|
Amaros -> RE: Bash Christianity! (9/11/2006 5:37:32 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
quote:
ORIGINAL: Amaros
I see such claims as an attempt to influence the political -economy away from it's essentially secular/scientific roots - our form of government, economy, and legal system are all predicated and based on secular philosophy and science, albeit in ways deemed to not conflict strongly with Christian values, and in fact to strengthen it's core values of justice and humility, and attempts to abrogate these in favor of Biblical law, arbitrary and often so vague not even two Christians can always agree on it - is to advocate tyranny and chaos over the order and justice we have fought to establish and preserve.
Two comments from this paragraph.
1. If you accept the proposition that two core values of Christianity are justice and humility, then do you see attempts to strengthen them as a "good thing" or a "bad thing"?
2. Is what you mean when you say "Biblical law" is Old Testament laws? Most (all as far as I know) of Christian traditions believe that the old laws were overcome and made invalid with the arrival af Jesus. In other words, they no longer apply. It's a key belief of what makes a "Christian".
Humility, the idea that all men are equal under god, and that god is just - the former being one of the reasons the Christians were persecuted by the Romans - bears some very close similarity to the concept of Rule of Law, wherin all men are equal in the eyes of the law, and I can concede that it perhaps played some role - although the concept itself extends much further back than Christianity - it is then, perhaps a core part of Christian philosophy, but seldom exhibited in praxis, nor was it the Christian hegemony who established it, but secular philosophy.
We would agree that this is a good thing, we would not agree that Christians best exemplify or enforce it.
Insofar as your second point goes, as you say, Jesus (Yesua) is said to have overturned the Old Law (YHWH) - by some Christians, though not by others, and what is left in the first case is an arbitrary hodepodge of common law and superstition - why for example is anal sex prohibited? The example of Sodom and Gommorah is provided (OT), though of course Sod. and Gom. were destroyed for the sin of idolatry, not sexual excess - this is what "filth" and other imprecations trnaslated into old English, from Greek, from the original Hebrew refer to.
No matter, it means sodomy in Christian common law, and that is that, citing the original Hebrew is pissing up a rope. Neither does the Bible anywhere proscribe anal sex between a man and a woman - it says you shall not use a man as you would a woman - which could mean a lot of things, i.e., thou shalt not bitch slap a man, or make him do laundry, all consistent with the way women were used at the time.
Now what is to prevent me from making such an interpretation and claiming revelation? Nothing, nothing except whether anybody wants to listen to it or not, and such is Christian law - it's a dead fish, there are the same elements there as are present in the Anglo/Saxon legal system, common law, statutes and case law, but no adversarial mode of appeal, habeus corpus, or rights of the accused, nothing save "revelation" and demogaguory, which only changes the law according to individual whim and the times.
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
quote:
ORIGINAL: Amaros
You are free of course, to worship any gods you wish, that's part of it - a free religion is itself part of the balance of power, providing an independent consensus that can influence government through public opinion in ways that subjegation to a party line would not allow, and the establishment clause protects and preserves this particular form of consensus formation from political influence.
Yup. KnightsOfMist covered that well.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Amaros
Too many Christians, it seems, cannot be satisfied with this, and continue to warp their religion for political gain, they refuse to accept that theocratic hegemony has had it's day - been there, done that, ain't goin' back.
"Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesars..."
- J.C.
Theocratic hegemony hasn't had it's day yet. In the Western world, with Christianity, I'd conditionally argee with you. However, as Iran shows, as a statement about all religions, all cultures and all people, I'd have to disagree with you.
Also, I'd say that most of the immediate and harshly negative comments directed about and to Christians and "their attempt to impose theocratic government" is both an overreaction and an demonstratively emotional overreaction. Not based on any reasoned understanding of history, the religion itself, nor the roots of morality and civil society.
An interesting sidebar question (which I bring up not to debate, but to pose as an intellectual exercise) is the possiblity of the Islamic conflict spawning a reactionary return to a more primitive Christianity which does seek secular power. While I don't think it's a probability, it is certainly a possibility.
I don't think the US is anywhere approaching this possibility.
FHky
Edited: spelling
And I'd say you failed to read the OP - SCOTUS has already established a litmus test for pornography, and ruled in such a way that communities may set public standards they deem desireable - that isn't at issue here, what is at issue is whether government has the ability to set standards for private behavior, between consenting adults - a pornography provider and a pornography consumer exist in a consenting relationship to one another, these lawsuits are designed to push the boundries of community standards out of public and onto your computer and into your home, your bedroom - can you think of any reason for this except to pander to religious fanatics?
Rule of law means all are equal under the law, if Christians are to decide what is moral and what is not, what images are suitable for adults to obtain for use inthe privacy of their own homes, is that not special treatment for Christians? Is it not establishment?
I'm sorry, there are already people in prision, paying fines, and having their homes and all their belongings confiscated - you don't think the US is anywhere approaching this possibility, and so I'm "demonstratively" overreacting?
I am an artist, I produce pornographic and erotic images for fun and profit and to realize that profit, I have to distribute my work - I'd say my concerns are demonstrably justifiable.
Congress has the right to regulate commerce, not to prohibit it, without clear evidence of innate justifiable harm to public safety - such as preventing sex education.
Guns and cars can be deadly in the hands of unsupervised children, and we don't take those away from everybody.
Talk about yer nanny states...
Edited for spelling, grammer and clarity.
|
|
|
|
