❝❝Okay, time number three. We've been through this twice before.

For something with no moral relativism, there's an awful lot or relative morality going on. Of course there's the Catholic Church mess going on in Pittsburg right now. Granted, that was priests breaking the laws of "God" and man. But there are plenty of other examples.

Child labor used to be not only allowed, but justified by people quoting the Bible. Women were denied property rights and the right to vote. Slavery was justified and encouraged before some good people decided that not only was it wrong but it should be abolished.

You cite the Decalogue, but number one on that list denies any other religion or faith system. Using that, at best non-Christians (okay, non-Abrahamics) exist only at the sufferance of their "betters," to be indulged as children and tolerated for their misunderstanding.

If there is one thing I wish I could literally pound into Christian heads, it's this: Christianity is not the source of all that is good and righteous in our society. Other cultures and other faiths have contributed heavily. It's amazing that I even have to mention this where one house of the national legislature is called the Senate and the other has a ceremonial fasces. Syncretism happens and we're better for it.

We're not measured by our faith, but how we treat others. There is this urge particularly among evangelical Christians to meddle in the lives of others. You yourself cite "the" Native American experience. It wasn't "the," different tribes and groups were treated differently. Usually that led to stealing land, women, and children. Not to mention Indian wars, relocation, and reservations. How is that higher morality? Yet the American treatment of "Indians" was usually justified by Bible quotes.

I could go on and on but I won't. The vice or virtue is in the individual, not the label. By pagan lights, monotheisms have their own sins which they seldom answer for.

Yet there is hope. The "Golden Rule" is the true keystone of Western civilization. It exists in many faiths and cultures. Arguably it is core of the best ethical civilizations. Applied correctly, it can do everything that your Judeo-Christian values can. And we won't be arguing over whose morality should be "in charge."❞❞

Tags: Bookworm ∙ monotheism ∙ Christianity ∙ Decalogue ∙ Catholic Church ∙ child labor ∙ women ∙ rights ∙ Amerindians ∙ non-Christian ∙ good ∙ righteous ∙ Golden Rule ∙ cross posted

❝❝WH, you are way off base with your opinion about Islam having no Constitution protections. Religion is between you and the Divine and no one else.

That being said, *ahem*





It may be a religion, but if it relies on force, any and all opposition is justified. And if someone chooses to walk away, that's their right.

If your religion depends on force, you're doing it wrong.

---

That's not your place to decide. And Story was wrong.

If you start excluding religions from protection, sooner or later someone else is going to exclude yours. No other nation has America's pluralism. It's what threatens all monotheistic Islam. Religious choice is exactly that, choice,

On the other hand, we must insist on an even playing ground. Islam gets no special treatment and no special protections.

I'd be perfectly happy seeing a law that required anyone, regardless of faith, who participated in an honor killing or female genital mutilation to be executed, wrapped in pigskin, boiled with pig dung, and buried under a pig farm. Of course, the pigs might object…

---

Religion is a hot button topic for me, if for no other reason than I have had Christians use theirs against me, and tell me in no uncertain terms that any religion except Christianity should not be allowed. I'm related to some of those people.

Story himself specifically excluded Judaism. Which is interesting considering (among other things) the history of the Newport, Rhode Island Hebrew Congregation.

Here's what both you and Story are completely overlooking. The English Civil War was relatively recent. No proto-American wanted another church telling their church what to do. But that is minor. No, the big thing is that for the very first time (that we know of) in the history of Western Civilization, the defining document did not say that government power derived from the Divine. Except for the date, there is no mention of any god in the Constitution.

The SCT made a mistake with the Mormon ruling. It wouldn't be the first or last time that the Court goofed. Kelo v. New London comes to mind, as does Pace v. Alabama. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government authority over marriage, and certainly nothing that gives it authority over religion. Under the Tenth (and yes, I know politicos love to ignore the Tenth), that means the no power, period.

Most importantly, there were many things that did not exist in 1791. Radio, automobiles, telegraph, and baseball come to mind. There were many things that were unknown in 1791. No American had seen the Mariana Trench, the Grand Canyon, Mount McKinley, or a coyote.

---

Story was commenting well after the fact, he was not a signatory to either the DOI or Constitution. The fact that he excluded Judaism reflects on him and not the Founders. Jews may have been a minority faith, but they were a well established faith.

Using law to force the rules of your religion was wrong then and it is wrong now. I'm sure you'd object if Muslim prayer calls were enforced in American law, or if Kosher dietary restrictions were part of the legal system. Almost all of the mala prohibita laws have a religious basis. It's no secret that I believe most of the problems in American society are because of too much government and mala prohibita laws. If your religion says no shopping on Sunday or no selling liquor, that's up to you. Using the law to restrict other's choices based on your religion, well, that doesn't say much for your faith.

Start respecting the "commonalities of Christianity" and you're going to fast approach respecting the commonalities of faith. The Ethic of Reciprocity or "Golden Rule" is the keystone of Western Civilization. It is arguably the single most important and universal basis for human advancement and is the basis for all true liberty. But it did not begin with Judaism or Christianity.

