10 Commandments flap: LET'S BOMB ALABAMA!

• Is Arnold Schwarzenegger a real conservative or is he just playing one on TV? Ann Coulter and Donna Brazille square off in a debate tonight on `Hardball' tonight at 7:00 on MSNBC.

Gonna have to bomb a lot more than Alabam'

What's the flap? If we want equal historical time for influences on American Constitutional/Federal law, why not place a Code of Hammurabi Stelae, a Roman law scroll, the English Magna Carta, and a Big Mac and Fries in a display case with it?

I think they should just ban the sculpture on the grounds of being ugly.

or if i covet my neighbor's wife?

the section of the legal code that deals with coveting is sorely lacking.

We have a Greco-Roman basis for law in America, not a pagan one (at least in terms of codified law). And I would like a chocolate shake with my Magna Carta.

oh and Sterling, there's a section in the Patriot Act about coveting

Oh yeah, and since we're discussing "separation of church and state" here, why are some public universities fully willing to teach Islam? Hardly anyone says a word about that. I'm not talking about within a Comparative Religions class, I'm talking about full-on teaching Islam as the whole purpose of the course. If some public universities are able to do that, I think other public universities should have to teach Christianity (and in the same P.C., "oh, let's not offend anyone here" manner that Islam is handled), Judaism (ditto), Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Hinduism. And what the heck, let's throw in Wicca as well.

There. I've fulfilled my daily requirement of pissing someone off. ;)

Because, no offense Dee, that just isn't relevant. It's a course. It's optional. Public universities also offer courses on Christianity, Judaism, etc.; if some don't offer everything, that's no less true of literature, foreign languages, etc.

why are some public universities fully willing to teach Islam? Hardly anyone says a word about that.

I doubt it's a mandatory course. You don't have to take it (though you'd probably do well to avail yourself to knowledge of the faith in question). The 10 Commandments Sculpture, however, sits dead center in the middle of the courth house, casting a pall of intimidation over those who :::::gasp:::: may not share Judge Moore's unflinching faith.

or if i covet my neighbor's wife?

Most jurisdictions have laws against elder abuse and neglect, and some still have laws on the books outlawing adultery. But there are secular reasons behind these laws.

Maybe my days of being on the Unmentionable Website are still haunting me or something. *laughs*

But yeah, the school I attend [public university] has a class on the Koran. I haven't seen similar classes on the Bible or on the Torah, nor on the religions of Southeast Asia. Yet. I'll keep an eye out for them, though.

Anyway, I thought people would be up in arms if there were even optional courses on a Judeo-Christianic religion. You know, mass protests and all that. Hmmm. Massive re-think [I stole that phrase from someone -- apologies!] of other people's attitudes on the way?

And yeah, I do think the Ten Commandments statue should be taken down. Shock! Horror! I'm in total agreement with the left! Heh. To me, religion is a PRIVATE thing and I feel that the whole issue of praying out in the open so that EVERYONE can see you doing that was taken care of when Jesus was doing His ministry.

And history isn't binding. That's why it's history. Again, arguing that the Ten Commandments have some kind of special public importance because they are -- much less might be, but even granting you the positive -- one of several trickled-down foundations of American law is silly. Why not read the Midrash in Catholic churches, then? Or an explanation of Marcion's canon? Or the Infancy Gospel of James?

Because as influential as those things were, codifying a Catholic canon and a system of formulation for Catholic doctrine explicitly rejected the binding qualities of those things as texts unto themselves. The creation of a legal system is no different in this respect.

Roman law may well have been greatly influenced by Constantine. Constantine, though, was a pagan. He was born a pagan, belonged to pagan cults all his life, and was particularly a great devotee of the cult of Sol Invicta. He was the first emporer to be baptised, but only on his deathbed.

The Code of Hammurabi, incidentally, is usually described as a law code. Whether it is or not, though, is somewhat open to debate. It's equally possible that it was a monument to Hammurabi himself, rather than a public statement of the law - much as the Alabama stela isn't a statement of the laws of Arizona.

