Secular law or Gods Law

[joecoolfrog]

Lets cut to the chase, for all their fine ( or not ) words about 'Gods Law ' do any of these fundamentalists really want to put the clock back 2000 years ?

[OnlyAmbrose]

No law is really "secular" in that all laws are based on some intangible moral standard. Even if you argue that America is a secular state (which I generally do), there is still an almost metaphysical premise. In America, it's essentially that we "are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Because there is really no justification for such moral statements, Mr. Jefferson cites "the creator."

There is no "secular law" because there isn't really an objective, empirically visible moral standard.


edit- that said I am a defender of the "secular state" in the 21st century.

[muy_thaiguy]

One thing to say:
[sarcasm]This poll (and indeed, the OP) is in no way biased against people that believe in God. {/sarcasm]

[joecoolfrog]

One thing to say:
[sarcasm]This poll (and indeed, the OP) is in no way biased against people that believe in God. {/sarcasm]

Wrong ,what I despise is fundamentalists who spout smug nonsense about ' Gods Law ' without thought to the consequence of what they are saying. Yours are also empty words ,you choose to throw out a few lines of irrelevence but dont have the guts to address what im saying....Vote !

[Juan_Bottom]

I voted, maybe you can even guess which way JOECOOLFROG....

[joecoolfrog]

Ambrose

Yes its a very simplistic poll and deliberately so, the subject though is i think important.
Im sure that you would agree that Shariah law ( as practised in a few Islamic countries ) is barbaric but there is a growing fundamentalist movement in the USA that would welcome a Christian version . Its easy to scoff but the homeschool movement is growing and within a generation will have a churned out an awful lot of highly educated and motivated devotees who are singular in their aim. Personal morality and belief is just that and should not be imposed on others, its a dangerous path which always leads to a great deal of conflict and misery.

'' When the Nazis came for the Communists, I was silent,
I was not a Communist.
When they came for the Socialists and Trade Unionists, I remained silent,
I was neither.
When they came for the Jews, still I stayed silent,
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,there was nobody left to speak out"

Pastor Martin Niemoller.

[Jenos Ridan]

I voted niether: "God's Laws", as I understand them, are outlined quite clearly Mark 12:29-31. We are called to love God with everything we've got and to treat our fellow human beings are we treat ourselves. Christianity 101.

But, I know a couple guys, brothers, who were homeschooled Southern Baptists and they don't seem like over-zealous rubes to me. They are quite informed about the world and both have been to college (well, community college but it's still college as far as I care).

If you want the public schooling to improve, prune back the standardized testing, bring back all the cut programs and raise funding. Wouldn't be a bad thing either if the US followed the British, German or even the Japanese high school circiculum of divided high schools, one for vocational courses and one for prep studies. But remember, if parents don't trust the public institutions, you shouldn't force it down their throats.

[kletka]

I am the one who voted NO. Asbos dont work; the criminal system in UK is a joke. Bring back flagellation and hangings!!

Even if you argue that America is a secular state (which I generally do),

You cannot call a state secular if it criminalises possessing an open alcohol container in public or a sexual act between two willing adults (I mean prostitution ) And look at your presidential campaign: the best republican candidate (Romney) has not been nominated because of his religion, and the main talking point about Obama whether he is a muslim or not... Dont make me silly

[Frigidus]

Wouldn't be a bad thing either if the US followed the British, German or even the Japanese high school circiculum of divided high schools, one for vocational courses and one for prep studies. But remember, if parents don't trust the public institutions, you shouldn't force it down their throats.

Quite. The problem with the US educational system is that there is very little education. It's all just job training basically. Students are given mindless busy work until we're fully boring, ignorant people willing to work minimum wage at McDonald's. Somebody's got to do it, eh? I've learned more in one year of college than in the whole of my time in high school.

[tzor]

Lets cut to the chase, for all their fine ( or not ) words about 'Gods Law ' do any of these fundamentalists really want to put the clock back 2000 years ?

First of all I don't think fundamentalists "really want to put the clock back 2000 years" and secondly, I think you are really giving too much insult to a fine tradition of Roman law. Yes we had Caesar Augustus and a weak senate, but the laws themselves weren't all that bad.

Oh wait, you weren't talking literally ... nevermind.

