The important thing to remember:
The ethics of a civilization are the binding agreements that people have among them. The U.S. has adopted the Christian (as the predominate religion of the day) model of an ethical life in its constitution. Regardless of what individuals believe that model must be held intact. The Constitution clearly defines and delineates the relevance of the Christian model in social action as it applies to law in the U.S.

Church, as an institution, and state can be separated in part in law, that is the doctrine, rituals, and so forth that comprise the religious social institution can remain separate, but the model of an ethical life contained in the Constitution, and derived from the Christian religion, cannot be separated from the law of the land in the case of the U.S. else the civilization fails without foundation by definition.

My view is that we may, in government and law, praise the ideals of the Christian model of an ethical life, and indeed erect symbols that reflect our shared ideals whether religious or governmental, as with the American flag. If people, especially lawyers, separate out the Christian model, then they are leaving the ethical model open to definition by things other than the Constitution of the United States, which is exactly what is happening in judicial findings regarding corporate personhood and power, and in other venues as a direct result of the misanthropic dialog that has been allowed to rise to the top of the society. Again, civilization without a clear ethical model fails by definition, and that model is written into the Constitution of the United States.

Incorrect. The US Constitution is not based in any way on Christianity. In fact, the United States could not exist in it's present form if it was based on Christianity, which does not allow lending money with interest, so... no capitalism.

The U.S. has adopted the Christian (as the predominate religion of the day) model of an ethical life in its constitution.

What is this "Christian model of an ethical life," and where can I find it expressed in the Constitution? How does the "Christian model of an ethical life" differ from, say, the "Buddhist model of an ethical life" or the "atheist model of an ethical life?" Please provide specific references to the actual text of the Constitution where I can see this stuff expressed. Thanks.

From the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - which received unanimous approval from the Senate...


As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

From the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - which received unanimous approval from the Senate...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

Well, yeah. There's that. Then there's--you know--the CONSTITUTION with the nifty 1st Amendment and all.

~String

The important thing to remember:
The ethics of a civilization are the binding agreements that people have among them. The U.S. has adopted the Christian (as the predominate religion of the day) model of an ethical life in its constitution. Regardless of what individuals believe that model must be held intact. The Constitution clearly defines and delineates the revelence of the Christian model in social action as it applies to law in the U.S.

Church, as an institution, and state can be separated in part in law, that is the doctrine, rituals, and so forth that comprise the religious social institution can remain separate, but the model of an ethical life contained in the Constitution, and derived from the Christian religion, cannot be separated from the law of the land in the case of the U.S. else the civilization fails without foundation by definition.

My view is that we may, in government and law, praise the ideals of the Christian model of an ethical life, and indeed erect symbols that reflect our shared ideals whether religious or governmental, as with the American flag. If people, especially lawyers, separate out the Christian model, then they are leaving the ethical model open to definition by things other than the Constitution of the United States, which is exactly what is happening in judicial findings regarding corporate personhood and power, and in other venues as a direct result of the misanthropic dialog that has been allowed to rise to the top of the society. Again, civilization without a clear ethical model fails by definition, and that model is written into the Constitution of the United States.

What you have to remember is that the Christian model of ethical life was the *only* model of ethical life that the governments in western Europe were based on after about the 8th century or so. Despite that Christian purity, our ancestors fled those regimes to settle here. Partly, that was because the Christian model seemed at the time to include persecuting those who believe in different things, even if the one being persecuted maintains he's "Christian" too. It was also common to harass, torture and even kill Jews.

The Constitution is more of an Enlightenment Age document, that wanted in part to separate religion and government both because the State has a tendency to co-opt the machinery of religion for its own purposes, and because religion (co-opted or not) had an historical tendency to be aggressive and anti-social. The founders were very much concerned that too much religion leads to things like "burning Catholics" and "expelling Jews," which the founders viewed as a bad thing.

That said, the Constitution originally applied only to the federal government, and the founders stayed out of meddling with the State-level churches (which did exist). The States certainly favored Christianity expressly. As far back as the Puritans there were laws which made it a crime to teach any version of Christianity but theirs within their colony, and Quakers in particular were hard hit by that law. (They had all kinds of wacky laws, including laws that made it a crime to celebrate the birth of Jesus...Christmas.) Whereas the Constitution doesn't even mention God.

Right, they killed Jews, women, and cats. Too bad about the cats, that led almost directly to the plague.

The important thing to remember:
The U.S. has adopted the Christian (as the predominate religion of the day) model of an ethical life in its constitution.

You want to prove me wrong?

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Show me the text where it says Christianity is our official religion.