Once you eliminate specific mentions of any god, pluralism between sects pretty much leads to pluralism between religions. It may have been an accident. I suspect some of those Deists took a hand, or pen as it were.

I can't stress that enough. That simple idea takes religion and religious choice out of the public sphere and puts it back into individual behavior where it belongs. The teachings of a faith should matter only to the individual, not to the state. I don't want a Congresscritter demanding that I observe the Christian sabbath, any more than you want another Congresscritter demanding that you participate in ritual sex with same sex partners under the next full moon. And no, I don't do that.

Because that sets up the next bit. Radical Islam demands that the state require and prohibit according to the interpretation of the imams. The state becomes an extension of Islam. There is no provision for other faiths except in very subservient ways. The state becomes religion.

The ideas of liberty expressed in the Constitution reflect the universal ideals well beyond "Judeo-Christianity." Parts of it originated with the ancient Greeks and the Roman Republic as you've pointed out. It's a good idea because it works and not because of it's origins.

When the Founders wanted to limit freedom, be it slavery, restricting the vote to male landowners, or originally not enumerating human rights, it was wrong and it failed miserably. There was no way the Founders could foresee what would follow. We celebrate the universality, the protection of liberty from government and those who would abuse government power.

❝We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.❞

---

It's not your place to decide if you require others to sacrifice their freedom for yours. And as a citizen of this country, that's something I will defend fight against.

Constitutional America was not founded as a Christian nation. Nations are not Christian, individuals are. Yes, even the nations with established churches. Just as one very obvious example, nations can't participate in the Christian rite of communion. If a "Christian nation" goes to war, does that mean that Jeshua ben Joseph signed the marching orders?

Story may have been closer chronologically, but that doesn't mean he was right. I've already told you the biggest piece of evidence. The Constitution clearly states that political power comes from the people and not the Divine. This was unheard of, as far as we know it had never happened before.

Protecting rights means protecting people from the whims of the majority. You don't stop having freedom of speech because your city voted for "free speech" zones.

As I explained to WH above, radical Islam means that the state becomes an extension of Islam. Pluralism is pretty much the only thing that can resist that and not become tyranny.

Radical Islam is depending on special privileges and protections not granted to others. They can't do it on a level playing field.

Since the practices I mentioned are exclusive to the more radical versions of Islam, then the rest of us don't have to fear that punishment, do we?

---

Story was still wrong on this. Veritas. No one person, no one group has all the answers. I distrust anyone who says that they do. I refer back to the source document. The Constitution remains one of the clearest pieces of English ever put to paper. There are reasons why the Founders, some of the best educated people of their time, deliberately chose not to include the Christian Deity in the Constitution. It's not because of their faith. It's not because they were not pious. It's because they didn't trust men when they claimed to speak for the Divine.

❝Religion can not be allowed the coercive power of the state and the state can not be allowed the moral justification of faith.❞ That's one of mine.

I'm not advocating paganism and especially not my version. I am saying that your religion does not govern my behavior. Just as mine does not govern yours.

Our nation was founded on principles that transcended Christianity. Some of them predate Christianity. The Founders were wise enough to know that they didn't know everything. The Enlightenment thinkers did not spontaneously create their philosophy, they drew heavily on history. There's no need to label these ideas as Christian or Hottentotten, it's enough that some very wise men found ways to pass along truths that worked. Civilization rises from wisdom after disaster. You're arguing over the labels so "your side" can take credit. Yes, Christian people (as opposed to Christianity) have done some wonderful things. And Christians have done some terrible things with huge costs to humanity. ❝The vice or virtue is not in the label, it's in the individual.❞ Labels borrow merit, although they do get blamed.

I didn't say the EoR was universal, I said it was the keystone of Western Civilization. Our best law and principles rest on the simple idea that we're fair to others because we expect them to be fair to us.

I've said it before, ❝Christianity is not the source of all that is good and righteous in our society.❞ Christians are better and nicer when they aren't the only game around. “One path among many” means Christians usually pay attention to what others say. It means Christians have to defend what they say and do without hiding behind scripture or a "higher truth."

Our law should not be defined in terms of A religion. Certainly not if everyone doesn't share that religion.

We should celebrate the ideas, not the labels.❞❞

Tags: faith ∙ religion ∙ Constitution ∙ force ∙ force of law ∙ Joseph Story ∙ Founders ∙ Christianity ∙ islam ∙ Christians ∙ pluralism ∙ Judaism ∙ Judeo-Christian ∙ English Civil War ∙ Western Civilization ∙ Divine ∙ Supreme Court ∙ Kelo v. New London ∙ Pace v. Alabama ∙ marriage ∙ mala prohibita ∙ Golden Rule ∙ Tenth Amendment ∙ Muslim prayer calls ∙ Ethic of Reciprocity ∙ public sphere ∙ individual ∙ behavior ∙ kosher

““Hope for the best, prepare for the worst and meanwhile, do everything you can to make things better.””
     — Jim O'Neil

Tags: Jim O'Neil ∙ Golden Rule ∙ Silver Rule ∙ Iron Rule ∙ Platnium Rule ∙ hope ∙ prepare ∙ make things better ∙ cross posted

In the name of the greater good, the US supported tyranny and dictators all over the globe.