Actually I tend to have, at times, a rather Medieval mindset. In those times there wasn't really the notion of "The Law." There were a number of authorities (fonts) and they all had their own laws and jurisdictions. Those who were under those authorities were under those laws. If you weren't a monk, for example, you weren't under the rules of the monestary. We can see this today in those who are in the armed services. In addition to being under the Federal and State law, they are also under Military law.

Given that frame of reference I voted against the yes option on secular law. I think there is a valid reason for religious (or God's law) among the faithful. (Outside the faithful is another matter.) Thus I can see Kosher laws for Jews, annulment laws for Catholics and so forth. The important thing is that it only applies to their members. (And I good thing too, this civilian doesn't want to face a military court marshal.)

But bear in mind that secular law comes from the people. Some of these people are religious, some are or were in the military. So these other fonts will influence according to the secular tradition, the secular laws. But in the end we need a multiple font system with equitable and fair overlap resolution mechanisms.

[heavycola]

we need a multiple font system with equitable and fair overlap resolution mechanisms.

It doesn't quite fit on my placard, but screw it! Let's march!

'WHADDA WE NEED?'

[PLAYER57832]

One thing to say:
[sarcasm]This poll (and indeed, the OP) is in no way biased against people that believe in God. {/sarcasm]

Wrong.

Who did CHRIST condemn? He condemned the religious people who judged others by narrow rules without attention to real consequence. When they challanged him about healing on the Sabbath, he countered with who would not remove a lamb that falls in a well on the Sabbath? He threw the money changers from the Temple ... and make no mistake they were there very much at the behest of the Rabbis.

When he saw the prostitute at the well, he forgave her.

GOD and CHRIST want to bring everyone into the fold. When one turns away, they are to be welcomed back like the prodigal son. But, i the mean time .. the worst Christ admonished his followers was to "shake the dust" of towns without a single believer.

Exactly how does that translate into "make everybody live the way I think is correct?"

Lets cut to the chase, for all their fine ( or not ) words about 'Gods Law ' do any of these fundamentalists really want to put the clock back 2000 years ?

No, they want to go back a good deal further. .. or perhaps forward to Mohammed, who after all felt that the answer to all the immorality was to bring the old Jewish laws even further, as opposed to the Christian belief in forgiveness and largely eliminating all but the biggest laws.

[PLAYER57832]

One thing to say:
[sarcasm]This poll (and indeed, the OP) is in no way biased against people that believe in God. {/sarcasm]

Wrong.

Who did CHRIST condemn? He condemned the religious people who judged others by narrow rules without attention to real consequence. When they challanged him about healing on the Sabbath, he countered with who would not remove a lamb that falls in a well on the Sabbath? He threw the money changers from the Temple ... and make no mistake they were there very much at the behest of the Rabbis.

When he saw the prostitute at the well, he forgave her.

GOD and CHRIST want to bring everyone into the fold. When one turns away, they are to be welcomed back like the prodigal son. But, in the mean time .. the worst Christ admonished his followers was to "shake the dust" of towns without a single believer.

Exactly how does that translate into "make everybody live the way I think is correct?"

Lets cut to the chase, for all their fine ( or not ) words about 'Gods Law ' do any of these fundamentalists really want to put the clock back 2000 years ?

No, they want to go back a good deal further. .. or perhaps forward to Mohammed, who felt that Christ's followers had taken his admonishments and teachings too far and that the answer to all the immorality was to bring the old Jewish laws even further, rather than "undoing" most as Christianity tended/tends to do (at least until this so-called "fundamentalist" movement of quite modern times)

Not to put to fine a comb to it, but I suspect most fundamentalists would be quite shocked to realize how much their beliefs actually coincide with Islam.

(no, they are NOT the same, but they are not as dissimilar as many wish to put forward).

[btownmeggy]

No law is really "secular" in that all laws are based on some intangible moral standard. Even if you argue that America is a secular state (which I generally do), there is still an almost metaphysical premise. In America, it's essentially that we "are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Because there is really no justification for such moral statements, Mr. Jefferson cites "the creator."

There is no "secular law" because there isn't really an objective, empirically visible moral standard.

edit- that said I am a defender of the "secular state" in the 21st century.

WHAT makes you think that secularism is devoid of morality? Morality =/ religion.