The first amendment specifies a secular government:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



I would like to point out Christianity was popularly used to justify chattel slavery...when personally I can't think of anything much less loving to one's fellow man.
Admittedly, many of the abolitionists were motivated by Christian ideals too.

Nowadays people in my state would like to make making love to my wife a crime (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/06/21/tx-gop-platform-jail-mexicans-criminalize-sodomy-gay-marriage-felony/). I'm sure they think of themselves as good Christian people.

The Christian model, although not the basis for free enterprise, makes free enterprise more able to function. To function perfectly, free enterprise needs people to have enough self control and social concern so the system will not break down.

As a contrast, say you had a culture without ethics or morals. This will allow criminal and unethical liberties to be part of the free market system, causing it to break down. Thou shall not kill or steal sort of takes away unethical options. You will need to more skill and work on the fence, instead of over the fence.

Liberals are closer to atheism. They tend to like big government. This is because their morality is looser and would create extra chaos in an open society. They project and extrapolate through their own eyes, and see the need for more control over their flock to prevent chaos. Christians/conservative see the need for less government since they project social self control and morality that allows creative chaos.

I remember going to a college graduation and the speaker talked about this subject to graduating MBA's. He told a story about a Carribean country he visited. The person he spoke with maveled at the US, how they can be so competive yet so cooperative. He said in his country their form of capitalism was very corrupt. His conclusion was the connection to Christianity made the American family tighter, therefore able to compete very hard, yet all pull as a team.

Liberals favor more governmental regulation because we know the nature of humanity is towards profit and corruption. Theists like less regulation because they figure god will make those profit who deserve it and make evil people fail. Obviously liberals are correct.

As a contrast, say you had a culture without ethics or morals. This will allow criminal and unethical liberties to be part of the free market system, causing it to break down.

I don't understand.

You claim this culture works well based on Christian ethics and morals, yet it's clear that criminal and "unethical liberties" are a big part of our free market system. Examples abound (Enron, Standard Oil, Bernie Madoff, Ken Lay etc.) What stops them are not Christian ethics, but secular laws. Indeed, some of the most egregious criminals of our time - Ken Lay, Anders Breivik, Jeffrey Dahmer, Timothy McVeigh, David Berkowitz etc - were either Christians or raised Christian.

(Note that this does not mean that Christians are all criminals, of course - it just means that they can be as evil as anyone else.)


Thou shall not kill or steal sort of takes away unethical options.

Again, I don't understand. Over a million Americans are paid to serve in the armed forces; their job is to kill on command. It's probably a good thing that they don't believe in "thou shalt not kill."


Christians/conservative see the need for less government since they project social self control and morality that allows creative chaos.

So liberals are bad because they create chaos, and conservatives are good because they allow chaos to be created?

Before I go to answering the responses, I want to remind myself of the difference between the Christian church as part of a social institution, its doctrines, activities, and rituals, from the ethics that it expouses.

To deny the upbringing (intellectual background) of the members of the Constitutional Convention is probably the first step in denying the viability of the Constitution itself, and that in my opinion has been the folly of lawyers through the last 200 years, saying that the 10 commandments are not written in stone, but as everything else are open to argument. I am not talking about the actual commandments, but of the arguments of religion in general, especially of the ethics which have been adopted by the civilization. If you denigrate the ethical base of a civilization, then you have taken a step towards its failure. That is my point. To say that Christianity was not the prevalent system of beliefs of the day is to say that you do not know history, or would disregard it for your own favor. Not uncommon as people in power will to stay in power.

So onward I go.

Incorrect. The US Constitution is not based in any way on Christianity. In fact, the United States could not exist in it's present form if it was based on Christianity, which does not allow lending money with interest, so... no capitalism.

No response. You missed the point entirely.

From the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - which received unanimous approval from the Senate...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

I am not interested in the litigation or interpretations of politicians regards foreign policy as they are for the most part self serving in territorial matters. My concern is the near total lack of ethical consideration in legal matters pertaining to the Constitution of the United States and the citizens of the United States. To secure these ethics is of utmost importance.

What is this "Christian model of an ethical life," and where can I find it expressed in the Constitution? How does the "Christian model of an ethical life" differ from, say, the "Buddhist model of an ethical life" or the "atheist model of an ethical life?" Please provide specific references to the actual text of the Constitution where I can see this stuff expressed. Thanks.

I would expect that in a religious forum that you would be familiar with Christian ethics.

What you have to remember.Christmas.) Whereas the Constitution doesn't even mention God.

