Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-18-2018 5:04 AM
260 online now:
PaulK, Son Goku, Tangle (3 members, 257 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 840,392 Year: 15,215/29,783 Month: 1,159/1,502 Week: 157/492 Day: 0/31 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
11Next
Author Topic:   A Closer Look at Pat Robertson
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2820 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 76 of 160 (237749)
08-27-2005 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Theodoric
08-27-2005 4:06 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
First of all the anabaptists and streams of theology have nothing to do with the laws of the United States.

LOL. You obviously know nothing of how the Constitution and Bill of Rights evolved. Take some time to educate yourself because you sound foolish here.

When the Colonies were being established, there were 2 colonies that initially were founded on Anabaptist theology of separation of Church and State. Keep in mind that when I and they use that term, they are using in the original context, not probably what you think of as some sort of attempt to banish religious leaders from influencing public policy or banning public ackowledgement of God.

The 2 colonies were Pennsylvania, founded by the Quakers, and Rhode Island. William Penn was, in fact, laughed at by conventional thinkers in England. No one really considered that you could have freedom of religion in a society and have a cohesive society.

The Baptists founded Rhode Island, and Isaac Backus was a major player for pushing for no state establishment of religion and had a major influence on the founders. They also went the way of the 1st amendment due to the fact some states, like Mass, had an official establishment of religion, and they did not want to get into disputes over that, which is why the 1st amendment permitted states to have an official establishment of religion.

One reason the Baptists pushed so hard over this issue is that sometimes, and this happened in VA, the State would refuse to accept as legal the marriage not performed by the Anglicam church, for example, and this was used to deny inheritance rights to the family.

Well, eventually people began to see Anabaptist theology as more viable than they considered before. Colonies that permitted religious freedom did quite well, and so there was a strong impetus within Protestantism to begin to recognize freedom of religion as normative theology, which early Protestantism did not.

That is how the idea came to be. Before that, there were centuries of Christians martyred for their faith, particularly in this area, by the Catholic church and early Protestants too, that denied freedom of religion and Jesus' teachings in that area.

You owe your freedom in large part to these Christian martyrs.

Now, it is true that the Enlightenment helped too, but people have a mistaken idea about this at times. Anti-religious people like Thomas Paine were totally discredited in the eyes of the public, and more religious thinkers like Washington, who could arguably be considered an Enlightenment thinker as well, were applauded.

So it wasn't hostility towards religion that produced the 1st amendment.

Furthermore, the term "separation" that Jefferson used in a letter to the Baptists was an example of his using their term. They had been lobbying him and wanted to make sure that there was a wall of separation, not hostility as we see today, but they wanted their religious freedom protected.

So those, like Jefferson, that were not that favorable to religion in general had their own motives to agreeing with the efforts of the Baptists and others, but it was a long fight, and led by the group of Christians that favored freedom of religion. They first got it incorporated into some colonies and then the entire nation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2005 4:06 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2005 4:32 PM randman has responded
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 08-27-2005 4:40 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 29837
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 77 of 160 (237751)
08-27-2005 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Theodoric
08-27-2005 4:06 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
I see no attempt to denigrate religion. I see an attempt to keep it out of the public sphere. IF the ten commandments are in courthouses, why not the koran or holy books of other religions.

Mohammed is in fact among the figures displayed in the frieze at the top of the Supreme Court building, along with Moses and I forget who all else, but Muslims also honor Moses as the lawgiver and his laws as God's just laws. Other religions recognize similar laws, but the Ten Commandments happen to be THE most precise, pithy and complete statement of the universal moral laws.

How do I as an atheist feel I can get a fair day in court if I walk past the 10 commandments on the way in?

If I were you I'd worry about them NOT being there as the court officials who honor them must guarantee you a fair trial, protect you from false witnesses, refuse bribes to damage your case, administer punishment that is neither cruel nor unusual, and scrupulously seek your best interests. While other moral codes may affirm such principles more or less, unless you know that the court abides by them, what use are they to you? But if you could know that the court abides by the Ten Commandments it ought to be a relief to you. Yes, you could get prosecuted for stealing, for murder, for sexual exhibitionism (all sexual offenses come under the prohibition of adultery) or any other violation of the Ten Commandments, but you'd be prosecuted for those things in any decent court system in the world, and if I were you I'd give some thought to how you might be punished under *some* nonBiblical moral codes before you too quickly throw away our Biblical one.

Why is your religion any better an any more deserving of veneration in the public sector than any other religions?

Actually it is, but that's not the point, as other legal codes are somewhat similar, as I say above, and again, you might prefer ours if you had some experience of some others.

Note: Keeping religion out of the public square is, as Randman is saying, exactly NOT what the Constitution had in mind, exactly the opposite.

This message has been edited by Faith, 08-27-2005 04:32 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2005 4:06 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2005 4:37 PM Faith has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 78 of 160 (237753)
08-27-2005 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by randman
08-27-2005 4:26 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
They had influence on the creation of our constitution, but their beliefs do not reflect our constitution. We cannot look at them to decide whehter the US has seperation of church and state. We have to looka the constitution.