No, this is a good description of things. Even seminary students -- folks who are going to be priests or ministers of one stripe or another -- generally have to take courses on other religions, including non-Western ones.

The Roman Empire was Christian for many hundreds of years after Constantine. Roman law is very important, especially in terms of legal concepts of family and citizenship.

I still am of the opinion that history is history, and that the ten commandments are just as much part of legal history as the Code of Hammurabi, and I don't find any concept in them to be offensive when taken in historical context. I think the flap is silly. Shall we remove the "blind justice" statue from everywhere because it is pagan (Greek I believe?). I would say no, because it too is a part of Western legal history.

A scroll here, a Greek statue there, a Big Mac in the corner, what's the difference? Besides those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it, and that history can be placed in context (a placard to the sign explaining the historical significance of it, and how we have moved on in our legal concepts since then to a separation of church and state--actually educate people instead of banging them over the head with rhetoric).

Ok, time for work, Flog me as you will.

I had no idea there was even such a thing as a religion department in public universities. Your setup sounds ideal, really, to be as even-handed about each major world religion as possible.

And having just gone through my bag to look for the course catalog and reading through the course description of the course I was referring to, it does sound as though the Koran is being teached more along historical lines than religious lines. Ok, so scratch one fallacy off the lists of fallacies that reside within my brain.

... this is the subject of a lot of debate actually, yeah. I don't think it's especially germane to the topic at hand, but a quick search of various academic resources would show that (the debate would focus alternately, or jointly, on "first" and "law." This isn't my field, but it's often addressed tangentially in studies of early Israel.)

Well, I have; but I guess not everyone learns their Middle-Eastern archaeology from one of the experts in the field, as I did.

that would be a cool museum though!

is this an example of the "activist judges" that bush & co. are always complaining about? oh, wait, those judges are liberal.

1 a : the state of a religious (a nun in her 20th year of religion) b (1) : the service and worship of God or the SUPERNATURAL (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

If religion is so diverse and there's no common thing that ties them all together and simultaneously seperates them from philosophy, then the term in meaningless. Thus, can we just stick to those religions whose defining characteristic is the belief in a deity or deities since 95% of all that has been classified as religion throughout history has been this type? You're criticizing me for focusing on the supernatural aspects when that is precisely the thing I have a problem with, and, therefore am focusing on it.

Thinking one aspect of something is bullocks doesn't mean you don't have respect for all the other aspects. I think religion is a good thing overall. If everyone followed religious teachings properly the world would most surely be a better place to live. I just don't see why there needs to be a supernatural aspect to it.

We're jumping all over here. I started out asking why there is faith in the supernatural, and now you say that is irrelevant.

I'm guessing that the concept of the supernatural doesn't bother oops in the everyday course of his or her life. But as this is something of a discussion on religion, and religious beliefs and so on, the supernatural is a rather important topic.

But as you brought it up again, why should I grant religion any more respect than I grant people who call psychic hotlines?

Do you, Dan Perry, treat Christians and Buddhists and so on the same as you treat those who base their life on astrology? On tarot card readings?

You'll honestly state that you see no difference in being a mainstream Christian, and a member of the Branch Dividians or Heaven's Gate?

At what point do you get to disrespect someone's beliefs? Are racist, sexist, homophobic beliefs just as valid as anti-racist/anti-sexist/anti-homophobic beliefs?

But I still find this "basic respect" stuff a bit of a put on, given your comments about 'abject morons' earlier in this thread. If I have to 'respect' the beliefs of anyone and everyone simply for them existing, shouldn't you 'respect' the views those 'abject morons' hold of MLK?