I made plain the separation of the church (Christian denominations), its political activities, and the ethics that it expouses, as being the intellectual base of law found in the Constitution. Regardless of the fact that Christ is mentioned in the document or not,religion is fundamental to the core of any civilization. In the United States, during the writing of the Constitution, that religion was Christian.

I would expect that in a religious forum that you would be familiar with Christian ethics.

Ethics are ethics. Christians are Christians.

The two ain't necessarily the same thing...Kinda like a Venn diagram.
Some are one, some are the other, some are both.
People who tend to be very showy about their Christianity often are the worst underneath.

Some Christians love God above all and their fellow humans as themselves...others are happy that many of the people around them are supposed to fry and find reasons to exclude people like socioeconomic status and skin color.

Plus a lot of the founding fathers were Deists, and Tom Paine was pretty much an atheist.


The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense.
-- Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine (which contains no pagination or source citations)

You want to prove me wrong? http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html Show me the text where it says Christianity is our official religion.

Hope you read my previous responses.
The Sermon on the Mount given by Christ is probably the best source of an ethical doctrine that would have influenced the writing of the Constitution, in my opinion. If those precepts are not considered in law, then we are lost as a civilization. That is my point. Religion has real importance and impact in society. Today, probably more than at any other time in the history of the United States, should that be recognized. I think the success or failure of our civilization depends upon it, and I think that the courts are the first cause of our legislative and executive problems in government.

The Christian model, although not the basis for free enterprise, makes free enterprise more able to function. To function perfectly, free enterprise needs people to have enough self control and social concern so the system will not break down.

I am against free enterprise. We should manufacture not service. Having said that, the commandments are old testament.

Having lived on the West Coast I have seen fields of vehicles entering the U.S. That would be steel, plastic, rubber, engineering, and the support systems of those activities given over to Asian nations, rather than to the people of the United States who at the same time desire to purchase those items. We needed statesmen to say no to foreign products when the economic system was at risk. Having lived on the Southern border, I have seen the desperation of a people who want to give proper care to their children, and do it through their labor. That is an aristocracy, a plutocracy exercising its will for its own benefit, much the same as in the United States today. The impact is somewhat slower in the U.S., but the effects are increasing. At the heart is a lack of American statesmanship, and a predominance of special interests who are the arms of the American Aristocracy.

Liberals favor more governmental regulation because we know the nature of humanity is towards profit and corruption. Theists like less regulation because they figure god will make those profit who deserve it and make evil people fail. Obviously liberals are correct.

You have fallen prey to the terms (words) put forward by social groups in an effort to further their own agendas. I am not a laborer. I am not a worker. I am a human being. I should share in the profit produced by my activities. I should be able to retain the rights to my own identity, and of my own creations. This is not China. I should be able to wear the cloths that I find comfortable, and look (in appearance) as I choose, because I am a mature adult and citizen of a free country, a freedom that has been earned by blood sacrifice. To think otherwise is to submit to the ideals of special interest groups, and to the idiotic aristocracy in the United States.

Theism simply takes a position on the question of whether or not there is a God who is said to have created the known universe. It says there is a God. They are known to go off the deep end because they themselves are asking basic questions (problems or arguments) about the universe, and religion offers them a solid answer that they recognize as being real within the context of the society in which they live. They cling to it, and investigate it, and adopt it as their own. No problem with that I think. Are they a political force? Sure, but they should be focused on the courts I think, and less on legislative or executive matters. God helps those who help themselves.

Ethics are ethics. Christians are Christians.

The two ain't necessarily the same thing. ... Plus a lot of the founding fathers were Deists, and Tom Paine was pretty much an atheist.

The (to be simple) list of neural objects going from stimulii to religion is difficult. It involves ideas, concepts, and beliefs to name a few. Religion, a religion, is a system of beliefs. In a specific religion those beliefs are codified (outlined and written) into doctrine along with all the accompanying 'stuff' that it wants people to accept. I am saying that it does not matter what a person believes as a citizen of the United States, but rather that the underlying base of ethics (agreements between people that bind them into a civilization) must be held firm, and that officals of the government today seem to have lost touch with the knowledge and practice of those ethics.

In light of that, I say that as a free people we should not even need to discuss the legality of a person or group to raise a flag or display a cross in this society. It should be a given that the right is there for them to do that. When the question rises, then the flag for me is that people are not getting the message that the reason we sacrifice, fight, and die is for the right to display the symbols of our ideals. Division of Church and State: Get an education, join the Army, go to church, do something to educate yourself and stop ignorance from becoming a standard of behavior.

