tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post6060127373321410027..comments2023-11-27T02:17:22.859-06:00Comments on The LawDog Files: From the Comments:LawDoghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05232684877582591461noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-17085202649240997822009-02-27T19:17:00.000-06:002009-02-27T19:17:00.000-06:00Well, if I only asked one good question this year,...Well, if I only asked one good question this year, I'm glad I asked this one. It's got people thinking. Thank you, LawDog, for thinking it was worth hanging out for some air.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05730143528740977761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-22861710688463047512009-02-23T18:19:00.000-06:002009-02-23T18:19:00.000-06:00In the world, those in authority lord it over thos...In the world, those in authority lord it over those under them; but in my kingdom it is not so. Anyone who wants to be lord must be a servant. Anyone who wants to be lord of all must be servant of all.<BR/><BR/>If you see someone stomping his feet, saying he's the boss and everyone must obey him - he's worldly, not spiritual.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-38874493945573173052009-02-23T15:17:00.000-06:002009-02-23T15:17:00.000-06:00"...I would take the people who make this kind of ..."...I would take the people who make this kind of challenge a LOT more seriously if I saw any evidence that they had read either the Bible OR the Constitution..."<BR/><BR/>That's the beauty of both documents. When you remove the effort to interpret the text, or influence for the gain of power, both instill a basic way of life that's never threatened by greed. <BR/><BR/>As my mother used to say: People are no damned good, but I don't think she arrived at this opinion until she read the Constitution and the Bible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-24785999636568773052009-02-22T16:45:00.000-06:002009-02-22T16:45:00.000-06:00I would take the people who make this kind of chal...I would take the people who make this kind of challenge a LOT more seriously if I saw any evidence that they had read either the Bible OR the Constitution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-5718695857181558182009-02-22T10:26:00.000-06:002009-02-22T10:26:00.000-06:00~*Applause!*~Anonymous, Strings, Bob.Most of us wh...~*Applause!*~<BR/>Anonymous, Strings, Bob.<BR/>Most of us who were raised Christian have had a bad experience or two with the church. It isn't the faith that caused it, but the people who control it, in the main. Most churches show a control freaky side at one time or another-or all the time-and that's PEOPLE, not God; He doesn't need to.<BR/>I expect it's pretty much the same in any religion.<BR/>I would not dream of attempting to interpret the Bible for another person. That's just pure presumption and arrogance. Nor would I ever attempt to threaten coerce, persuade, or bribe someone into joining me in my religion.<BR/>All of which has everything and nothing to do with the original question......<BR/>LawMomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-25108381362878794972009-02-22T08:31:00.000-06:002009-02-22T08:31:00.000-06:00Strings--Ahhh, but you prove my point. Any object...Strings--<BR/>Ahhh, but you prove my point. Any objective reading of the Bible finds explicit condemnation of the slave trade (Leviticus 25:39-41). It's only demigods who presume their "interpretation" of the Scriptures is more authoritative than its plain statements. Or as Lewis Carroll put it:<BR/><BR/>"When I use the word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I chose it to mean -- neither more nor less."<BR/><BR/>"The question is," said Alice, " whether you can make words mean so many different things."<BR/><BR/>"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master -- that’s all."Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10120554561277504589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-6787978348602311232009-02-22T01:18:00.000-06:002009-02-22T01:18:00.000-06:00I'll grant that you didn't claim that the ...I'll grant that you didn't claim that the Christian Bible is the only source of morality. However, having dealt with enough that DO make such a claim, you'll have to forgive me jumping to that conclusion...<BR/><BR/>>As for those who twisted the plain teaching of the Bible to justify slavery, their damnation is all the more fitting -- God will not be mocked.<<BR/><BR/>Ahhh...so your interpretation of the Bible is correct, and those others (for several hundred years) are wrong?<BR/><BR/>>One last thought: There is a God ... and I'm not Him (so as application to me, it's not my job to impose my morality on you). But I would also point out that you aren't God either.<<BR/><BR/>Never claimed to be God. Demi, at most... :PStringshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17399293868413376397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-3511802092402157182009-02-21T18:09:00.000-06:002009-02-21T18:09:00.000-06:00Many Christian sects are called upon to proselitiz...Many Christian sects are called upon to proselitize. It is a practise which extends for generations back. <BR/>Of course, the loud and public assertion that because one isn't a member of that sect he or she is condemned to hell can't be read as blackmail or a threat, either.