quote:

Originally posted by NAVDAWG:
Never said I did not. But the founding fathers seperated church and state for a reason and that was it.

actually Nav, the founding fathers did not separate church and state. The first amendment states only that the government can not establish a religion. This is much more than semantics.

The term "Wall of separation between church and state" came years after the contitution, and its first amendments (known as the bill of rights) was ratified. It is an excerpt from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist.

Our founders, mainly practitioners of some form of Christianity or another,did not want a necessarilly Godless government. They just did not want a Catholic or Presbyterian or Baptist views mandated by the state.

Think of a few things that would not exist if there was a true constitutional separation of church and state:
Military chaplains (and chapels)
Congress opening each session with prayer
The basic set of laws closely mirroring the 10 commandments.

quote:

Originally posted by mohican:
Think of a few things that would not exist if there was a true constitutional separation of church and state:
Military chaplains (and chapels)
Congress opening each session with prayer
The basic set of laws closely mirroring the 10 commandments.

Kind of. You could also say that the set of laws closely mirrors the Code of Hammurabi, which predates the Ten Commandments. Two more things:

1) We need to separate what the founders did and the basic set of laws--are there any correspondences between, say, the Bill of Rights and the Ten Commandments? I would offer that the First Amendment goes against all sorts of biblical tenets--where does the Bible suggest that reasonable adults can choose their own religion, or say what they want to without getting stoned to death?

2) Even in other law codes, the relationship between the law and the Ten Commandments is not necessarily one of direct influence. Let's look at the obvious ones: Thou shalt not kill, steal, bear false witness. All three can be found, in one form or another, in most state law codes, as well as the federal one. Of course, just about every country in the world--including ones that don't have a Judeo-Christian influence--also have laws against murder. So what gives? Maybe it's because, like the Jews, the Americans (and the Japanese, and everyone else) figured out that it's impossible to have a civil society when people can murder without consequence. But does that mean that the people writing the law codes had everything except "murder is illegal," looked at the Ten Commandments, and said, "Oh, wait, I knew we were forgetting something."

The other seven commandents are: Thou shalt not have any gods except Yahweh, blaspheme, covet your neighbor's stuff, covet your neighbor's wife, make an idol, or commit adultery. And you must honor your parents and rest on the sabbath. With the possible exception of adultery, have any of those things ever been codified into law? Not that I'm aware of, and that's a good thing.

Were the founders aware of the Ten Commandments? Of course they were. They were also aware of the rest of the Bible, the Koran, the code of Hammurabi, and all sorts of other legal statutes. That's a long way from saying that they were heavily influenced by the Ten Commandments--by my reckoning, it's 3-6-1 at best.

Dennis

Thank you for typing that so I didn't have to.

Dency - you are correct, to a point.

There are the ten commandments, and the penalty phase per se isn't part of the text.

Some things, like Adultery have been part of law at different points and different locals. And for reasons other than religion, there is still a prohibition against adultery for officers in the military.

Without turning this into a contest, I'll postulate that many of the original law makers knew more of the bible than the Koran or other texts. Some like Mason, Locke, and others had a more wide ranging education.

It still does not take from the point that the separation of church and state is an addition that is not in the constitution. And yes, current rulings add it by judicial action, if not true interpretation.

If you examine the Old testement, you would see that there is a significant amount of separation of church and state there, also. I recently ran across a passage that indicated that of the kings of Israel, there was only one who as a priest had a direct connection.

Constant re-interpretation of the bill of rights and what may be cruel and unusual punishment has eliminated harsher punishments. Whether it is for better or worse is an individual view. There were many crimes that had different punishments than are now allotted. Adulters may not have been excecuted, but horse thieves and rapist were. Look at punishments handed out, post civil war in the Indian Nations - horse whipping for public drunkenness?

Perhaps you assumed that I meant that there was a word for word correlation between the ten commandments and early law. No, but it had an influence.

quote:

Originally posted by Dencyguy:
To use an extreme example, why is it objectively wrong to have sex with children? Is there a biological reason for it? Maybe, in a very technical sense, but the main reason is that, as a socitey, we've decided that the people who do such a thing should be imprisoned, or at least forced to move to another parish.

Another complication that what is seen right and wrong changes over time. Muhammad married a nine year old and killed people who wouldn't convert. The Bible says that it's perfectly acceptable to sell your kids into slavery, stone them if they don't want to do their chores, and if a guy rapes a non-engaged woman, he has to marry her. And kill people who won't convert. All older religions have those sorts of fun details that don't make it into the pamphlets (the only really barbaric practice that's still in currency is circumcision, which is celebrated in boys but condemned when people do it to girls). That's because those systems of morality were set down at a time when, based on context or necessity, people did things that we would now find disgusting.
- Dennis

Wow! That was really well done. I asked the question WHO's morality are we talking about.

Didn't our GOVERNMENT conduct the Tuskagee syphilis study? Were these ELITE upper class people they were studying? Was morality questioned at the time of the experiment? One of the inconvenient truths we NEVER want to talk about is we don't have MIDDLE CLASS or LOWER CLASS America represented in government setting the rules we are asked ot LIVE by from congress/Capitol Hill.

This country is a melting pot BUT I don't think we're always prepared for the diversity of races and/or the differences in socioeconomic statuses. Sometimes these go hand in hand - other times they do not.