I am not interested in the litigation or interpretations of politicians regards foreign policy as they are for the most part self serving in territorial matters. My concern is the near total lack of ethical consideration in legal matters pertaining to the Constitution of the United States and the citizens of the United States. To secure these ethics is of utmost importance.
Your initial claim was:

The Constitution clearly defines and delineates the revelence of the Christian model in social action as it applies to law in the U.S.
I would think that this legal document, which was written while George Washington was still in office and then subsequently ratified by unanimous vote, would clearly debunk that claim.

But more importantly, it appears that you suffer from some delusion that religion in general (and Christianity in particular) has some sort of monopoly on moral and ethical behaviour.

Christianity, as practiced in any society or community, takes it's ethics from the people, who use those innate ethics to interpret the Bible. If we took Biblical ethics seriously, we would have the death penalty for those who commit adultery, eat shrimp, or wear clothing made from more than one type of fabric. Many of the founders of the USA were not Christians, they were deists.

Theism in general is a poor model for a government, and we have to get past it, because it values faith, which robs human beings of their dignity and intellect. It says that we have to accept things without evidence on the authority of a secondhand report, even to accept things in light of contrary evidence.

The ethics of faith are not rational, and they cannot be questioned. Evidence based reasoning and skepticism are the basis of an ethical government.

there is no seperation of church and state

. . . in my opinion has been the folly of lawyers through the last 200 years, saying that the 10 commandments are not written in stone. . .



I am not talking about the actual commandments

You have just contradicted yourself. Either the 10 commandments are written in stone or they're not - which is it?

The Sermon on the Mount given by Christ is probably the best source of an ethical doctrine that would have influenced the writing of the Constitution, in my opinion.

That's certainly one of them. The Magna Carta was a much stronger influence, as was the Declaration of Independence and Common Sense. In terms of people, the Constitution is based far more on the teachings of Thomas Paine than on Jesus Christ. (Which is a good thing.)


Religion has real importance and impact in society.

Agreed. And that's true whether the person is Buddhist, Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Hindu.

there is no seperation of church and state

Legally, there is in the USA. One's religious feelings do inform political views, but that's about it.

I made plain the separation of the church (Christian denominations), its political activities, and the ethics that it expouses, as being the intellectual base of law found in the Constitution.

The intellectual base of American law was British law. That is 100% clear.

The legal ideas incorporated into the Constitution and the U.S. Bill of Rights arose as a result of Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and legal advancements like the Bill of Rights of 1689. It was an outgrowth of the philosophical movements that were advanced by the Glorious Revolution but the benefits of which advancements could not be fully realized in Great Britain because of entrenched traditions and political structures.

The history of the political and legal philosophy that led to the Constitution are really well understood, and it seems very clear that this was an outgrowth of intellectual developments that were then taking place in Britain, not in intellectual and ethical developments that took place in Judea 2,000 prior. None of the Constitution, nor federal, nor State laws look to the Bible for guidance. All of them (save Louisiana) were a direct outgrowth of the British legal system. (Louisiana's was an outgrowth of the French legal system, heavily influenced by the legal systems of its neighbors over time.)

Even the complaints that led to the Revolution mostly amounted to, "Americans should have the same rights as the British, and you are denying us those rights," and not "British people are oppressed and we reject that oppression."

There are a few elements of Biblical ethics that can be seen in U.S. law, like the prohibition on murder and theft...but those existed in Roman and other pagan ethical systems as well. The laws that were clearly Biblically derived were things like Blue Laws, laws criminalizing contraception and laws criminalizing adultery and sodomy, not any of the grander ethical principles. (And many of those religious laws have by now been struck down, with good reason.)

If you believe that U.S. law has a Christian base, then why are laws criminalizing sodomy considered archaic (and, unconstitutional)? Why in the Constitution itself would it ban "religious tests" as a criterion for holding public office? Where in the Bible do you see an ethic that suggests pagans should get equal access to being in the leadership?

Indeed, why have American lawyers been quoting Blackstone for 235 years—a famous English jurist?

All of these things are easier to explain if you view our laws as being primarily derived from British law within the historical context of 18th century America.


Regardless of the fact that Christ is mentioned in the document or not,

He isn't.


religion is fundamental to the core of any civilization.

What religion is Japan? Do you really believe that shintoism is fundamental to core of their government? Or do you believe that they have no civilization there?

They have both Shintoism/Buddhism as the predominant religion(s) *and* a state structure that is very much westernized, just as ours is. That is because we established their modern government after WWII, but, if religion must be the "core", then how can their government possibly be stable when only 2% of their population is Christian, and the rest mostly Shinto, Buddhist or both?

A similar question can be asked of India, another westernized democracy in a nation of relatively few Christians.

Do you believe these countries and others in the same position are on the verge of societal collapse?