Tags: Crux Files ∙ United States ∙ tyranny ∙ dictators ∙ meddle ∙ bully ∙ Russian revolution ∙ trade-immigration-tolerance ∙ Mighty Mouse ∙ Golden Rule ∙ Cold War ∙ moral superiority

❝❝If you won't honor someone's religious choice, why should they honor yours?

If you are not willing to live with those of other faiths, why should they give way and not you?

Parity. The Golden Rule. It's in your own teachings if you look hard enough.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ parity test ∙ Golden Rule ∙ religion ∙ faiths

❝❝My favorite version of the Golden Rule is “Be Excellent to Each Other. And Party On!”❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: Golden Rule

❝❝The Bible may be a very fine book, but “tain't mine.” I don't expect to follow it's rules any more than I would expect you to follow Sikhism.

It's also not the only source of wisdom, or even the “Golden Rule.”❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Bible ∙ Sikhism ∙ wisdom ∙ Golden Rule

❝❝I'm just saying that if a Christian complains because Christianity is being mocked or attacked, insulting another faith is deluded at best. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. Or if you prefer, the Golden Rule. Or that bit about casting stones…❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Christian ∙ Christianity ∙ Golden Rule ∙ casting stones

❝❝Ah, somebody finally said the C word. And that means I can say not all Christians.

I can say something else too. For all of the evidence of Christian bigotry, there's tolerance and pluralism right there beside it. America is the probably the only nation where it could happen. Religious diversity made it happen. And it goes right back to the Civil War. While there were plenty saying (with reason) that the Bible justified slavery, there were others making the case that a human was a human no matter what the color skin. The ones fighting hardest against slavery took their best arguments from their faith. That continued through the woman's rights movement, through the civil rights movement, and on through the gay rights movement. Without Christians speaking and fighting, those movements would have stalled.

As a newbie back in the 80s, I had a lot of baggage. I spoke and wrote against Christians with the best of them. Some of my stuff is probably still floating around there. But I discovered that I didn't like who I was. There were other things too, I was not a nice person. After some serious soul searching and couple of Divine thumps on the head, I came back to a very simple idea. In magickal terms, the energy you put out is the energy you get back. It's the Ethic of Reciprocity, Christians call it the Golden Rule. It's probably the cornerstone of Western civilization. Long story short, if you look for the negative in others, that is precisely what you will find. And that is precisely what you will allow to shape your own life.

But if you look for the positive, "catch them doing right," there will be enough good to overcome the bad.

Christians made marriage legal in the first place. But do you honestly think there would be legal gay marriage without a whole lot of Christians saying, wait, we have to fix this to be fair to everyone.

Because not every Christian, you see. Sometimes in the places you least expect and from the people you'd never consider, there is tolerance and acceptance and even encouragement. Not everyone wraps themselves in the fire and brimstone of the OT. Some really do believe that their god is love.

We need those people badly.

So, not every Christian.❞❞

Tags: Christian ∙ Christians ∙ Christianity ∙ bigotry ∙ tolerance ∙ pluralism ∙ Ethic of Reciprocity ∙ Golden Rule ∙ Western Civilization ∙ cross posted

Our problem is that we excuse people from the consequences.

Tags: choice & consequence ∙ freedom ∙ responsibility ∙ third wave feminism ∙ RSM ∙ conservative ∙ israel ∙ culture ∙ moral code ∙ Golden Rule ∙ Silver Rule ∙ Iron Rule ∙ Crux Files

❝❝If I don't share your faith, I shouldn't be bound by it. If you don't share my faith, you shouldn't be bound by it.

This is parity. It can be derived from what Christians call the Golden Rule. It's also called the Ethic of Reciprocity and is arguably the keystone of Western Civilization besides being found in nearly every culture on Earth. Behavioral studies show that a rudimentary form exists in higher mammals. Fair is fair.

One of my "party tricks" is showing that you can build an entire moral, ethical, and legal system based on nothing but the Ethic of Reciprocity. No "Higher Law." No use of force except in defense. No one faith and no one group raised above all others never to be questioned.

Just treating each other as we would want to be treated. Nothing more, nothing less. Live and let live.❞❞

Tags: faith ∙ parity test ∙ Christians ∙ Golden Rule ∙ Western Civilization ∙ ethic of reciprocity ∙ fair is fair ∙ Higher Law ∙ live & let live

I want a government that is smaller than absolutely necessary.

I believe that people are perfectly capable of making their own choices and that society is the better if people do exactly that.

I believe that faith and religion can be a tremendous source of individual morality and a dangerous tyranny in society.

There is more but that will do for a start.

---

And there you go, presuming to speak for the Divine in regards to my fate.

I'm sure that makes you feel important. Worthy. Superior.

