man, which means that they can only believe in themselves. God is removed as authority, and each Secular acolyte usurps that throne for himself. There is no predicable result and no common belief. There is no anchor for the boat called society; by banishing a common belief in God, that boat is going out to sea on a rising tide.

We have ourselves to blame. This attitude could not have gained the upper hand in today’s society without a generation or two that believed that the desire and pleasure of the individual was more important than discipline, sacrifice, and the preservation of this nation’s finest legacies for the generations coming after them. This dovetailed nicely with “Progressive” agendas, and it allowed for the perversion of the legal and political traditions that had helped this country grow and prosper. Constant legal action and decades of subversion in academia allowed for the transformation of not having a state religion to the vigorous and zealous pursuit of what is still acknowledged to be the dominant religious view in this country from the public and political discourse; the ascendancy of the cult of self allowed made an individual’s desire to reject moral authority more important than the common religous heritage of the nation. And the cult of self busied itself with its own commandments and edicts, many of which are gathered under the diaphanous aegis innocuously titled “Political Correctness”.

Political Correctness is so poisonous to society because it first would take away the ability to engage in honest discourse about matters of import to society. It chills speech. Many find themselves afraid to speak up about pursuits and directions that have no redeeming social values for the very fear that some person or group that voluntarily chooses to identify themselves by a condition, race, ethnicity, or lifestyle choice might be offended and use that offense to squeal, cry, stomp its feet and shout until others come to their aid and sanction the offender for the crime of not recognizing the primacy of that identification and the person’s right to be free from offense, the central right of the church of secular humanism, from which all other doctrines and tenants flow.

As a result, we cannot refer to anything and anyone by commonly understood terms because those people and things did not get to name themselves. This has lead to a condition of low-grade anarchy which continues to this day and is a distraction from any attempt to actually address any matter of national or societal import as we are daily presented with a new list of words that cannot be uttered, or may only tumble from the lips of certain people and are strictly forbidden to be used by others, and only certain people are allowed to determine what words, topics, or opinions are to be allowed. No predictablity, other than the secular religeous expression of offense, for “crimes” that change daily, and are decided by individuals and not the body politic.

Lincoln was right, a house divided against itself cannot stand. The genius of the American Experiment was neatly summed up in E Purblis Unum. From many, one. By banishing God, and yes Muzzy, I mean the Christian God, as he is common to Western Civilization, and by constant chisling, his rules, from the public square and public discourse, we have glided to a precipice whereby we now allow newcomers to dictate their rules to us, and 30 years of indocrination to the tenant of diversity in our schools, colleges, and universities, which by its very nature sanctions continuing to be separate rather than assilimilating, we are morphing in to “From Many, Many”, which invites continuing division, mediocrity, and eventually, death as a society. What the nice gentleman in the film was trying to tell those of us who care is that there is still time to reverse this trend before the bloodshed that this trend places us on an inevitable collision course with.

August 16th, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Using Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows XP

Comment by Deathknyte

When Constantine focused on religion as an “unifying” factor, every minor deviation from orthodoxy became cause for murder or rebellion. Some unifying factor.

Oh bullshit, Rome was plagued by rebellions and state-approved murders throughout its history long before Constantine came to the throne and decided he needed SOMETHING to unify the people.

August 16th, 2008 at 6:52 PM
Using Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.16 on Windows Vista

Comment by Alan K. Henderson

Church and State are separate in that they serve two separate functions. The Church is a voluntary institution that exists to further human relationships with God - and with other humans, secondarily. The State is a body of elected individuals to which is delegated the authority to use prescribed coercive means to protect people from the criminal actions of other people.

(These definitions reflect the Founders’ bias, not those of systems the Founders wished to expel to the dustbin of history.)

God commands the realms of both religion and politics. God defines the requirements for relationship with Himself. He also says what people should and shouldn’t do to each other; since the State governs a portion of this concern, the State is a servant of God. The State may acknowledge its Master, but it may not seek to govern matters, religious or otherwise, that fall outside its jurisdiction.

August 17th, 2008 at 2:10 AM
Using Internet Explorer 6.0 on Windows XP

Comment by LC SkyeChild G.L.O.R.

Muzzy,

If you are so supportive of overt displays of the Ten Commandments in schools and courthouses, how enthusiastic would you be to see the Biblically mandated punishments for breaking them displayed in a similar fashion. Do you know, for instance, what God intended to be the punishment for adultery? It just happens to be death. The punishment for working on the Sabbath? Death again. The punishment for smartmouthing one’s parents? Hey, you’re catching on. If the Ten Commandments are as much a part of the law of Western civilisation as the Bill of Rights, surely the punishments ought to be to, right?

Christians are no long held to the Old Testament laws. We live by the New Testament now.

A Muslim walking into a courthouse only to be confronted with a giant stone carving of the Ten Commandments can reasonably worry that his own religious affiliation may work against him in court.

Not if he knows anything about this country. His bigger concern should be that he’s breaking the secular law…like beating his wife, or having sex with a minor. A Christian walking into a Sharia court would likely be put to death.