In the United States, during the writing of the Constitution, that religion was Christian.

It's true that a majority of the people were Christian...but there were others as well. The first synagogue in America pre-dated "America" as a nation. Of the founding fathers, several were deists, some denied Christ's divinity, some denied that Jesus ever performed miracles, many rejected the idea of a "trinity," and many like Franklin did not believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

All of those men were elites (certainly having little in common with "the people" in general) heavily influenced by the doctrines of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was a largely secular movement that had at its core much of the philosophy of Spinoza, a Jew in Holland, and that spread in part as a reaction to the many wars and civil unrest created by Christianity in Europe. Spinoza in particular was from a family that had to flee Spain in order to avoid torture and death.

The debates (and records of them at the federal convention exist) discussed liberty in terms of Enlightenment ideals and Enlightenment thinking. There was no great discussion of what Jesus would want, or on questions of biblical interpretation.

If they were big into biblical ethics, then why rebel against the Britain at all? After all, the Bible says:

Romans 13:1-5: "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience."

and

1 Peter 2:13-14: "Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right."

Can you have ethics without religion? Yes. So you can have an ethical government without religion too.

The only thing that religion adds is a celestial enforcer to instill fear in people for not being ethical. You have to wonder if a person being ethical out of fear is really an ethical person at all. What it means is that religion teaches that people are fundamentally unethical.

The reality is that most people are ethical because we have an innate sense of fairness and some are not (probably sociopaths).

Legally, there is in the USA. One's religious feelings do inform political views, but that's about it.

i do believe the united states sees the vatican as its one state or country which would throw the seperation between church and state out the window

correct me if im wrong im not 100% sure

The Vatican is both church and state, but it's not the USA, so... not sure what point you are trying to make.

The Vatican is both church and state, but it's not the USA, so... not sure what point you are trying to make.

how can the US have seperation of church and state if the goverment views it as its own?

Your initial claim was:

I would think that this legal document, which was written while George Washington was still in office and then subsequently ratified by unanimous vote, would clearly debunk that claim.

But more importantly, it appears that you suffer from some delusion that religion in general (and Christianity in particular) has some sort of monopoly on moral and ethical behaviour.

I see no opposing view or point from you. My point is undenyable. The intellectual base of our law is derived from the religions of history. Here is just one: The Code of Hammurabi is a well-preserved Babylonian law code, dating to ca. 1700 BC (short chronology). "Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule in the land."

It does not matter if the judge is an athiest or a Buddhist. It matters that the legal system upholds the agreements found in the Constitution, as read from the moral code found in (especially the) Christian religion, because - that was and is the foundation of the agreements between a free people. I think, if you want to found an athiest state you will need to do it elsewhere with some other set of agreements.

The law read from an athiest perspective violates the foundation of the code. That is not allowed by definition. The United States is a nation of God fearing people, so to speak, that have the right to express their religious beliefs publically in legal settings including court rooms throughout the land. Hang a cross over the White House if you wish. It would be in keeping with the traditions of the country. There is no separation of church and state in the intellectual base of the agreements, and that is the case that has been wrongly twisted over the last 50 years.

The intellectual base of American law was British law. That is 100% clear."

Sorry, don't have much time now, got to get to work (be back later).

U.S. law has a primarily Roman derivative. Also, the day after the signing of the Constitution lawyers started getting wacky about it, and some of the decisions hooked and sliced rather than going down the center of the fareway. Sorry again. Gotta go.

how can the US have seperation of church and state if the goverment views it as its own?

Views what as it's own?

I see no opposing view or point from you. My point is undenyable. The intellectual base of our law is derived from the religions of history. Here is just one: The Code of Hammurabi is a well-preserved Babylonian law code, dating to ca. 1700 BC (short chronology). "Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule in the land."

It does not matter if the judge is an athiest or a Buddhist. It matters that the legal system upholds the agreements found in the Constitution, as read from the moral code found in (especially the) Christian religion, because - that was and is the foundation of the agreements between a free people. I think, if you want to found an athiest state you will need to do it elsewhere with some other set of agreements.

The law read from an athiest perspective violates the foundation of the code. That is not allowed by definition. The United States is a nation of God fearing people, so to speak, that have the right to express their religious beliefs publically in legal settings including court rooms throughout the land. Hang a cross over the White House if you wish. It would be in keeping with the traditions of the country. There is no separation of church and state in the intellectual base of the agreements, and that is the case that has been wrongly twisted over the last 50 years.

You got it backwards. Religions got their ethics from the innate sense of fairness we have as human beings in a society.