Do you think you would take offense if I did the same thing to you?

Or do you think your faith supersedes mine?

Just in case you've forgotten:

It always seems to come down to whose belief comes first, who presumes to speak for the Divine, and what happens when someone disagrees.

---

I think you're the first one here who asked me what I believe. You deserve a good answer. But this really isn't about me, it's about us finding common ground.

So to start with:

I call myself pagan because I don't have a better term. I'm polytheistic and pantheistic. On alternate Thursdays and every third Tuesday I might admit to being panetheistic with an animism bent as well. On the 13th of the month, I'll tell you (truthfully) that the label isn't really all that important, only the manifestation.

====================
My path involves recognizing and celebrating the natural cycles in ourselves, in the world around us, and in the worlds we touch in our dreams. I seek the Divine in human, Nature, and machine. I want to find the synthesis between mankind and ideas, between faith and technology, between what was and what will be.

I believe that all things have a Divine nature. Life is the universe's attempt to understand itself. I know that the totality of the universe is too vast for me to comprehend. So there are godmasks that I turn to for understanding, guidance, and strength when mine is not enough. I know that these godmasks are only representations and gateways to Divinity, not Divinity themselves.

---

I'll let you in on a secret.

I try to treat people online as they have treated me. I'm nice until someone shows they don't deserve it.

For life in general, I have three rules.

THE GOLDEN RULE - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

THE SILVER RULE - Do for yourself at least as much as you do for others.

THE IRON RULE - Don't do for others what they can do for themselves.

---

I am totally for live and let live. It's the core of my most deeply held beliefs.

I really don't care about someone else's beliefs or politics unless they want to impose those on everyone else.

Going back to my original post on this thread, if the choice is between the absolute on the left side or the absolute on the right, I am going to pick freedom despite both.

I respectfully disagree with you on that.

---

There is a technopagan addendum to that.

"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."

Personally I don't think the two are as far removed as it would seem.

Tags: Crux Files ∙ government ∙ smaller than absolutely necessary ∙ choice & consequence ∙ faith ∙ religion ∙ Divine ∙ fate ∙ offensive ∙ believe ∙ Golden Rule ∙ Silver Rule ∙ Iron Rule ∙ live & let live

❝❝The argument is not over sexual practices but over who gets to call the shots. I disagree with you on this one.

Let’s leave aside the fact that “Judeo-Christian” excludes every person who is not a Jew or a Christian. Let’s leave aside the face that many Jews are offended by the notion of being lumped in with the Christians. Let’s even leave aside the point that “Christians” includes faiths such as Baptists, Mormons, and Catholics who are barely even on speaking terms with each other.

The real question is why should any group be in charge? Why should one morality have the force of law while others do not?

Competition keeps us honest. If you can’t convince people that your morality works without being backed by law, then you’re doing it wrong. “Do it our way or we’ll force you.” “Do it our way or The Officially Sanctioned Authority Figures will point guns at you.” “Do it our way or you’ll be tossed in jail.”

If you don’t like what they are doing, fine. They shouldn’t force you. But that means you shouldn’t force them either.

I’m a big believer in the family. That’s one reason I support the age of consent. I’m from my mom’s first marriage, and I have stepsibs including one from my stepdad’s first wife’s first marriage. I think that the family is the strongest thing is a society.

But people have to make the choice of their own free will and without coercion or it counts for nothing.

Virtue under threat is not virtue, it’s slavery.

---

I realize you and I are using atheist in different ways. I am no more an atheist because I don’t worship your god than you are an atheist because you don’t worship mine.

If I am reading this right, you want me to rally to your banner and fight in the name of your faith to establish your morality over all in a glorious victory. And then we’ll haggle over my crumbs later.

To which I reply KYFHO.

I think it was yesterday I was reading Limbaugh’s site. He tried to make the point that just because the Republican leadership were a bunch of wimps, that wasn’t a reason to vote Democrat to spite them. He was wrong. Either/or is not a choice, it’s a trap.

Freedom is what matters. If all we fight for is who gets to call the shots, then freedom has lost.

I will not exchange one overlord for another.

---

And if folks weren't pushing a "Judeo-Christian" rule system for everybody, it wouldn't matter.

We can agree on a public morality without making personal religion the governing factor.

---

This nation was founded by Christians, Deists, and others, but not on a Judeo-Christian basis. They borrowed from anything and everything they thought would work. And then they argued over it. For years and years they argued. They still goofed some things up. Slavery is the obvious example.

---

I didn't say anything about the worth of Judeo-Christians values, I just said that they weren't the paramount source of all that is good in our society.

If you reread everything I have said on this thread, you will not find one place where I criticized Judeo-Christian values.

I did say that people should choose for themselves whether to put Judeo-Christian values at the center of their lives. And I objected to anyone choosing those values for everyone else.

---

Again, my objections are not about Christianity.

It's about Christianity being the "default" choice.

As I said above, either/or is not a choice, it's a trap.