Anti-religious people like Thomas Paine were totally discredited in the eyes of the public, and more religious thinkers like Washington, who could arguably be considered an Enlightenment thinker as well, were applauded.

OK please justify these statements. Washington? religious thinker?

Also, Please answer my questions from earlier post. By allowing religion and governemnt to mix you mean christianity and religion correct?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 4:26 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 8:28 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


(1)
Message 79 of 160 (237756)
08-27-2005 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Faith
08-27-2005 4:27 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
but the Ten Commandments happen to be THE most precise, pithy and complete statement of the universal moral laws.

According to your viewpoint. WOuld a hindu feel this way,a taoist, sikh, shinto?

Yes, you could get prosecuted for stealing, for murder, for sexual exhibitionism (all sexual offenses come under the prohibition of adultery) or any other violation of the Ten Commandments

In other words if I profane your god the courts should punish me. Who decides what is a sexual offense?

Note: Keeping religion out of the public square is, as Randman is saying, exactly NOT what the Constitution had in mind, exactly the opposite.

What is your basis for this belief? HAve you read the first amendemnt? I am at a loss how you get that from what is written.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 08-27-2005 4:27 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Chiroptera, posted 08-27-2005 4:46 PM Theodoric has not yet responded
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 08-27-2005 4:58 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29837
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 80 of 160 (237758)
08-27-2005 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by randman
08-27-2005 4:26 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
Good stuff Randman. You've turned out some great clear informative posts on this thread.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 4:26 PM randman has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6517
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 81 of 160 (237761)
08-27-2005 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Theodoric
08-27-2005 4:37 PM


As long as we're terminally off-topic:
From an old column by Katha Pollitt (because she says it much better than I) about the idea that the the commandments somehow form the basis of American law:

Consider Commandment One: God identifies himself as God--as if you didn't know! Who else crashes about with thunder and lightning? He reminds the Jews that he brought them out of Egypt and orders that "thou shalt have no other gods before me." What does that mean, exactly? No other gods, period, or no other gods come first? No other gods because they don't exist, or no other gods because they are minor and inferior and God doesn't like them? His need for constant reassurance is one of God's more perplexing characteristics. If you had created the universe and everything in it down to the seven-day week, would you care if people believed in you? Wouldn't it be enough that you knew you existed? Why can't God give anonymously? So what if people give Baal or Ishtar the credit?

In any case, God's status anxiety has precious little to do with the civil and criminal codes of the state of Alabama, where worshiping Baal and Ishtar is legal. Commandments Two, Three and Four continue God's preoccupation with himself. No graven images, indeed, no "likeness" of anything in nature, to which he holds the copyright; no taking his name in vain; no work on the Sabbath. Representational art and sculpture, swearing a blue streak and working on Saturday (or, in Alabama, Sunday) are all legal; nor does the law require that we honor our fathers and mothers as enjoined in the Fifth Commandment, despite God's barely veiled threat of death and/or exile if we sass them. Adultery is legal (well, actually, not in Alabama), as is coveting your neighbor's house, wife, servants, livestock--or husband, a possibility God seems either not to have considered or not to have minded. In fact, the only activities banned by the Ten Commandments that are also crimes under American law are murder, theft and perjury. But those are illegal (I'm guessing) under just about every civil and religious code. Even Baal and Ishtar presumably took a dim view of them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2005 4:37 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 29837
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 82 of 160 (237763)
08-27-2005 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Theodoric
08-27-2005 4:37 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
but the Ten Commandments happen to be THE most precise, pithy and complete statement of the universal moral laws.
========
According to your viewpoint. WOuld a hindu feel this way,a taoist, sikh, shinto?

How people FEEL is hardly the point. How a person feels depends on what they KNOW, and yes, if they understood it as I've explained it they ought to appreciate the Ten Commandments' spelling out of the universal moral law. They may recognize in most of it the laws they are already familiar with. What's in it to hate, Theodoric? Actually think about what's IN it. As I said, it is a statement of moral principles affirmed to one degree or another throughout the world in all history. Perhaps they could even appreciate the first commandments that affirm God as the giver of these laws.

Yes, you could get prosecuted for stealing, for murder, for sexual exhibitionism (all sexual offenses come under the prohibition of adultery) or any other violation of the Ten Commandments
=============
In other words if I profane your god the courts should punish me. Who decides what is a sexual offense?

At one time you could have been prosecuted for profanity and blasphemy under Christian law, but that is no longer done. We could argue about whether that is good or bad. Does it cost you to avoid those things? But in any case we no longer do, and about who decides, the law code decides, supposedly established by our Legislatures who supposedly represent the people. It's written down. As I said, try out some other codes to see how THEY might deal with a sexual offense and then get back to the Ten Commandments.

Note: Keeping religion out of the public square is, as Randman is saying, exactly NOT what the Constitution had in mind, exactly the opposite.