Religion is not comprised solely of intangible beliefs. It is manifested in physical ritual and congregation. Astrology fanatics don't have this. That's why I don't call myself a Christian, because I don't go to church or participate in any of the rituals: these are key to religious practice. BEING AROUND OTHER PEOPLE and doing things with them are key to religious practice. Without this: no religion, at least not as we know it.

oops I never claimed a belief system is legitimate just because lots of people believe in it. Look at Fascism. The point that I've been trying to make, fruitlessly, is that religion can be a positive aspect in society at large. I've presented mountains of evidence to back that up. That this is true doesn't really depend on whether you, milo or oops, believe in God or not! But it's harder to be a positive force in society if you just started your little group from scratch yesterday in your own back yard, since you need people, and you need ritual. oops you've fantasized about doing this at least twice on this thread, so maybe you really should give it a shot, although I think any leader who preaches about love and forgiveness but shows as little humility and respect and open-mindedness as you have here will have a hard time attracting a following.

Yes, probably they did.

Why is this all about milo and myself and how close-minded and disrespectful we are, rather than why religion needs a supernatural element? I find this aspect ridiculous and unworthy of respect. Like I said before, this does not mean I think religion as a whole is ridiculous and unworthy of respect.

I'm not denying that religion can be a positive influence but it can also be a negative influence. How many times do I have to tell you you can't have it both ways. You take the good, you take the bad, and there you have the facts of life. The facts of life.

I dislike stupidity and willful ignorance intensely. It blinds my objectivity. Anyone who willfully ignores the gigantic impact MLK had on the secular world and says, "Oh, a Baptist minister" when they see a statue of him is stupid.

I giggle at Ms Cleo callers because it is baldly stated all over the Ms Cleo ads that the readings aren't real, ergo calling Ms Cleo and thinkiing you're going to get a real psychic is stupid. Rinse, lather, repeat.

I make a distinction between mainstream Christians and the Heaven's Gate folks because the average mainstream Christian is a nice person who wants everyone around them to get along and be happy while the Heaven's Gate folks wanted so badly to escape everyday life they killed themselves. I don't know anything about the Branch Davidians other than that they had their roots in Seventh-Day Adventism.

Finally, people are by nature contradictory and inconsistent; deal with it.

I'm not denying that religion can be a positive influence but it can also be a negative influence.

Milo is denying that religion can be a positive influence, which is why this entire debate has gone on for as long as it has.

I used to be very disdainful of all forms of religion/mysticism/etc. I stopped when I realized that my disdain wasn't actually doing anything positive for me.

>>Yes, probably they did.

As individuals. Not as part of an organization capable of mass mobilization, like a church. That's my whole point.

>>> "there's nothing unique to religion that prevents other, non-religious groups to do similar positive things for society"

Who do you think would have an easier time speaking to a crowd of coal miners, a Communist Party leader or a minister for the Baptist Church? Even if their speeches were exactly the same? Why do you think that is?

(xp)

I don't know!

Genuine questions in response to this post:

1. 'Meditation on the nature of love' is an activity one can take part in regardless of religious belief. In fact - aside from supernatural occurences - there is nothing that concerns theology that does not also concern literature, art, philosophy, etc. What makes one define oneself as, for instance, Christian, just because one is interested in such contemplation?

2. Are you saying that 'for a lot of people' (Christian people, presumably), the Bible's worth is not dependent on its being authored by people in direct contact with the divine? (Or at least authored by people who knew people who had heard of people with such contact.)

3. If not, what leads you to believe that the authors had such contact?

4. Or, if so, are there particular sections that you feel, above all other literature, are more instructive in the ways we should live, how we should cope, and why we have to live at all?

5. How can they be distinguished from similar sections in my favourite books? Is it only a question of taste?

6. If Jesus, of all people whose words are recorded, had the most important things to say, in your opinion, why were his words not more accurately recorded?

I giggle at Ms Cleo callers because it is baldly stated all over the Ms Cleo ads that the readings aren't real, ergo calling Ms Cleo and thinkiing you're going to get a real psychic is stupid. Rinse, lather, repeat.
Legal protections, obviously. The gummint's out to get her, as her followers would claim, so she has to cover her ass.

So belief in Ms. Cleo's psychic powers is an unacceptable supernatural belief, but White Guy in the Sky is an acceptable supernatural belief?

By what distinction? How is one more outlandish or unlikely than the other?