Tell me, what would you do if someone insisted you had to abide by the morality of Confucianism? Would you not speak loudly and say that wasn't your choice?

---

I of course live in the United States where freedom of religion is the law of the land.

Not freedom of Judeo-Christian religion, not Judeo-Christian religion placed first, but freedom of religion.

The Founders were among the best educated and enlightened men of their time. Why do you supposed they chose to make it like that?

---

They did accept it.

It took a Civil War to stop it. And even then, Lincoln didn't begin the war with the idea to end slavery.

That came later.

---

Must have been some Brits.

The Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783. The Continental Congress adopted the Constitution in 1788.

---

First, I wasn't the one who started with the "Judeo-Christian" phrase, that was RSM in the original article. It's what started this.

Second (and this is the Really Important Bit), the Founders deliberately did not put religion in the Constitution. It's not because they did not have faith, it's because they believed one man should not dictate the faith of another. It has nothing to do with the merits of Christianity and everything to do with personal choice and responsiblity.

BTW, I don't read either Zinn or Maher. I think the last history book I read was Churchill's autobiography.

---

Still doesn't change the point.

You wouldn't want to live under the rules of another belief system even if it was a good system and was for everybody.

---

C'mon.

Your insistence that the Judeo-Christian basis is the only possible choice has made that point very clear.

---

DING!

I answered which makes it responsive.

You might ask yourself why you feel threatened by the merest possibility.

(P.S. I insist on better sound effects)

---

Pardon, but that's the point. If you put law a rung or two below your religion, you'll expect others to defer to your religion. Even if they don't share that religion.

---

Would you defer to my religion?

---

Should any nation embody a religion?

---

It doesn't matter. Under the terms that people on this thread have set, the religion is immaterial. It only matters if the nation has a basis in that religion.

No matter what yours may be, you must submit.

---

Most importantly, my religion doesn't require you to submit.

Neither does Christianity, despite what some say.

Even here on this thread, I'm not denouncing Christianity. I'm just telling Christians they can't use the precepts of their faith to rule another.

---

Some of them are good rules. Some of them are not.

My point is that one religion should never be considered The Moral Authority for a society. Morality is too important. We need to argue over it. Competition keeps us honest.

Once we say that The Moral Authority Religion is what tells the society that murder and theft are morally wrong, it's way too easy to say that TMAR says that this sexual partner is wrong, or that this fabric should never be sewn to that fabric, or that we should only eat from religiously approved diet.

---

I am totally for live and let live. It's the core of my most deeply held beliefs.

I really don't care about someone else's beliefs or politics unless they want to impose those on everyone else.

Going back to my original post on this thread, if the choice is between the absolute on the left side or the absolute on the right, I am going to pick freedom despite both.

I respectfully disagree with you on that.

---

I disagree. I think "free to choose" applies to more than just economics. I think ideas work best in a "free market" too.

---

"Given that, for example, I like the morality embodied in Judeo-Christian law…" But not everyone does.

"…and that we also know that other people would gladly choose anarchy by their own free will…" Oh? All others, or did you have a specific group in mind?

"it seems to me as if a stable culture does need to have reasonable, enforceable codified laws." I agree with the conclusion but not your reasoning.

"Which means that somebody's standard of morality has to set the bar." Yes.

"And I think that if you put to the vote which system of law would people prefer, Sharia law, Judeo-Christian or anarchy…" Why are these the only choices on the menu?

"…most Americans would say Judeo-Christian (given that a large component of that is "don't screw with me and I won't screw with you.")" I wish more people accepted "live and let live," I really do. I think Americans would accept it. But I don't think that's a substantial part of Christianity, especially as it is practiced today.

---

"Also, I think you confuse the practice of true Christianity with the practices of lying liars who lyingly claim to be Christian because it suits their lying agenda." Some are liars, yes. Some are devout Christians with the best of intentions.

"…the (Judeo-Christian based) Constitutional law as implemented originally for this Republic…" I'm sorry, but I have to stop you right there. It wasn't Judeo-Christian based. Look at the Constitution. Other than the date, there is not a single mention of Christianity. This was very unusual for any government document at the time. This was deliberate.

Christianity was only one of many influences. It's amazing I even have to mention this when one house of the national legislature is called the Senate and the other has a ceremonial mace based on a Roman fasces.

E pluribus unum. The original motto of the United States, roughly translated into "one from many." Or as I prefer, "united we stand." It's not just the people, it's the ideas.

And it is not specifically or even mostly Christian.

---

And the first question is why didn't the Founders see fit to put it in the Constitution?

The second question is why are people offended when I point out that Christianity may not be the sole source of goodness in Western Civilization?

---

And would that Christian belief system be the Protestants or the Catholics? Perhaps the Quakers?

Since the idea of democracy predated the "Judeo-Christian" basis we might have to consider a few other things.

Your problem is that I won't acknowledge the "fact" that Christianity is primary source of Western Civilization and of the United States.

Which pretty much brings us full circle to my first post on this thread.

---

You know, since we've spent so much time on this thread about the Founders, I can't help but wonder if the Brits thought they were being "willfully obtuse."