Moreover, I don’t think much of the Ten Commandments as a legal code. They’re deeply flawed and could be improved extremely easily, even by a schmuck like me. This is rather a grand statement, considering that they’re the only thing in the Bible that God felt it necessary to dictate personally, but it’s absolutely true. Consider the second commandment. No graven images? Does that really strike you as the second most important rule available for the successful governing of human social interactions? I submit that we could replace the second commandment with a blanket prohibition against slavery, the third with a categorical injunction against rape, and the fourth with a stinging condemnation of child molestation, and the Ten Commandments would be a far more moral and relevant document than it is now.

And I contend just the opposite. If this country lived by the Ten Commandments, we wouldn’t need laws. We could all live in peace. How many “blanket prohibitions” do we need? Rape? Incest? Murder? Stealing? Slavery? Burglary? Molestation? Should there be a “blanket injunction” covering all crimes? There would be too many commandments to count. That’s why God gave man the ability to develop his own system of government.

And who are you to say that you are superior to God? It amazes me that people have the hubris to believe that they know better than He does…

Secularism has no scriptures, no prophets, and no metaphysical baggage of any sort. How could secularism possibly be a religion in the commonly understood sense of the term?

Actually, secularism IS a religion. Its god is man. Its “scriptures” are the belief that there should be no laws, that one should be allowed to do whatever one wishes, regardless of consequences.

August 17th, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Using Mozilla Firefox 3.0.1 on Windows XP

Comment by Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur

Actually, I come here for three reasons:

A) It’s genuinely enlightening to interact with people who hold views so diametrically opposed to my own.
B) It’s the only place I know where I’m guaranteed to get a good argument.
C) I’m secretly in love with B.C.

Well, you would be correct on the second. As to the first, I generally find that “interacting with people who hold views so diametrically opposed to my own”, generally leads to the wear of shoe leather as I traverse the pretzel logic path inhabited by those with such views and generally being shouted down in lieu of anything them engaging in anything representing a debate or even ‘heated discourse’, but not being in Europe, I can concede that leftists there may have a very different playbook than leftists here. As for the third, I could have gone the rest of my life without knowing that. However, I’m sure he’ll be…uuumm, flattered.

Also, wouldn’t the equivalent of intellectual vomit be, y’know, actual vomit? That’s a little harsh. I mean, hey, we disagree on a lot of stuff but so far you’ve never made me regurgitate anything more than talking points

What? You regurgitate talking points? No, I have to give you more credit than that, because you frequently expand on them, something the typical leftist is unwilling or incapable of doing. It still doesn’t bring you to the point of being right, but let no one say that I do not give credit where credit is due. :em93:

They recognized that the STATE could not establish a religion if the grand experiment were to succeed, but there never was an intent exile God or religion from daily social or political discourse.

I agree with this as well. The controversy over “expressions of religion” in public spaces concerns the fact that they can be also interpreted as expressions of governmental preference for one religion, and it’s adherents, over another. People object to the display of religious paraphernalia in public spaces because it suggests state sponsorship of that religion. A Muslim walking into a courthouse only to be confronted with a giant stone carving of the Ten Commandments can reasonably worry that his own religious affiliation may work against him in court. Moreover, he could reasonably object to his tax money being used to promulgate a religion that is not his own. If all faiths were allowed to express their religions in a similar manner, this would be less of a problem. However, that would lead to further problems because, as I said above, one man’s devotional is another man’s blasphemous idol.

There are a few flaws with this argument, the first of which being is that judeo-christian beliefs are the starting point of law in this society, and it is not a secret. Even with that being the case, the law, even with such influences, does not mandate a negative result against any person in court. The ideal is that all men are equal before the law. Sometimes the execution does not achieve this desired result, but it is still superior to the alternative, and having read many, many cases, I am not familiar with any modern ruling by any court in this country where a person subject to its jurisdiction was discriminated against in the result on the basis of their religion alone. Secondly, the argument about having tax dollars supporting the promulgation of religion is an example largely without merit. Many such fixed displays would have been placed in public buildings, especially courthouses, decades ago, at a time when such recognitions of the nation’s common heritage and beliefs were not a source of controversy. Being fixed displays, no funds would be expended on keeping them where placed, so the current objector’s tax dollars ‘promulgated’ nothing; in fact, the use of tax dollars to remove such displays, because someone’s personal offense trumped the recognition of the role of such things in our history and culture is more of a ‘promulgation’ of a religion…that of secularism. (Yes, I know you still disagree, and I’ll address that further down.)

This holds true within Christianity itself. How would you feel if you found out your tax money was being spent on the construction of dozens of ten foot tall statues of the Virgin Mary, to be placed in front of every high school in your district? How would the Catholics feel if you objected? Allowing free expressions of all religions in public spaces, especially when funded by tax-payers of all faiths, just opens a massive can of worms. Better to just keep those spaces free from expressions of all religion.

Whoa! Commonality FAIL! I know you are well-read, so I’ll toss this out there for you. If such a thing were to happen, then you have an example that finally makes sense. However, I do not know of such an event ever coming to pass. Again, when we talk about public displays of Christianity, they usually focus on commonalities, not specifics. The Ten Commandments, a Nativity Scene, or a cross would be common to nearly every sect of Christianity that I am aware of; statues of the Virgin Mary are not.