[jay_a2j]

Poll options are misguided. "God's laws" do not require stoning, burning, nor tar and feathering. You must have missed the part "you who have no sin cast the first stone", these threads always comprise the same things.... Inaccurate interpretation of scripture. OA is right (although I do not support a "secular state")

[joecoolfrog]

So 4 people support Shariah law, dont know whether to laugh or cry

[rocky mountain]

well i will not vote, because i don't agree with the 2 options. why did anyone put the "no" option?
i actually don't really get what you mean by "secular law". what falls under that category? if you explain i might vote...

[tzor]

You must have missed the part "you who have no sin cast the first stone", these threads always comprise the same things.... Inaccurate interpretation of scripture.

Most people do. If you like I can give you the executive summary.
Rabbis grab women caught in act of adultery and drag her to Jesus.
Rabbis make sure that Roman guards are nearby.
Rabbis pose the question to Jesus knowing that under the law she should be stoned.
It is currently illegal to stone people to death; only Rome may carry out a death sentence.
If Jesus says she should be stoned he is violating Roman law.
Jesus ignores them.
Jesus says "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Yes, think the Rabbis, he is admitting that we are sinless.
(The Pharisees believed strict observation of the law made them without sin.)
But, think the elder Rabbis, if *we* stone her we will be arrested.
But, if we don't stone her we are admitting that we are not sinless.
Curses, we wil get you tomorrow.

After all this he asks her if there is anyone left who still accuses her.
When she says no one, he tells her to go and try not to do that sin again in the future.

[jay_a2j]

Yes, think the Rabbis, he is admitting that we are sinless.
(The Pharisees believed strict observation of the law made them without sin.)
But, think the elder Rabbis, if *we* stone her we will be arrested.
But, if we don't stone her we are admitting that we are not sinless.
Curses, we wil get you tomorrow.

Guess that's your interpretation. No translation I have ever read told me what the Rabbis were thinking. But if it works for you...good.

I think the scripture states what it means... Jesus challenged them by stating "you who have no sin cast the first stone" (then wrote something in the sand) and the Rabbis, knowing that they were sinners, fled. Straight forward without all the "implications".

[jonesthecurl]

Just as, straightforward and without implications, heaven is a firmament above the earth with the sun moon and stars fixed in it?

[Neoteny]

Do you guys remember that time we tried to make a religion poll that everyone would agree that the options were unbiased and accurately represented all points of view? That was fun. Anyhow:

[quote=OnlyAmbrose]No law is really "secular" in that all laws are based on some intangible moral standard. Even if you argue that America is a secular state (which I generally do), there is still an almost metaphysical premise. In America, it's essentially that we "are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Because there is really no justification for such moral statements, Mr. Jefferson cites "the creator."

There is no "secular law" because there isn't really an objective, empirically visible moral standard.


edit- that said I am a defender of the "secular state" in the 21st century.[/quote]

Need I say that I disagree?

[jay_a2j]

Do you guys remember that time we tried to make a religion poll that everyone would agree that the options were unbiased and accurately represented all points of view? That was fun. Anyhow:

No law is really "secular" in that all laws are based on some intangible moral standard. Even if you argue that America is a secular state (which I generally do), there is still an almost metaphysical premise. In America, it's essentially that we "are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Because there is really no justification for such moral statements, Mr. Jefferson cites "the creator."

There is no "secular law" because there isn't really an objective, empirically visible moral standard.


edit- that said I am a defender of the "secular state" in the 21st century.

Need I say that I disagree?

Fixed.

[Juan_Bottom]

Jesus says "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

I saw on the History(I like to call it the Bible) Channel that a monk added this part when he was copying the Bible. Not only did it not happen, it was completely made up.


I would say no only because it puts church at the head of Law, and therefore State. Eventually, the clock would turn back. Seems a stupid question, with a thousand answers though.

[wrestler1ump]

No law is really "secular" in that all laws are based on some intangible moral standard. Even if you argue that America is a secular state (which I generally do), there is still an almost metaphysical premise. In America, it's essentially that we "are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Because there is really no justification for such moral statements, Mr. Jefferson cites "the creator."

There is no "secular law" because there isn't really an objective, empirically visible moral standard.


edit- that said I am a defender of the "secular state" in the 21st century.

George Bush is accepting the use of religion in government, and evangelical christians are trying to force christianity into being the head of the state.

[jonesthecurl]

Well, in the UK the official head of state (the Queen or King) is also the head of the state church. It doesn't mean that much practically any more, but that's the theory.