I know people thought Bill Gates was "willfully obtuse" when he had this crazy idea about copyrighting software and building a company on it.

So it really depends on your point of view, doesn't it?

---

I'll let you in on a secret.

I try to treat people online as they have treated me. I'm nice until someone shows they don't deserve it.

For life in general, I have three rules.

THE GOLDEN RULE - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

THE SILVER RULE - Do for yourself at least as much as you do for others.

THE IRON RULE - Don't do for others what they can do for themselves.

---

I think the Founders made a wise choice. They didn't want an official religion but they didn't want to interfere with personal religion.

It ties into individual choice and responsibility. It's bottom up. The Founders wanted individuals to draw from their faith and influence the nation, not the faith to shape national law and policy and so rule the individual.

Most importantly they wanted people of faith to watch government closely.

---

I didn't say no codified laws.

I just said that I thought we could do public morality without enshrining a religious system as The Moral Authority.

While I agree that religion can be an excellent source of personal morality, I don't think it works on a cultural level if there are multiple faiths in that culture.

So we have to start from another basis.

---

But not Judeo-Christianity alone.

BTW, many Jews are really offended by that term.

---

And a lot aren't.

And they are still offended.

Are you accusing the Jews who dissent from your views of being anti-Christian and unAmerican?

---

I said,

"BTW, many Jews are really offended by that term."

I don't have to be a spokesman for the Jews to know that many resent the term "Judeo-Christian." It implies a continuity which is not recognized by their religion.

---

So apparently it's either/or. I have to accept that law only has a Judeo-Christian bias or we do without law?

We couldn't just sit down, find out what we and others agree on, and make laws based on that?

---

So if I disagree that American society had a "Judeo-Christian" basis and that all that is good and wonderful comes from the actions of enlightened Christians, I can take a hike?

It's not me you have a problem with, it's dissent.

You might want to think about that.

---

Take Daylight Savings Time, that's not moral, just annoying.

Why does a nearly microscopic flake of cannabis on the passenger seat cost someone their car but three "suitcases" of beer in the trunk doesn't?

Why can't you legally buy a high flow toilet?

---

Laws are not moral.

We should be arguing over them.

---

"And, like it or not, 51% of the humans will impose its vision of society and its morality on the remainder." Actually I'd argue that most of the Bill of Rights specifically forbids the Federal government from doing exactly that. Not to mention the other checks and balances built into the system. Originally when Senators were chosen by the state legislatures, it was supposed to balance the populism of the House of Represenatives.

"Like it or not, Judeo-Christian ethics and morality have stood Western Civilization and indeed the world in good stead for a long time." Except Western Civilization was never just Judeo-Christian. Nor were it's ideals and morality.

"Personal liberty is more than putting whatever you want into your mouth or finding some new way to excite your genitals." Except I was talking about freedom which implies responsibility. Especially in an American context.

"Again, I defy anyone to demonstrate a social system better at doing that while protecting the dignity of the individual better than those based upon a Judeo-Christian foundation." You mean other than the American one that I already showed was not based solely on that Judeo-Christian foundation?

ETA: Sorry, I missed an important one.

"You say, such choices should be made "individually" and without societal influence," Except I said without coercion, as in no use of force.

But if you adopt a religion's moral code into the law, we can't do that. It's not up to the people. It's up to the leaders of that religion.

---

Not a weasel word.

Just a point again that Western Civilization did not begin and end with Christianity and Christian thought.

Some laws are not moral. For example, right now many police departments are partially funded by civil forfeiture laws.

Something like 40% of the Export-Import Bank's loans have gone to support one company, Boeing.

Not so very long ago, the Federal government decided that the U.S. should be forced to switch to the metric system.

---

"That immoral people have taken advantage of it doesn't discount the original intent."

Yeah, it kinda does. Your own religion has some interesting things to say about good intentions.

And no one has yet addressed my macro argument. The real question is why should any group be in charge?

You've all been so busy telling me how much the U.S. has a "Judeo-Christian" basis, not one of you has bothered to say why Christianity is a superior system.

I'm willing to work with people to get an acceptable set of laws. But the second you tell me it's Judeo-Christian based I will walk away. Not because I hate Christianity, but because I do want ANY religion given the force of law.

We need people of faith questioning government.

ETA: Pardon, that is my goof. that should read "…but because I do not want ANY religion given the force of law."

You two had me typing so fast last night that my hands couldn't keep up with my brain.

---

Thank you. I was waiting for someone to introduce the Ten Commandments.

Number One on the Hits List there doesn't apply to anyone not a part of that religion.

Unless you want to point a gun at my head until I put your god first?

Don't you see? I'm not attacking the Christian faith. I'm just saying you can't use the law to impose it on anyone else. Your choice is your choice, their choice is theirs.

---

Please tell me again how the Ten Commandments are the "fundamental principles of America."

Please tell me again how me NOT putting the "Judeo-Christian" morality above and beyond my own morality rejects American principles "because of their ethical monotheist origin."