After all, in a way, this works out better. Have you ever wondered why Christianity has flourished in America but has become stagnant and anaemic in England? It isn’t because of the influx of other faiths. It’s because in England, Christianity actually is the state sponsored religion. In America, competition forced preachers to devise more and more effective ways of disseminating their message in order to build congregations. Essentially, the spread of Christianity became subject to market forces and grew all the more tenacious for it. If Christianity was relieved of the pressure of market forces, it may very well lose its teeth.

Now this is an interesting assertion, and your example conjures a question that has vexed me for some time now. England’s state religion is a Christian denomination. The crown, which is still ostensibly the head of state, is charged with being the Defender of the Faith, and yet, you have member of this clergy and of your own government that openly consider allowing people who came to your country, to have their own court system, rooted in religious beliefs not just different but contrary to those of your own state sponsored religion. And then you pass laws regarding “hate speech” which allow these same immigrants to bully and intimidate those who object to the absurdity of such things. I am truly interested in hearing your perspective on this. As for the idea that Christianity’s success in the US is due to market forces is interesting, but incomplete.

Historically speaking, churches filled pews on Sunday because the residents of the towns and villages were Christian. And for a long long time, there may have only been one church in smaller communities. Today, yes, there are “mega-churches”, where congregations number in the thousands, and such churches may have any number of smaller ministries offering the congregations many different ways to participate and/or get something fulfilling from the experience. However, the faith as a whole in this nation has many small congregations as well, absent of any ‘innovative ‘ methods of disseminating their message; preaching from the pulpit being the same method of doing God’s work, as much as it would have been in England prior to the puritans, and the migration of Christians who left for America. So while Christianity has made use of technology, it hasn’t changed the message, and as it has always been, people in this country are free to choose from the particular stripe of Christianity that they choose to subscribe to, be it formal and ritualistic, or more informal and free of many rituals, as many mega-churches are. You argue that the success is in the marketing; I submit that it is in the degree of choice to begin with, and the fact that no particular choice among the general category underpinning the legal and moral traditions of the country enjoys an advantage to the the imprimatur of the state.

And the idea that religion has been excluded from daily social and political discourse is frankly ridiculous. America is 93% Christian, 45% Creationist. More people believe in Satan than evolution. You’re a few months away from electing your 44th Christian President, and it is common knowledge that a non-Christian Presidential candidate wouldn’t stand a chance of attaining that particular office. Tens of millions of people make weekly donations to a slew of televangelists. People wear God T-shirts, own God bumper stickers, have God screensavers and read books about God on their lunch break. In some parts of America, you can hardly throw a stone in any direction without hitting a Church. President Bush mentions God every chance he gets. You have God radio stations, God TV channels, Christian retreats, even Christian telephone companies who promise to donate a percentage of their profits to spreading The Word and put a little crucifix on your quarterly bills. All this, to say nothing of the frankly disconcerting role that Christianity plays in determining public policy. It is, for me at least, a small issue, but there is no denying that the laws prohibiting Gay marriage and civil unions are entirely faith based.

Many of the activities you quote here are as much personal acts as they are components of political and social discourse, and in many ways are the expressions left to Christians, who in many ways have been hounded away from so many expressions once so commonplace in this nation by a vocal minority empowered by a silly and excessive interpretation of the establishment clause that propounds a separation of church and state so very extreme that it is doubtful that many daily events would not be recognizable to the Founding Fathers who held “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”. At the same time, while a prayer by a valedictorian at commencement, or a prayer at a football game is strictly verboten, schools in California, under the guise of teaching how others live, can require all students to dress like Muslims and pray toward Mecca, without allowing Christians to opt out, imposing a similar object lesson in Christian beliefs. Public invocation of God or Christ by a public official is treated as an opportunity for ridicule and belittlement, as so many on the left have pursued such taunts of W throughout his tenure in office. Belief in the delineation between right and wrong, and the rejection of nuanced, modern viewpoints that exist in contravention to the teachings of traditional Christianity subject the believers to the derision of a Presidential candidate who wants them marginalized as bitterly clinging to their guns and Bibles. This same candidate is the darling of those who have constantly and consistently used the second tenant of the faith of secularism, THE RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED, as grounds to push the exercise or acknowledgment of Christian Faith for forums where it has always dwelled. Having television shows, and radio shows, and bumper stickers is an expression, but it is what Christians are being left with.