I see no opposing view or point from you. My point is undenyable. The intellectual base of our law is derived from the religions of history.
Even if that was true, religion comes from human beings. So, obviously, the moral and ethical ideas of religion come from human beings.

Whoops, I see that spidergoat beat me to it.

U.S. law has a primarily Roman derivative. Also, the day after the signing of the Constitution lawyers started getting wacky about it, and some of the decisions hooked and sliced rather than going down the center of the fareway. Sorry again. Gotta go.

No problem. I am afraid that you have picked up a point about the history of the law (and particularly Roman law) that is erroneous. Roman law had a great effect on western European law, but not nearly as big an effect on the British and our U.S. law as it did on continental law (and the Civil Code).

For example, the Romans did not have a "common law" system. The British did (and still do). The U.S. does. The Romans did not have "juries." The British did (and still do). The U.S. does.

In fact, what happened is this, the continental European system (like France) was deeply influenced by Roman law after the rediscovery in the West of the texts of and various commentaries on Roman law in the 16th and 17th centuries. The British legal system picked up some Roman influences over time, but British law was so firmly established by then that there was no need to chuck it wholesale.

On the continent, many localities did not have nearly so formal a system of laws. As they were in the process of standardizing anyway, it made sense to adopt the Roman forms, because they work reasonably well and were time-tested and refined.

Unlike the rest of western Europe, Britain maintained its own legal traditions, which is why a British trial is so very much different than a continental trial (or a Roman one). U.S. law the day before the Revolution was British, and no one ever bothered to rewrite all of American law after the Revolution (as that would have been a nightmare) to match the standards of Roman law. Remember, Roman law was imperial law. There was a Senate, but it was run by aristocrats. In the founders eyes, the Romans were laudable in their culture and philosophy, but the British were undeniably "more free". The Bill of Rights itself is clearly modeled on the British Bill of Rights of 1689.

I do not have a definitive online source for you to review on the impact of Roman law on the west, but you can start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law#In_the_West

Even if that was true, religion comes from human beings. So, obviously, the moral and ethical ideas of religion come from human beings.

Whoops, I see that spidergoat beat me to it.

No problem gmilam, great minds...

You got it backwards. Religions got their ethics from the innate sense of fairness we have as human beings in a society.

is this supposed to be funny? i mean, are you being sarcastic? seriously, our innate sense of fairness? :confused:

:roflmao:


so anyway, in regards to church and state, explain the whole bizarro liquor laws on sundays thing. dry counties in the bible belt and whatnot...

is this supposed to be funny? i mean, are you being sarcastic? seriously, our innate sense of fairness? :confused:

:roflmao:

Why is that funny? Without laws (a code of ethics) there would be no societies.
Societies are needed in order that religions may form.



so anyway, in regards to church and state, explain the whole bizarro liquor laws on sundays thing. dry counties in the bible belt and whatnot...

I live in a country 3,000 miles from the US and even I could make a stab at answering that one. I'm surprised, albeit not a lot, that you can't.

Why is that funny? Without laws (a code of ethics) there would be no societies.
Societies are needed in order that religions may form.

it's funny because humans obviously do not have an innate sense of fairness.




I live in a country 3,000 miles from the US and even I could make a stab at answering that one. I'm surprised, albeit not a lot, that you can't.

i can. it was actually more of a rhetorical question. the answer is that people in the us use religion as a foundation for law-making. protestants think alcohol is evil, so they place limitations on it, particularly on sundays. and yes, it's ridiculous.

it's funny because humans obviously do not have an innate sense of fairness.

I disagree. We have laws that punish people who commit acts that we deem as a society to be unfair. Even if some killers get away with it or some CEO of a company gets to spend his taxes on a yacht that is a failure of the implementation of those laws and not the laws themselves.



i can. it was actually more of a rhetorical question. the answer is that people in the us use religion as a foundation for law-making. protestants think alcohol is evil, so they place limitations on it, particularly on sundays. and yes, it's ridiculous.

Fair enough Lori. But that's not really in keeping with the OP who believes that the ethics of the USA are based on Christian ethics. It is a state and not federal issue. It's also a fairly recent development.

Having travelled to England on countless occasions I can confirm that most certainly not all protestants believe alcohol is evil. :)

Christianity, as practiced in any society or community, takes it's ethics from the people, who use those innate ethics to interpret the Bible. If we took Biblical ethics seriously, we would have the death penalty for those who commit adultery, eat shrimp, or wear clothing made from more than one type of fabric. Many of the founders of the USA were not Christians, they were deists.

Theism in general is a poor model for a government, and we have to get past it, because it values faith, which robs human beings of their dignity and intellect. It says that we have to accept things without evidence on the authority of a secondhand report, even to accept things in light of contrary evidence.