It certainly seems that you have issues with every single American who does not embrace Christianity immediately and on your say so.

---

And you honestly believe that the Judeo-Christian basis is the only possible source of morality for the Founders?

How curiously limiting.

---

I called the Founders among the best educated men of their time. I pointed out that the deliberate omission of ANY god in the Constitution. And I told you they argued and debated for years to do the "right" thing even as they made the occasional mistake.

---

You're right. I'd walk away from the group. I wouldn't walk away from the issue.

You see, I have this thing about freedom…

---

" You wish to have morality without any consequence." I do not. If you'll check some of my previous posts on other threads, I usually stress choice with consequences.

"Western values have a Judeo-Christian foundation…" Among other things.

You did see the bit above where I stressed how important family was, didn't you?

---

I never said all systems are equal.

I said people should make their own choices. And if you can't convince people that your system is a good one except by using force, then you're doing it wrong.

---

No, it's a matter of agreeing on morality instead of saying "the Bible tells me this is good SO THIS IS WHAT WE WILL DO or else!!"

---

Then why isn't the Christian God specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?

Why did it take a Cold War to (mistakenly) change the national motto to "In God We Trust?"

Why does the Constitution specifically forbid a religious test as a qualification for office?

Do you get the picture yet? You can be as Christian as you choose.

You just can't choose that OR any other faith for another.

---

Because government documents of the time routinely did put it in.

I keep telling people. This was not an accident. It was a deliberate choice. It was shocking. It stirred debate in the Continental Congress. It was unheard of.

---

Articles of Confederation.

You can find a copy at www.usconstitution.net, a very good reference site.

---

But it wasn't adopted as the national motto until 1956.

The Founders didn't do "givens," they liked to nail things down. If you don't believe me, take a look at the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers.

---

Yep, I knew that. That's why I mentioned the Anti-Federalist Papers.

Actually if you examine the Constitution you'll find that broad framework has some very specific anchors.

Which makes the omissions all the more important.

---

Speaking of coinage, have you heard of the Fugio cent?

Designed by Franklin, one face had "We Are One" and the other face had "Mind Your Business."

---

Whole wars have been fought by Christians on both sides over that "objective morality."

Whatever the Divine perspective, human understanding is limited and very subjective.❞ class="ghoster">❞

Tags: Judeo-Christia ∙ Jews ∙ Christians ∙ family ∙ virtues ∙ faith ∙ Founders ∙ Deists ∙ Civil War ∙ Treaty of Paris ∙ Continental Congress ∙ Constitution ∙ defer ∙ Golden Rule ∙ Silver Rule ∙ Iron Rule ∙ offical religion ∙ dissent

For length reasons, this entry appears on it's own page.

“The law should be limited to punishing direct, measurable harm.”

Tags: consenting adults ∙ don't mess with kids ∙ atheist ∙ church ∙ sex positive ∙ honoring promises ∙ child labor ∙ women's vote ∙ pickup scene ∙ sex ∙ measurable harm ∙ theft ∙ murder ∙ vandalism ∙ Indecent exposure ∙ prostitution ∙ beer ∙ gay ∙ polyamory ∙ companion ∙ libertarian ∙ professional sports ∙ faith ∙ global warming ∙ pagan ∙ immoral ∙ truth ∙ monogamy ∙ adultery ∙ ideal ∙ Islamists ∙ Sharia ∙ toxic feminist ∙ Satanist ∙ Golden Rule ∙ Mormon ∙ vegetarian ∙ Navajo

❝❝Pardon, but that’s not necessarily true. Aside from the obvious “Might makes right,” it’s also possible to build a moral system based on the Ethic of Reciprocity.

---

I'd argue that in peacetime, there are very few times that reciprocity doesn't apply, at least in the long term. You want to screw with the people around you, they will remember and be less likely to deal with you in the future. (There was a great Bill Whittle essay on this that I used to point people at, but it's not online anymore).

❝What is the origin of those rules?❞

That is a great question. The practical part of me would ask does it matter as long as the rules work?

---

Not just Christianity.

❝In our opinion, the greatest failure of many organized religions is their historical inability to convince their followers that the Ethic of Reciprocity applies to all humans, not merely to fellow believers like themselves. It is our group's belief that religions should stress that their members also use their Ethic of reciprocity when dealing with persons of other religions, other genders, other cultures, other sexual orientations, other gender identities, etc. Only when this is accomplished will religiously-related oppression, mass murder and genocide cease.

Crimes against humanity require that the victims first be viewed as subhuman and the as not worthy of life. If the Ethic of Reciprocity is applied to all humans, then no person or group of persons can be seen in this way.❞

---

The whole point of that quote was that many organized religions use an ethic of reciprocity but do not extend their definition of people to members of other religions. In other words, the "elect" have privileges (and implied Wisdom™) that "mere unbelievers" do not.

Reread the quote.

We have one race and that's human. If it's really about reciprocity, we're obligated to recognize the worth of others.

---

And if someone doesn't believe in your eternal judge, don't you face the exact same questions?