Here's a few examples:
The entire country sees OJ Simpson on trial for murder. On the day the verdict was announced - WHO was in the streets celebrating? People of OJ's race. That said, I'll bet alot of those people weren't in the same socioeconomic status. Consequently, OJ's fame and fortune purchased his innocence. To this day, there's intelligent African Americans telling me OJ Simp[son didn't do it. To this day I haven't heard 1 white person say they think he's clearly innocent. In the end, was justice served? We'll never know but our skin color will have more to do with answering that question than the actual truth. Who's morality?

My next example involves seeing a bunch of Senators within 24 hours of getting autographs from Roger Clemons WANTING desperately to prove the millionaire couldn't possibly be the liar in their farce of a hearing. It could only be the hand selected personal trainer that Roger and wife looked to as their go-to guy for steroids. And their MAIN witness? Jose FREAKIN Canseco. Yes, the SAME standup guy that when asked WHO's steroids were in his glove compartment ALLOWED his twin brother Ozzie to take the blame.

As disgusted as I am with Michael Vick - folks, he didn't invent the concept of animals fighting to the death in the south. I LOVE animals so I automatically HATE Michael Vick now. That said, has ANY else ever been on the same number of telvision sets for cruelty to animals or been held as accountable for the number of years the dog fighting gambling has grown in popularity or all the years they've had rooster fighting in the south? On the surface Michael Vick is a millionaire. Doesn't MEAN he grew up with a millionaire's values or terrific role models as parents. AGAIN, I hate the guy for and can't help it. I grew up with pets and LOVE animals. Michael might have grown up with a lazy dad that took him to dog fights at an impressionable age of 4. Winning might have represented extra food on the table in his home. I can't say. In MY value system he's WRONG. In Clinton Portis' value system - "What's the freakin problem? Welcome to OUR world where we didn't have it made growing up!" I'm ALL for getting the bad guys when it comes to cruelty to animals so I hope the diligence to lock em up continues. Has it?

There was another Atlanta Falcon (Jonathon Babineaux) they were talking about on ESPN radio that killed his girlfriend's dog by beating it over the head enough times to create the head trauma for death. Cruelty is cruelty - how many read about it or saw it on television? And how long is he in jail for over it? He was released on a $2,300.00 bond. The rationale for the wrist slap here is all he needs is psychological help but Vick didn't?

When I hear the question about morality - it seems like we WANT the Vicks, the McNemy's, the Bonds, the Palmeiros to be the BAD boys BUT don't you DARE call Roger Clemons out. And why? He's a wealthy white man born as a gifted athlete into a white family MOST of us can identify with. There are no cultural diversities to figure out or become uncomfortable with. MANY white Americans get SUPER pissed if you throw Roger Clemons in the same sentence with Barry Bonds. There was a spoiled white debutante that threw a temper tantrum and tirade at McNemy that we have to call Senator. Anyway, I'm sure the Clemons fans will tell me Roger's BIGGEST nightmare at the hearing was an African American Senator that SEEMED to want Roger to be perceived the EXACT same way Barry Bonds is being widely perceived as a liar and a cheater. It can be said BOTH players were pretty damn good before they cheated AND neither were ever lazy in the off season. We can't make it right for 1 guy and wrong for the next guy - that's NOT morally right is it?

Let me ask this question - if Kennebunkport, ME was the place that got hammered by Hurricane Katrina - would the government have responded in a more acceptable manner? I think the overall socioeconomic statuses of the victimized would have ALOT to do with what TYPE of priority got placed on it. The same holds true with HOW our government perceives that 45-55 million HARD WORKING middle class Americans are going without any health care coverage. It's NOT their world so it's not their role to solve the problem so they won't touch it. There's a book called "Who Rules America Now?" by William Domoff. Nothing I read over 20 years ago in that required book we had to read for Health and Public Policy has changed. It's amazing how the purpose of Iraq gets described to Americans today when the VP and the President grew up with their families getting rich off petroleum. President Jed Clampett tells us he's hunting Al Queda but he's really just fighting for petro. They're at a civil war because SOME of them are reading the American economy under President Jed Clampett is heading for a recession. What leadership skills is Mr Clampett using over there to SELL the masses on HIS ideologies?
- Tom F.

From Mohican:

>>Some things, like Adultery have been part of law at different points and different locals. And for reasons other than religion, there is still a prohibition against adultery for officers in the military.<<

Good example--it shows how things have shifted form legislating based on morality to legislating based on pragmatics--it makes it harder to keep things together in the military if people are having sex with one another (curiously enough, the rule against fraternization is one of the reasons why Ron Paul argued for gays to be allowed to serve openly in the military--as I recall, his point was that the military had all the rules it needed without "Don't Ask, Don't Tell").

>>If you examine the Old testement, you would see that there is a significant amount of separation of church and state there, also. I recently ran across a passage that indicated that of the kings of Israel, there was only one who as a priest had a direct connection. <<

Certainly. As I recall, what did in Saul was the fact that he (as state) overstepped his authority by burning incence (a function of the church). The analogy is complicated by the fact that the law code, presumably, came from on high, which made the church the arbiter of the state. There are, however, human fingerprints all over the law code--such as the rape laws which I mentioned earlier, which seem to be much closer to a human idea of "used goods" than a divine sense of justice. Nevertheless, your point is well taken.

>>Perhaps you assumed that I meant that there was a word for word correlation between the ten commandments and early law. No, but it had an influence.<<

I would agree to that, although English Common Law was probably a bigger influence.

Dennis