Yes, I do have religious objections to gay marriage, but I have non-religious ones as well, that have yet to be suitably answered by the proponents. Primarily, that we are seeing fit to confer a protected status on what amounts to a lifestyle choice, rather than an immutable characteristic, such as race or gender. Yes, I’m familiar with the arguement that gays don’t choose to be that way, but in the absence of any discernable proof, I’m going to decline the opportunity to buy into that particular bill of goods. I can see where that primrose path will lead us, and I’ll leave it for the more nuanced and enlightned peoples of the world to skip along it merrily. When we accept Neal and Bob as husband and husband today on the basis that they can’t help being that way, and that they want to have the same thing everyone else has (although it isn’t the same, because they are different), then it will be harder to deny Neal 20 years from now when he comes to us and says he really likes his German Shepard and wants to marry it, or when Neal’s sister who is 30, wants to marry Steve, who is 12, because hey, they really like each other, and they want what everyone else has. It can’t happen, you say? No one could possibly think that this would be OK, you say? Yeah, that is really only possible when there is a common frame moral reference that is recognized by those who make the laws. As God is continually pushed from the venues where he once dwelled, this common reference continues to fade, and weak arguments based on personal preferences suddenly become justification for conferring rights where none should exist. In the meantime, those who were, at least at one time most deserving of such potections should be the most insulted, but being self-absorbed in protecting the doctrine of diversity, which ensures status to those who might not otherwise attain it if they had to rely on merit alone, they embrace the new ones to the fold, conferring an undeserved legitimacy to their claims.

The Ten Commandments is as much a part of the law of Western Civilization as the Magna Carta or Bill of Rights, because it is a codification of conduct deliniating what society will and will not deem acceptable from its citizens.

I’ve heard this a lot and it always makes me wonder: If you are so supportive of overt displays of the Ten Commandments in schools and courthouses, how enthusiastic would you be to see the Biblically mandated punishments for breaking them displayed in a similar fashion. Do you know, for instance, what God intended to be the punishment for adultery? It just happens to be death. The punishment for working on the Sabbath? Death again. The punishment for smartmouthing one’s parents? Hey, you’re catching on. If the Ten Commandments are as much a part of the law of Western civilisation as the Bill of Rights, surely the punishments ought to be to, right?

I know that this has already been answered to some degree, so I’ll keep it brief. The New Testament brought a change to the extremity of punishment as Jesus took the burden of all man’s sin as his own. That wouldn’t waive the offense, but the punishment has been taken by another. Spiritually saying, this isn’t a license to go forth and sin some more, but being imperfect beings, it is the grace of another that grants at least spiritual salvation to all who accept the gift as offered. The catch is that acceptance of the gift charges one with the knowledge of sin and the understanding that doing so again subjects one to the consequences. Some consequences are for the state to impose, some will naturally accrue sooner or later. Its been years since I have read any portion of the Code of Hammurabi, but I’m willing to bet that a careful read would also yield an offense and punishment which some would consider unacceptable, that none would impose in this day and age.

Moreover, I don’t think much of the Ten Commandments as a legal code. They’re deeply flawed and could be improved extremely easily, even by a schmuck like me. This is rather a grand statement, considering that they’re the only thing in the Bible that God felt it necessary to dictate personally, but it’s absolutely true. Consider the second commandment. No graven images? Does that really strike you as the second most important rule available for the successful governing of human social interactions? I submit that we could replace the second commandment with a blanket prohibition against slavery, the third with a categorical injunction against rape, and the fourth with a stinging condemnation of child molestation, and the Ten Commandments would be a far more moral and relevant document than it is now. We’ll deal with the avalanche of social problems caused by the proliferation of graven images as and when they arise.

You are free to think of them however you like; their inclusion in the body of law of western civilization is not a partisan act on my part. Being an officer of the court, I have had occasion to study the works of jurists much smarter than myself, and such a designation is generally considered to be a fact of history.

The Progressive or secular movement in the early twentieth century strove to upend the core beliefs of this society for a variety of reasons, and found many willing acolytes because the idea of a world without God, or his rules freed them from any sense of accountability or shame for going their own way and doing whatever they pleased, even if it was damaging to the society that had been so successful under the rules and mores of God.

I would dispute this, too. Secularism is more about allowing individuals to worship privately than about stamping out God altogether. There have been, believe it or not, numerous occasions when the much vilified ACLU has defended Christians who feel that they have been unfairly persecuted for their religious beliefs. See here for more details. You seem to be conflating secularism with atheism, which is a category error. A true secularist would be just as uncomfortable living in an atheistic society where private religious observance was prohibited, as he would in a theocracy.

We can agree to disagree. Secularism as practiced here is a practice not neutral to other religions, but hostile to them. You can’t talk about God, or acknowledge his existence, at least not on the local levels. Even in places where Christianity is common to all residents, groups such as the ACLU see fit to sue to prevent towns from allowing a nativity in the city park, or prayers before sporting events, not even because a non-christian or atheist was present or complained, but to continue to force God out of the public discourse. Some such cases succeed, others do not, but they keep coming, the very potential is wielded like a sword of Damocles, to be dangled about the heads of small town councils as a threat that can bankrupt them, win or lose.

You have stated that secularism is not a religion. I submit to you that secularism is indeed a religion, and the most dangerous one that any society seeking to avoid anarchy can be presented with. Even muslims, who violently react to any perceived slight or disrespect of their beliefs, and are therefore considered backwards savages by most thinking people who long ago learned that violence is one of the last resorts rather than the first, surpass the secularists in terms of preserving a society, because the common core of beliefs remain relatively unchanged, and believers acknowledge an accountablity to something outside of themselves.

Secularism is not, and indeed cannot, be accurately termed a ‘religion’ without robbing the word of all meaning. Secularism has no scriptures, no prophets, and no metaphysical baggage of any sort. How could secularism possibly be a religion in the commonly understood sense of the term?