The ethics of faith are not rational, and they cannot be questioned. Evidence based reasoning and skepticism are the basis of an ethical government.

The ethics are mostly from Christ for Christians, in a speech called the Sermon on the Mount. Wisdom in the Bible is one of several books of wisdom. Most people could stand to read them.

Two people can form a civilization. One says to the other, "We will be friends." The other says, "Agreed." What I am saying is that the basic agreements that bind our civilization are being violated especially in courts, but also in other areas of life, where people should review the ethics, and not allow false arguments to rise to the top of the public dialogue. The idea is to go back to the basics.

Evidence based reasoning? Wow. That is something like the military intelligence of Napoleon, in fact, it's much like it. Nothing is what it seems most of the time, evidence or not. Skepticism? News is a one sided argument. I took a poll. I did a study. There's the evidence. Whom does it serve? If I were in the Andromeda galaxy, and looked out into space and saw the Earth what would I know about Joe Smith who lives in Detroit? I would really know more about myself would I not? That is the value of evidenced based reasoning. So no. The great Western civilization has a historical beginning prior to the formulation of U.S. government.

You have just contradicted yourself. Either the 10 commandments are written in stone or they're not - which is it?

That is lawyer speak for saying that anything is arguable. Someone said, and I'm not convinced of the source, that a good prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich.

is this supposed to be funny? i mean, are you being sarcastic? seriously, our innate sense of fairness? :confused:

:roflmao:


Even chimps and monkeys have an innate sense of fairness. If a large primate goes over to a little one, slugs him, and takes a treat from him, the other primates that see the act clearly react as if the aggressive primate did something wrong.

Interestingly, with chimpanzees, the closeness of two chimps colors the judgment of whether a given action is "unfair" or not...just as it does in humans.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050212191635.htm

Then again, maybe they learned their sense of fairness from Monkey Jesus. :-)

Your initial claim was:

“ The Constitution clearly defines and delineates the revelence of the Christian model in social action as it applies to law in the U.S. ”

I would think that this legal document, which was written while George Washington was still in office and then subsequently ratified by unanimous vote, would clearly debunk that claim.

>If you take that sentence out of the context of the paragraph in which it was written it probably will not stand on its own. I could take a door frame out of a building, but the frame would not be the building. It needs the context.

I am making the point that religion cannot be separated or separate from government in this civilization. People would actually do better without the government if that was the case, and I think that is a problem that most people do not understand, much the same as most people did not adopt computers until decades after they were mass produced.

That's certainly one of them. The Magna Carta was a much stronger influence, as was the Declaration of Independence and Common Sense. In terms of people, the Constitution is based far more on the teachings of Thomas Paine than on Jesus Christ. (Which is a good thing.)

Agreed. And that's true whether the person is Buddhist, Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Hindu.

There is a mixture of terms in this discussion that is not doing justice to the readers. The terms government, civilization, society, and law each have distinct meanings.

I am, for the sake of the reader, going to make the distinction between good and bad, right and wrong, saying that good is not the same as right, and bad is not the same as wrong. They are not synonyms. Each has a distinct meaning. So if we talk about civilization we can talk about it separate from the term government. It is important, on the other hand, where the intersections lay when discussing church and state, ethics and law, and it is important to understand the differences in the terms used in the discussion.

So each has history - legal history - religious history - ethical history - and the history of Western civilization. In law, I think the ideas needs review, so that the arrows point in the right direction for future action. Somewhere the wind has blown them off course. We have more than 50,000 laws in this free country, and the review might produce some course corrections that are long overdue. That is my point, and thank you for allowing me to express it. Thank you all for your responses.

much the same as most people did not adopt computers until decades after they were mass produced.
my parents argued with me when i tried to talk them into the computer being a good thing..(when computers first started appearing for the public).
years later..mom finally got a computer and fell in love with it..

I am making the point that religion cannot be separated or separate from government in this civilization. People would actually do better without the government if that was the case, and I think that is a problem that most people do not understand, much the same as most people did not adopt computers until decades after they were mass produced.
You're making a lot of claims, but no points. But it's obvious you're here to rant and rave instead of discuss - so it's time you joined a few other evangelists on the ignore list... Bye.

Even chimps and monkeys have an innate sense of fairness. If a large primate goes over to a little one, slugs him, and takes a treat from him, the other primates that see the act clearly react as if the aggressive primate did something wrong.

Interestingly, with chimpanzees, the closeness of two chimps colors the judgment of whether a given action is "unfair" or not...just as it does in humans.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050212191635.htm

Then again, maybe they learned their sense of fairness from Monkey Jesus. :-)

if our sense of fairness is innate then would you care to explain the world around us and the society we live in please? thanks.