It's not my place to say if your God exists or if He may judge you or indeed if He cares what color shirt you will wear next Saturday. That's between you and Him.

Likewise, it's not your place to say the same thing about my gods.

Which means the only things we have to build a society and culture on are the things we have in common. If that's not going to be a shared belief in a specific aspect of Divinity, what's left?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Or my preferred version "Be excellent to each other. And party on, Dudes!"

---

❝I'm asking about how, absent a transcendent signifier, anything means anything.❞

I can't answer that for you. I don't believe anyone can answer that for another person.

If you believe, there's no doubt that will shape your thoughts and actions. If you believe in a different Divine aspect, that will shape your thoughts and actions differently. If you don't believe, your actions will still be shaped by belief.

It's a question of faith. We may not share faith. Does that mean we can't share a culture or a society?

---

I was updating one of my blogs and I ran across an entry from this site that I made. I thought it was good so I quoted it on my site a few weeks back. The line also applies here.

❝When it comes to religion becoming the law of the land, the devout don't need it, the non-believers don't want it, and the politicos will corrupt it.❞

---

I think the mark of an adult is the ability to make the right choice without the threat of punishment. Or perhaps despite it.

We know that's possible. Under the right circumstances, we even revere the people who did that as saints and heroes.

---

One may also choose to honor it, cherish it, and nourish it.

It's a matter of choice.

So tell me, is morality stronger when one chooses it? Or is it stronger when one holds a gun to another's head and says "Do as I say or else!!!"

Isn't morality really about making a choice?

If it's made under duress, doesn't it cease to be moral?

If morality is really a choice, then people will make choices you do not like. The next question is what do you intend to do about them?

---

I'm not an atheist.

Again, if it's a choice made under duress, is it really moral?

If morality can only exist by force, what's the point?

---

I can see your point, if the rules are transcendent, then they are universal.

But if that guy over there doesn't believe the rules are transcendent, then for him they won't be. That's true regardless.

And then you get into the arguments over which particular Deity wrote the rules and what the "civilized people" are going to do with those folks who do not believe.

That's an incredibly dangerous path to take.

---

One thing I've learned is that when it comes to enforcing morality, it's almost never a god that does it. It's people who claim to to speak for the Divine.

Inevitably, that leads to arguments over which god is in charge. Funny how that leads to political power for a certain priesthood.

Religion is not the reason, it's the justification.

---

I disagree. I think the core of civilization is cooperation, not force. Positive not punishment.

Although I differ from most libertarians when it comes to the Zero Aggression Principle, I believe that relying on force alone will create disaster.

Is morality transcendent or man-made? That's ultimately unanswerable on anything except a personal level. Practically, it only matters if I can trust you and you can trust me.

---

A couple of years ago I asked on this site if someone could be a "good" man if they weren't Christian.

I don't think force is a foundation of civilization.

What do I base trust on? Past behavior if I have a history with you. The chance to make things a little better today if I don't.

It's an act of faith. *grins*

You know, we’ve had this discussion before. Somehow, I don’t think either of us has changed our views since then.

---

Hah! I found it. I misremembered what I wrote. Perhaps the question bears repeating here.

Is the only source of accepted morality Christian?

---

I'm talking about honoring, cherishing and nourishing a moral philosophy. There's not much subjective about it.

If I don't want to be killed, I shouldn't kill others.

If I don't want to be hurt, I should not hurt others.

If I want nice stuff, I shouldn't take or damage other people's stuff.

The best way I can protect myself is to stand up for others when I can.

This isn't because of some priest hiding behind a sacred text. This is because I live in the World with other people.

---

I agree with you.

My grandfather's funeral taught me that the measure of a man was how he touched the lives of others.

As a person of faith myself, I believe in the Divine and I do devotions. I believe that reaching beyond ourselves is how we become better and make our world better. It's the Manifestation.

I just don't think that's the only choice.❞ class="ghoster">❞

❝❝

Tags: Golden Rule ∙ duress ∙ force ∙ ethic of reciprocity ∙ might makes right ∙ commenting ∙ common ground ∙ morality ∙ moral justification ∙ moral ∙ practical ∙ reciprocity ∙ Christianity ∙ the Elect ∙ implied Wisdom™ ∙ mere unbelievers ∙ worth of others ∙ religion ∙ law of the land ∙ politicos ∙ choice & consequence ∙ choice ∙ atheist ∙ cooperation ∙ positive not punishment ∙ person of faith

Comments

❝❝I'm not speaking for the pagan community. Much of the justification for "establishing" a Greater Pagan Community® is so that certain individuals can get the adoration and deference they believe they deserve.

I believe in ecology but I'm against environmentalism.

I believe individual freedom and personal responsibility works ever so much better than collectivism.

I think that what Christians call the Golden Rule is one of the most important roots of civilization. But I prefer another version, "Be excellent to each other. And party on, dudes!"

Now is that enough of a test, or do I have to give the Super Secret Handshake™ too?❞ class="ghoster">❞

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.