What is your basis for this belief? HAve you read the first amendemnt? I am at a loss how you get that from what is written.

For one thing the First Amendment is being misused to prohibit the free exercise of religion by mere citizens, which is EXACTLY what it was supposed to prevent. It was ONLY to prevent CONGRESS from establishing a religion, and otherwise it was to guarantee full and free expression of religion by all citizens. But now it is being used to prevent people from displaying Bibles or religious slogans at work or at school, from having religious ceremonies at school which were established centuries ago, now all of a sudden prohibited in exact violation of the meaning of the First Amendment. There are hundreds of such violations of the amendment absurdly being done in the name of the amendment these days.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2005 4:37 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2005 5:04 PM Faith has responded
 Message 84 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2005 5:19 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 83 of 160 (237766)
08-27-2005 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
08-27-2005 4:58 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
There are hundreds of such violations of the amendment absurdly being done in the name of the amendment these days.

Please back up statements with facts.

And no I do not need the ten commandments in order to live a good, moral life. They have no affect on me whatsoever.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 08-27-2005 4:58 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 08-27-2005 5:22 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 84 of 160 (237773)
08-27-2005 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
08-27-2005 4:58 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
I think I like PR better than you Faith. Even he hasn't gone as far as you and called for a christian version of sharia.

So according to your views, what happens to unbelievers and people like homosexuals if our laws followed the commandements as you advocate?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 08-27-2005 4:58 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29837
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 85 of 160 (237774)
08-27-2005 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Theodoric
08-27-2005 5:04 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
You don't read very well. I didn't say one word about your being required to obey the ten commandments.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2005 5:04 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2005 5:26 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 86 of 160 (237775)
08-27-2005 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Faith
08-27-2005 5:22 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
oh but you did

Yes, you could get prosecuted for stealing, for murder, for sexual exhibitionism (all sexual offenses come under the prohibition of adultery) or any other violation of the Ten Commandments,

Message 77

added link to her post

This message has been edited by Theodoric, 08-27-2005 05:27 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 08-27-2005 5:22 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2005 5:30 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 87 of 160 (237777)
08-27-2005 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Theodoric
08-27-2005 5:26 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
You don't read very well

And I do not appreciate your personal attacks. I think I just might report you. YOu can't have it both ways Faith. If you are going to complain about how people treat you, you deserve to be complained about when you people the same way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2005 5:26 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 8:32 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 160 (237803)
08-27-2005 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by randman
08-27-2005 3:32 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
He upholds the traditional Christian concept of "separation of church and state"

Didn't you just read where he says

quote:
There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution.

He doesn't believe in the separation of church and state. That's absolutely obvious from his own statements. Trying to argue otherwise is not going to be a position congruent with the facts.

So?

So, that's an accurate description of Robertson.

You condemn YECers and religious conservatives all the time.

Then when you write my Wiki biography, you're free to introduce me that way. What's the problem, here?

The modernist version of separation is a violation of the "free exercise" clause because it seeks to ban any governmental participation of religious worship rather than governmental establishment in the law, and that's a distortion of the Constitution.

The right of free expression of religion is granted to the people, not to the government. There's no violation of the First Amendment because that amendment grants rights to the people, not to the government.

If the modernist myth was correct, Congressional chaplains and openign Congress with prayer should be illegal.

I believe that it is. I reject the Supreme Court's concept of "civil religion", something I find inherently unconstitutional. Unfortunately they're the authority in charge of interpreting the Constitution, not me. And not you.

Nonetheless, I fail to see how any of this is on-topic. Robertson is the topic of this thread, not the First Amendment, and I question why you appear to be doing your level best to send us off the rails. I suspect you're having significant difficulty grappling with the arguments of the OP.

There is nothing in there though about religion not effecting non-religious laws in the government.

I don't believe I've suggested that there is. But Robertson's views go father; his religion would necessitate religious laws, and he would excize persons who were not either Christians or Jews from office:

quote:
Individual Christians are the only ones really -- and Jewish people, those who trust God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to Him.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program

Now, you may not believe that the First Amendment prevents that, but the main body of the document does assert, very clearly, that no religious test shall ever be required for office.

Regardless, you've again failed to stay on-topic. The topic is the article's characterization of Robertson's views, which you appear now to accept, not the legitimacy of his views. I'm going to have to ask you again to stay on topic or refrain from posting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 3:32 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2005 7:23 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 97 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 8:45 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 89 of 160 (237810)
08-27-2005 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by crashfrog
08-27-2005 7:01 PM


crashfrog,
I apologize for continually going off topic. I need to stop letting them bait me into pursuing off topic discussions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2005 7:01 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2005 7:25 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 160 (237813)
08-27-2005 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Theodoric
08-27-2005 7:23 PM


I apologize for continually going off topic. I need to stop letting them bait me into pursuing off topic discussions.

I usually fall for it, too. Don't sweat it, just call them on it. It's clear they're baiting us off-topic because they have no effective answer for the arguments we've presented.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2005 7:23 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018