Piffle. Secularism, like atheism, recognizes no authority other than the primacy of man. Any meaningful recognition of a higher authority must be railed against, because to allow such recognition to stand unmolested might allow the concept of shame (not ostracism imposed on those who run afoul of the doctrine of PC) to be a force in society today, and the “If it feels good, do it” mentality that continues to shape the direction of this country would be seriously called into question, as it should be.

And are you really saying that you would prefer to live in Muslim Iran than secular Finland?

Whether you realize it or not, this is really the nub of the argument. I prefer neither. Unlike Muslims, I have no expectation of moving to a country founded on principals so opposed to those of my own that nearly every aspect of the culture and society is foreign to me, and expect them to conform to my way of doing things. I guess I’m just funny that way. As for secular Finland, if I wanted to live in a mediocracy, I could move to Canada or Europe. The single greatest lie that Western Civilization has bought into is that all cultures are equal. Its why the west in general continues to defer to the offense of the newcomers rather than deftly, but firmly reminding them that the reason they came here is that it is not there, and they can adapt, or they can leave. If we are sufficiently advanced that migrating here is more attractive then living there, then I can only conclude that it is because we do something right. We need to quit apologizing for it and instead expect it to be perpetuated.

Political Correctness is so poisonous to society because it first would take away the ability to engage in honest discourse about matters of import to society. It chills speech. Many find themselves afraid to speak up about pursuits and directions that have no redeeming social values for the very fear that some person or group that voluntarily chooses to identify themselves by a condition, race, ethnicity, or lifestyle choice might be offended and use that offense to squeal, cry, stomp its feet and shout until others come to their aid and sanction the offender for the crime of not recognizing the primacy of that identification and the person’s right to be free from offense, the central right of the church of secular humanism, from which all other doctrines and tenants flow.

I both agree and disagree (how’s that for contrarian ). On the one hand, I do agree that there are people out there whose lives are so empty that they have nothing better to do than amble around looking for things to be offended over. It is also true that, occasionally, this bullshit gets out of hand. Take the immigration issue, for example. This is an issue which should be discussed solely in economic and pragmatic terms. Hurling accusations of racism at those who are opposed to immigration for economic reasons does nothing but widen the divide between those on both sides. Also, I confess I bear a deep emnity toward the term “African American”. It’s a pet peeve of mine. Charlize Theron is as white as a ghost, but being born in Johannesburg, she is technically an “African American”. People shouldn’t be embarrassed to use words like “White” or “Black” when referring to their own ethnicity or that of others.

On the other hand, political correctness has raised awareness of terms and attitudes which are genuinely offensive. It has made people more reluctant to stereotype, and more willing, when considering others, to discount their ethnic baggage and focus on their merits.

I disagree. We have been forced to make the offense the focus rather than the exchange of ideas. We cannot have a discussion on the merits because problems require solutions. When one is entitled to THE RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED, the problem is always the fact that someone else might want to discuss your behavior and how it might be changed to solve the problem. This is then cause for BEING OFFENDED, and therefore, rather than discussing the problem, your offense becomes the issue. Demonstrated neatly by recent news stories regarding the flap in the city council meeting in Texas where in a discussion about parking tickets disappearing in a city office, a white city councilman mentioned that the office was a “black hole”. Invoking the right not to be offended, a black councilman demonstrated that sensitivity trumps intellect and immeadiately responded, yelling “Excuse me??? Excuse me??? You mean a White Hole!!!” No explaination that he was using a scientific term to make a point was acceptable; he had committed the cardinal sin of using a word without permission of the POTENTIALLY OFFENDED CLASS. One example of many that can be used to demonstrate the point. Real conversations grow increadingly difficult in any venue here, and merit is not generally a component of the discussion.

What the nice gentleman in the film was trying to tell those of us who care is that there is still time to reverse this trend before the bloodshed that this trend places us on an inevitable collision course with.

And I’m not saying he didn’t have a point, just that commingling religion and the state is counterproductive.

Missing the point that removing it from where it used to be has had a corrosive effect. If the reason for the law can no longer be discussed, then there is no understanding of why it is the way it is, and there will be no apparent reason for not changing it to suit the whims of who ever wants it changed. Law divorced from reason will become mob rule, and the darkness that rests in the heart of a mob, answerable only to itself, would eclipse all logic or socially desirable result.

August 17th, 2008 at 7:21 PM
Using Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows XP

Comment by LC cmblake6

I MUST agree with TT. Damn BisW, that was really really good!!!!!!!!!!
:em04:

August 18th, 2008 at 5:37 AM
Using Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows XP

Comment by jaybear, Colonel of Imperial Ancient Artillery

If I may make a request of BisW and Management,

BlackisWhite, that was brilliant….

Edit out the other comments and let it stand as the brilliant essay that it is……that post deserves it’s own place in the Imperial Edicts.

August 18th, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Using Mozilla Firefox 3.0.1 on Windows XP

Comment by jaybear, Colonel of Imperial Ancient Artillery

Hey Troy,

speaking of uncommon sense…..how in the hell did you manage to break your ankle???

and how was the fishing????