I make a distinction between mainstream Christians and the Heaven's Gate folks because the average mainstream Christian is a nice person who wants everyone around them to get along and be happy while the Heaven's Gate folks wanted so badly to escape everyday life they killed themselves. I don't know anything about the Branch Davidians other than that they had their roots in Seventh-Day Adventism.
But that has nothing to do with religion. I know "mainstream Christians" who have tried to commit suicide. There are depressed, despondent people in every group.

So what's the difference in Heaven's Gate beliefs and mainstream Christianity?

Why can I not take umbrage at one and not the other?

Finally, people are by nature contradictory and inconsistent; deal with it.
IOW "Yes, I'm a hypocrite on this whole respect thing, and I just don't like criticism of religion in general."

Milo is denying that religion can be a positive influence, which is why this entire debate has gone on for as long as it has.
Where have I denied that "religion can be a positive influence"?

I haven't. I said it has done more harm than good throughout history. I said that religion's positive effects are also found in secular beliefsets.

But feel free to make up stuff for me.

I used to be very disdainful of all forms of religion/mysticism/etc. I stopped when I realized that my disdain wasn't actually doing anything positive for me.
Good for you, don't be disdainful.

But don't tell me I can't be disdainful. Don't be a hypocrite about the legitimacy of beliefs when you tell me that. Don't start calling anyone who has a different viewpoint than yourself a "moron" and their beliefs and statements "fatuously stupid," while claiming that we have to have "basic respect" for religious beliefs, just 'cuz.

Because one goes to church and performs rituals alongside others who share many of your beliefs in common. If you were Jewish you'd go to synagogue. If you were Muslim you'd go to mosque. If you were just some freelancer interested in meditating on love you'd take yoga or something, I don't know.

>>>2. Are you saying that 'for a lot of people' (Christian people, presumably), the Bible's worth is not dependent on its being authored by people in direct contact with the divine? (Or at least authored by people who knew people who had heard of people with such contact.)

I believe that we're all in direct contact with the Divine on a daily basis, or we can choose to be. So in this respect the Bible would be no different than a Chinese takeout menu, except that groups of people over time have found the Bible more powerful and more useful to them in their daily lives than Chinese takeout menus, and have instituted an entire sprawling heterogeneous network of congregations.

>>>3. If not, what leads you to believe that the authors had such contact?

See above.

>>>4. Or, if so, are there particular sections that you feel, above all other literature, are more instructive in the ways we should live, how we should cope, and why we have to live at all?

Not above all other literature. I haven't find a church that teaches Chekhov and Epictetus yet. It doesn't mean in can't happen, even within the context of American Protestantism.

>>>5. How can they be distinguished from similar sections in my favourite books? Is it only a question of taste?

No, it's a question of going to church!

>>>6. If Jesus, of all people whose words are recorded, had the most important things to say, in your opinion, why were his words not more accurately recorded?

The tape ran out?

I'm curious as to what Tep would say about this.

I believe that we're all in direct contact with the Divine on a daily basis, or we can choose to be.

Why?

So in this respect the Bible would be no different than a Chinese takeout menu, except that groups of people over time have found the Bible more powerful and more useful to them in their daily lives than Chinese takeout menus

Does that mean the value of the Bible is dependent on the amount of people who believe in it and are helped by it? If everyone became Buddhist and no one thought the Bible had any place in their lives, would that mean the Bible was no longer the word of God? A religion is made more legitimate not by the inherent truth and universalness of its ideas, but by the amount of people who believe in it and how many buildings these followers erect in its name?

Followers of Zoroaster to thread!

• "There are two kinds of people in the world...Heroic and perfect partisans of purity and light such as US...and horrible, degenerate crack-smoking satanists like THEM."
  
• "There are only two paths: Our sacred and holy path towards grace and enlightenment...and corrupt and depraved path toward filth and damnation."

*Note: This can applies to some political ideologies as well

The political ideologies bit is the key there, though: dualism is an instance of polygenesis. It's attested cross-culturally, in ways which can't be explained by contact with Zoroastrianism.