I disagree. We have laws that punish people who commit acts that we deem as a society to be unfair. Even if some killers get away with it or some CEO of a company gets to spend his taxes on a yacht that is a failure of the implementation of those laws and not the laws themselves.


the need for those laws implies that our sense of fairness is not innate.

the need for those laws implies that our sense of fairness is not innate.

The fact that we have them implies we do. If we didn't it would be a much more unfair world.

the need for those laws implies that our sense of fairness is not innate.

No, it means that not everyone has the sense of right and wrong, so different societies establish a baseline of proper behavior and punishments for not following them.

No, it means that not everyone has the sense of right and wrong, so different societies establish a baseline of proper behavior and punishments for not following them.

in·nate (-nt, nt) KEY

ADJECTIVE:
Possessed at birth; inborn.
Possessed as an essential characteristic; inherent.
Of or produced by the mind rather than learned through experience: an innate knowledge of right and wrong.

excuse me? if it were innate, according to the definition of innate, it would be an essential characteristic of being human, and everyone would possess it at birth. as it is now, the rules, disciplines, religions, and laws, as prolific as they are, still do not put a dent in our unfairness, nor are they themselves fair.

what planet are you on? seriously...

The fact that we have them implies we do. If we didn't it would be a much more unfair world.

i think it's quite unfair enough. perhaps you're just a lucky one?

and further, please refer to the above post.

is this supposed to be funny? i mean, are you being sarcastic? seriously, our innate sense of fairness? :confused:

:roflmao:


so anyway, in regards to church and state, explain the whole bizarro liquor laws on sundays thing. dry counties in the bible belt and whatnot...
States have some room to pass laws that reflect the will of the local people, who have historically been very religious.


The ethics are mostly from Christ for Christians, in a speech called the Sermon on the Mount. Wisdom in the Bible is one of several books of wisdom. Most people could stand to read them....

I disagree that the Sermon on the Mount is a good model for society. For one thing, he says that we shouldn't save or think of tomorrow. That would eliminate the banking system, and being aware of problems like global warming. Instead of hating our enemies, which is what most people do now, we should love them? Seriously? Also, you can't take any oaths, so no oath of office, no swearing to tell the truth in a courtroom, and no doctor's Hippocratic oath. And forget looking at a woman with lust, that's out, so no porn. A society based on the teaching of Jesus is fundamentally incompatible with the principles established in the constitution.

the need for those laws implies that our sense of fairness is not innate.

That is not true. The truth is that we have two competing impulses. We have the impulse to cooperate, and the impulse to cheat and get the best deal for ourselves.

Suppose we observe two strangers. They each do an equal amount of work, see them both get rewarded with food, shelter and other good things. We then see one of them got twice as much of these things (more food, a bigger, nicer shelter, etc.) for exactly the same effort. Studies are clear that even young children, across cultural lines, will see that as unfair and react negatively to the one who was getting the bigger benefit.

That is the innate fairness impulse at work.

Now imagine that *you* are the one getting the higher benefit. If the other guy cannot see what we're getting, we are likely to be happy with the arrangement and deny that it is unfair. That is the selfish impulse.

If the other guy does see and objects, we're very likely to acknowledge some imbalance, but compromise by only giving *some* of our excess gains back.

In a society though, there are a number of people around us, and yet only one of us. So when 'unfair" things happen they are more likely to happen to other people, which we find innately objectionable. Laws are only passed because we know we hate to see unfairness except when it benefits us personally. We have an innate aversion to that. Usually there are more situations where other people will benefit from unfairness than there are those in which we will benefit, so on balance we are happy to place a priori limits on them. If we had no innate sense of fairness, then unfairness would never upset us. We'd have no concept of "fairness" at all, let alone an emotional intuition about what was unfair. It's the innate sense of it that leads us to be mad when we see (other) people benefiting unfairly...and that is the impetus for passing laws against unfairness in the first place.

If you look online at the psychological an anthropological literature on fairness, it's evident that the sense in innate in most (if not all) primates, including humans.

As for what "innate" means, it does not always mean "always obviously on display". We have an innate instinct for self-preservation, but that does not mean that no one, ever, risks their lives. We have an innate capacity to love, but that doesn't mean that everyone behaves lovingly all the time, and competing emotions never conflict with love. We have innate affinity for pleasure, but that doesn't mean that no one denies themselves pleasure. "Innate" means you are born with the sense of fairness, without it needing to be taught to you, but that doesn't mean that competing impulses never override the sense of fairness.