August 18th, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Using Mozilla Firefox 3.0.1 on Windows XP

Comment by Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur

Dude, that is probably the longest post I have ever read in its entirity. It’s thought provoking stuff, and deserves better than the quick, off-the-cuff response time constraints would force me to make were I to reply today. I’ll think about what you said and get back to you tomorrow.

I understand. Between the heat and both Heirs being wound up as all get out yesterday, it took a while to write.

August 18th, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Using Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows XP

Comment by Alan K. Henderson

Yes, I do have religious objections to gay marriage, but I have non-religious ones as well, that have yet to be suitably answered by the proponents.

The crux of the proponents’ belief is that they object to the existence of any element within the law that suggests that homosexuality is less worthy than heterosexuality. Likewise, opponents do not want an element within the law that treats homosexuality and heterosexuality as moral equivalents.

The big problem with the homosexuality debate is that there is virtually no debate over the central issue: whether or not homosexuality is a psychological disorder. If it is, that affects certain policies such as marriage, adoption, military enlistment, and…well, I can’t think of any more. (I could if I believed that government has the authority to mandate school curricula.) Of course I am operating under conservative/libertarian assumptions; to lefties who want to use the government to regulate speech and to force people to associate with others against their will (think Boy Scouts), the question has far more relevancy.

In 1973, thirteen members of the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of sexual disorders, in the wake of intense lobbying from gay activists. Nobody ever explains the rationale for this change, so lots of minds are not changed by the decision handed down by thirteen psychiatrists. (Recent APA treatment of pedophilia have undermined that association’s very claim to sanity.)

A majority of humans think homosexuality is messed up in the head, and within that number there is probably wide disagreement over just how messed up that psychological orientation is. I believe that explains why some gay activist demands get a lot more opposition than others. Opposition to same-sex marriage seems to tend toward two-to-one margins; I can’t think of any other gay “rights” issue that receives such wide condemnation.

On another note, I’m surprised my previous comment didn’t attract howls from atheists. It woudl if I had posted on the Volokh Conspiracy. :em93:

August 18th, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Using Internet Explorer 6.0 on Windows XP

Comment by Alan K. Henderson

No religion has a monopoly on morality

Pet peeve alert! Arm the photon torpedoes!

What does “monopoly on morality” mean?

Christianity doesn’t claim to be the only religion that professes any shred of morality, but it does make certain claims that no other religion does.

August 18th, 2008 at 9:17 PM
Using Internet Explorer 6.0 on Windows XP

Comment by Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur

Ok, let’s start with the important stuff first.

BisW If you think I’m just talkin’ crap to piss you off, or because I’m a mindless, flagwaving groupie of Darwin,, then I have sadly waisted both of our time, I apologize, and will desist.

Cheapshot, the day I accuse you of being a mindless, flagwaving groupie of Darwin, I think Misha should drop the banhammer on me five seconds later. I don’t always agree with you, and honestly, I don’t always understand you, but I do respect you, so let’s agree to knock that shit off right now.:-)

Secularism recognizes that all have the same rights, and naturally frustrates everyone who attempts to put their own dominant faith above those rights.
This includes those that would try to trump yours as well.

I think that’s what the lit says, but the practice seems to fall conspicuously short. See above, when I cite the Cali school making all kids “pretend to be muslim” but not giving an “equal time” to others? Yeah, I don’t recall the secular community stepping up to address that particular issue. I do however, see the ACLU doing what they can to chase Christianity from places where it has been on sometimes fairly flimsy bases.

You can bet that the railing that you hear will be a result of a religious encroachment into a non-religious, tax-supported common area.

Maybe I didn’t say it loud enough, or clearly enough. I’m talking about when I see it chased from where it has been, not from resistence over attempts to blaze new trails.

But,, the loudest railing usually comes from those who claim a holy right to speak for those whom they do not represent, e.g. set a big rock covered with scripture in the center of a state owned building in the night.

Many of the examples I’m thinking of would be ones where they were placed there long ago, to no objection, and are now the source of controversy due to the objections not of those who placed them there, but the ones that decide they no longer have a place there. I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that the Ten Commandments were in the Supreme Court Building in DC, as in carved into a wall somewhere. I’ve never been, so I honestly can neither confirm or deny, but if true, I’m willing to bet that someone has already bitched profusely about having there being a violation of the “Separation of Church and State”.

Not true at all, ‘just have a major problem embracing unsupported concepts.

Sir, you may freely shame me at any time with compelling physical evidence of a superior being, and if it proves to be true, unlike the Religious Faithful, I can jump ship, change sides in half-a-heartbeat,, with
a smile on my face and a song in my heart.
Revelations do that to me. My gratitude would be complete and sincere.
I would owe you the same debt that I would to someone who showed me how to switch on a light and focus a lens.
And, you would be the very first to seriously engage in the quest.

Compelling evidence. Hmmm. Well, that would be the realm of Christian apologists, all of whom would be wiser than I, and although I’m sure that I might be impressed at the brilliance of such arguments, I can also recognize two very important points. If such “proof” existed, there would be no more room for inquiry, and it would destroy the greater role that free will plays in salvation. Such is the nature of faith. Conversion experiences are generally personal, and whether they are events of fanfare or quiet revelation, they are life-changing, and confirmation stems from inference borne of observance of the world around us. I can’t take you there, but I can assure you that any who have experienced it no longer doubt.