I'd argue that the "there being two paths means one of them is wrong and must be eliminated" reading of dualism is actually the result of a separate metameme, and isn't integral to dualism itself -- there are flavors of so-called gnosticism which don't adhere to it, for example, and in Christianity it survives more as an ironic borrowing of Marcion's ideas than anything else. (Marcion was one of those sympathetic to the idea that the God who was the Father of Christ was not the God of the Old Testament who created the universe; and that the OT God was evil, depraved, etc., and Christianity must necessarily reject Judaism rather than adapt it -- the Catholic canon is a product of arguments against him, but by the same token he managed to popularize the idea of there being equal-or-nearly-equal forces of good and evil in the supernatural world, and of the necessity of choosing one over the other. It's certainly likely that he was influenced, directly or indirectly, by Zoroastrianism, given time and geography).

... THAT was a long parenthetical ...

Anyway -- points being, first, that I don't think the value judgment which sometimes attaches to dualism is actually native to it; and that I think a lot of the harm caused by religious institutions is inherent to the institutions part of the phrase, not the religious part (as other people argued upthread).

You can argue that the presence of women in the world contributes to straight men having sex. You can't argue that eliminating women would stop those men from having sex. They'd just have different sex. They'd fuck each other. They'd fuck sheep. They'd fuck watermelons. Whatever. Men are inherently sexual; the shape of their sex is influenced by other factors, but the fact of their sex isn't.

Heaven's Gate to thread

Isn't religion minus congregations and prayer and ritual just philosophy?

and if there was, I'm sure you'd have to pay to see it.

You're forgetting minus mythology.

Isn't religion minus congregations and prayer and ritual just philosophy?

And I haven't been arguing with you cause I'm not sure of the best way to do so. I can't decide for myself whether religion could both begin and survive without supportive institutions -- Judaism has no centralized ecclesiastical power, but it did for a long time and much of what led to modern-day Judaism developed as a reaction to the loss of the Temple; proto-Christianity was practiced in unorganized groups over a surprisingly broad area, in more forms than it is today, but I wouldn't argue that it would still be around if not for the formalization of a Catholic Church.

So, I don't know if you can separate religion from its institutions -- but more to the point, I know that if I argued you could, I'd be arguing as me, because I consider myself religious and I see religious institutions as the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity. I wouldn't be arguing as a student of religious studies. I'm too invested in it.

Whether or not you can separate them, though, I think it's still important to look at the damage done by religious institutions -- and sure, the good done by them too, I guess; again, I have a bias there -- as a product of the "institutions" part of the equation, not the "religious" part.

Wait, hang on --

Isn't religion minus congregations and prayer and ritual just philosophy?

Unless I typed something I forgot, I wasn't separating out prayer and ritual (I do separate them in my personal life, but I don't think you were intuiting that :)). I'm not talking about religious institutions in the sense of "established practices," but simply congregations, groups with relatively static laws and doctrines, etc.

Don't like it when you preach one thing and your hypocrisy gets pointed out?

Tough shit, babe.

Which has been the question with Dan all along - why should I treat mainstream religion with one iota of respect more than I treat cults, haunted houses and psychic phenomena. He admits that he doesn't - Heaven's Gaters are loons and psychic hotline callers are morons.

So he doesn't treat their beliefs with any sort of "basic respect," how can he argue that I need to treat mainstream religion with that "basic respect"?

As for the ten commandments, all bar the honour the fictitious beardy character one, they are all ways of saying thou shalt not be a cunt unto another human being. Or the first priciple of humanity as I like to call it. Couching it in the language that was dictated to some mad hippy by a burning bush is clearly going to cause problems. Scratch out the ten commandments and replace them with "Don't be a cunt to other people" or even better "Be excellent to each other". And fire the judge who clearly has no right to be one, the whole not obeying the rule o law thing is clearly not cool for m'learned Friends.

okay at texas state capital: (ruling just issued, link as I can find it)