My invitation to others usually terminates somewhere between “Why can’t you just BELIEVE?, and SHUT UP AND KNEEL!”.

My invitation is for neither. If you don’t believe, then you don’t believe. I don’t expect you to believe, but when everyone else at the high school football game on Friday night does, then I do have a problem if you can’t respect the fact that they want to observe it in the manner that they always have. If listening to the aural assault of a 2 minute prayer for the safety of all present is such an offense to your being, then I submit to you that the problem lies with you.

Do you realize that if it feels good, and it’s legal, and you question it based on a religious value, as opposed its actual effects , then you’re religion is overstepping it’s limits?

Well, that kind of gets to another nub of the underlying question, doesn’t it? I mean, that is the point I’m trying to make. Historically, the determination of what is legal is rooted in the teaching of a society’s religion. In the case of this nation, we are talking about a common judeo-christian heritage. Many of the activities that this religious tradition frowns on might feel good, but will have a detrimental effect, not just on the actor, but those around them. Adultry, and drug addiction would be examples of behavior that might feel good and be legal, but do more harm than good to the individual, and would definately have a negative impact on others. These are behaviors that one’s religious convictions might prevent a person from engaging in. As christianity is shoved farther from the forefront of society, the more social conventions, then eventually laws, constraining such behavior become relaxed. Is society freer? Maybe, if exchanging immediate gratification for self-discipline that would make your behavior as much to the benefit of others as to yourself can truly make you free. However, the question to ask yourself is whether or not feeling good becomes your reason d’etre. If it is, then perhaps you aren’t free at all, and you have surrendered self-control to another master entirely. (And no, this is not a specific indictment against you, or anyone else here, Cheapshot. More of a general thought for considerationof anyone who cares to read this.)

If a church adds a room to the side of its office, then the restaurant half a block down loses its beer license? (Actual case, IMHO, they should have vacated the ban or denied the building permit)

And I agree, although I lean toward vacating the ban. A more interesting question would be where the push for revoking the license comes from. If the church is driving that bus, shame on them. A clear example of coming to the nuisance, and I can’t and won’t support it. In a situation where cooler heads prevail, the provimity of one to the other simply is ignored.

No religion has a monopoly on morality, but they all have a right to be heard as an equal.

Big leap, and again, one I cannot agree with. If this were true, the world would be ungovernable. The common history and religion that provides the basis for our law says otherwise. Christianity has a monopoly on morality here. You don’t have to like it, but I think most people would prefer it to the alternative. If not , then I expect honor killings to become legal very soon, and a caste system not unlike the Hindus have to be instituted, and…you get my point. As for the right to be heard as an equal, again, I cannot and will not agree. The Constitution grants the right to the free exercise of religion, and says that the state cannot establish a religion. It doesn’t say that they all have a right to be heard as an equal. Again, such an interpretation flies in the face of our history and would lead us to a place where law itself would lose any semblance of predictability. You want to move from Dehli to Chehalis and still be a practicing Hindu, more power to you, but you should have no greater expectation to change local law and custom due to the right of free exercise than I would expect moving to Calcutta and continuing to be a Christian there.

BTW,
It really bugs me to think that there’s so many folks that think a crime can be prayed/ confessed away, and committing a crime with the plan of being “Saved” by confessions later is particularly disgusting to me.

Me too, but my objection would be that such people a living demonstrations of the axiom that a little knowledge is not necessarily a good thing. The mass murderer who has been a piece of shit his entire life and finds God on death row and expects this to be a reason to commute a death sentance? Understanding FAIL! True repentance saves your soul, but it doesn’t mean that there isn’t a price to be paid, and expecting otherwise is like only hearing part of what your parents say to you when you are a kid…the part you want to hear.

There’s a lot of areas where respect and enlightenment (no, not just only divine) is our only hope.

True, but the folks who think that they can tell the difference between right and wrong without morality, the ones that say, “I don’t need religion to tell me right from wrong.” aren’t going get us to the other side, because there is nothing to keep the goal posts in place. One man’s evil will always be another’s right to do as they please whent there is no common reference.

You admonished me once not to assume to know the minds of others BisW, and your statements certainly appeared to have spoken of mine,,, well, you missed,, widely.

Assassinate my motives for what I think as you will, but for some silly reason, I think that I know what I think better than you think.

That’s why not quietly dhimming to your whacked out interpretations of my (and many others) thoughts would not be smart in this particular case.

And I said what I did with the full knowledge that you, and prolly BC, to name two, wouldn’t cotton to my interpretations of things. I still believe that atheism and secularism both remove God from the heirarchy of Man, but I think the ultimate motives for doing so are different for each one. Atheists believe there is no God. So who is the ultimate authority? Man himself. I think atheists believe this for different reasons, whether simply disbelief in a higher authority, a sense of independence, or a perception that religion is foolish and fosters foolish results when men choose to govern their actions by it. I’m sure the list goes on, and you and I have never discussed your own reasons for seeing it that way. An argument that I have heard proferred by atheists is that “everyone knows” or is capable of judging for themselves what is and is not reasonable behavior for individuals for themselves and for society. I say its nice to have that luxury in a society that still has some measure of morality determined by looking through the lens of one religion, and if this were not the case, I suspect that those who believe it might soon determine that it isn’t quite as easy as all that. A wiser man than myself wrote about such a place. In his book, it was called Coventry. Not one of his better novels, but the concept has stuck in my head all these years.

I think the Secularists do it because power is their ultimate goal. Man is the ultimate authority, and if we can continue to hammer this point, then we can continue to bend and shape law until it will be whatever we say it is. A little chaos along the way? No matter, because offense will allow us recast the world from what it is to what we want it to be, and no one else can tell us what is wrong or right, because we will be writing the rules. I understand this all too well, because I used to be one of them.

Maybe you just haven’t met enough of us to find one you’ve felt is worthy of listening to, rather than simply evaluating weaknesses for the next attack,, as your profession requires..

I listen, hoss. I just remain unconvinced.:-)

We know moonbatism is rampant on all sides, and it’s up to us to keep a forum together to bring us together, maybe see for ourselves the real miracles we’re capable of.

I can agree with this, and I think this forum is one of several suited for just that purpose, no matter how scary the moonbats might find this place. (Never enough chewtoys, and the ones that do show up have no stamina. Their lovers must be so disappointed.)

Misha could enjoy a lot more time with his Tribe if he wasn’t providing just the right tool for that particular mission,, and we are in his dept, along with more than a couple of others that have thrown in and supported the work.

Also true, although something tells me that if this avenue were not available, he’d find another, because it is as much a calling for him as it is a pasttime.

Look, you and I have danced on this topic before, although I know I have been nowhere near as thourough on previous occaisions. I still say I could sit down and down some beers with you and have a great time doing it, because like everyone else here, you love this country and everything it stands for, even if we don’t see eye to eye on the details of what that means. I don’t expect complete agreement; echo chambers are boring. But I’m reading this as my remarks being taken as a personal attack as much as they were a larger commentary and reflection on the subject. Nothing of the sort was intended, and I think you know me well enough to know that if I call someone out, I name names when I do so. Next time you’re inTacoma, I’m buying the beers.

August 19th, 2008 at 12:14 AM
Using Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows XP

Comment by Muzzy

BisW

First off, I’m sorry the brevity of this reply. I know it doesn’t do your post justice. I haven’t had a minute to myself for the last couple of days and I’m now a few hours away from going on a weekend abroad so I won’t be able to say all I would like until some time on Monday. I just thought I would respond to one particular point as you said you would be particularly interested in hearing my perspective on it.

Now this is an interesting assertion, and your example conjures a question that has vexed me for some time now. England’s state religion is a Christian denomination. The crown, which is still ostensibly the head of state, is charged with being the Defender of the Faith, and yet, you have member of this clergy and of your own government that openly consider allowing people who came to your country, to have their own court system, rooted in religious beliefs not just different but contrary to those of your own state sponsored religion. And then you pass laws regarding “hate speech” which allow these same immigrants to bully and intimidate those who object to the absurdity of such things. I am truly interested in hearing your perspective on this.

I think it’s appalling. However, I’m reassured by the fact that those who suggest even the possible feasibility of incorporating Sharia law into British common law are roundly shouted down every time they venture forth on the subject. I think, in some instances, those who advocate the implementation of Sharia, even in areas densely populated by Muslims, just don’t understand what it is they’re suggesting. Take Rowan Williams, our Archbishop of Canterbury, as an example. Williams is a very clever man, but he’s clever in a useless way because he lives in a bubble. Everything is theoretical for him. When he suggests that Sharia judges may be more effective adjudicators in the civil disputes of Muslims than British magistrates, he isn’t taking into account the possibility that such a move would only be the thin end of the wedge. I don’t think he’s even interested in appeasing anybody. For him, it’s just an intellectual exercise and because he lives a sheltered life he doesn’t realise that his words have the impact that they do, or that other people are genuinely worried about the proposals he is making. As far as he’s concerned, there’s no problem. He’s just worked out a way to, theoretically, merge two completely divergent legal systems. He’s sqared the circle. He’s happy, and that’s as far as his preoccupations take him.

Thankfully, he and others like him are rightfully dismissed out of hand, and in scathing terms, by 99.999% of the (non-Muslim) population (and about 60% of Muslims).

At the moment, I don’t think proposals to introduce any form of Sharia in England are even the slightest bit likely to gain traction. However, that is only because people are daily made aware of the barbarisms committed in its name. The three keys to keeping Sharia at bay are much stricter immigration, much more comprehensive efforts to assimilate newcomers, and education.

As for hate speech laws, I have no time for them. You can’t legislate away racism and bad feeling between ethnic groups. You just need to enforce the law equally and let society figure out these problems on their own. Plus, as you say, it gives those genuinely hostile to their adoptive countries a shield behind which to hide while attacking it for their own ends.

Anyway, that’s about all I’ve got time for. Hope that helps you get a better handle on where I’m coming from.

Laters all.

August 20th, 2008 at 7:01 PM
Using Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.16 on Windows XP