<BR/>I am assuming your sect isn't one of them.<BR/>And no one on this forum has claimed to be God-or Allah-or Buddha-or Veda-or Manitou-or any of the other 'Gods.'<BR/>Your inference that we have renders your argument ineffective simply because of the ridiculousness of the implications and statement that "you aren't God either."<BR/>You might want to remember that Jesus walked among us as a man.<BR/>LMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-10443465310027841902009-02-21T17:25:00.000-06:002009-02-21T17:25:00.000-06:00We Christians aren't called to impose our "moralit...We Christians aren't called to impose our "morality" on others, but we have a duty to exercise our First Amendment rights and speak against evil and point out that sin has consequences. If the fire alarm annoys you, the solution isn't to silence the alarm, but to heed its warning.<BR/><BR/>RE: Strings question about how it's possible for pagans to do "good" -- I never claimed that the Bible is the only source of morality (any more than the Sun is the only source of light), but in the historical examples I cited, it was in fact the Bible that inspired abolition, etc.<BR/><BR/>As for those who twisted the plain teaching of the Bible to justify slavery, their damnation is all the more fitting -- God will not be mocked.<BR/><BR/>One last thought: There <I>is</I> a God ... and I'm not Him (so as application to me, it's not my job to impose <I>my</I> morality on you). But I would also point out that you <A HREF="http://lostfart.blogspot.com/2007/09/bob-ism.html" REL="nofollow">aren't God either</A>.Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10120554561277504589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-34234534543885621472009-02-20T23:29:00.000-06:002009-02-20T23:29:00.000-06:00I didn't twitch, I jerked with revulsion.Any time ...I didn't twitch, I jerked with revulsion.<BR/><BR/>Any time the/any government gets involved with religion (or forcing the lack thereof, e.g. Communists), it's a bad thing. Got Spanish Inquisition?<BR/><BR/>I don't care if a courthouse has the Ten Commandments posted, or "In God We Trust" is on our money; I'm pretty easy-going about people's traditions <I>as long as they aren't shoved down my throat</I>. Or my children's. They can pray for the devil to depart me until they're blue in the face, and I'll just go on smiling and nodding and casting my Circle.<BR/><BR/>But the US government has no business setting up an office of faith-based <I>anything</I>.<BR/><BR/>And hey, what part of "reduce the need for abortion" (no matter how terrific an idea it sounds in theory!) or "encouraging responsible fatherhood" <I>doesn't</I> translate to "impose my personal morality upon the rest of you"? <BR/><BR/>And what part of the bullet points on that page <B>don't</B> sound incredibly sexist -- "...that will look at how we support women and children..." (because women shouldn't be self-sufficient?), and "...working to get young men off the streets and into well-paying jobs..." (because only men need well-paying jobs to support a family?). As a mother who was widowed 16 years ago at the age of 23, with 2 kids under age 5 to support and raise alone, I'm appalled at the whole tone of the proposal, <I>above and beyond</I> the pushy religious part.Jeanne Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12684695145962482139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-77130012601420934942009-02-20T19:02:00.000-06:002009-02-20T19:02:00.000-06:00Back in the bad old days, although most of Africa ...Back in the bad old days, although most of Africa wouldn't admit to still slaving, I stopped in Timbucktu. That city had a thriving slave market, and I thought I wanted to see what it was like to own another human being, so I bought one.<BR/>I was totally unprepared for how I would feel. It was awful. The side of me that believes so thoroughly in freedom and personal independence was shocked and revolted.<BR/>I wasn't prepared for that, and soon set the man free. He cried and begged me to keep him. That was even more apalling. I gave him everything I had in my purse, telling him to run like hell back to his village so the slavers wouldn't just pick him up again. I left Timbucktu without one penny to my name.<BR/>I found out later that what I had given him-around $300.00- was enough to keep him for about ten years or more.<BR/>That didn't help one bit. My hour's 'ownership' is just about the most revolting experience of my life.<BR/>I understand, however, that in some of the Caribbean and South American countries, a type of slavery is still part of the custom there.<BR/>These people are housed, fed, clothed, and provided with medical care, in exchange for work.<BR/>One must consider that without this 'slavery' these people would very likely be sleeping in ditches, hungry, uneducated, sick, and thoroughly miserable. Freedom for them is not a pleasant prospect.<BR/>It's not a perfect world.<BR/>LawMomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-31195369311169412352009-02-20T14:16:00.000-06:002009-02-20T14:16:00.000-06:00Tam: 1 Corinthians 7:21-22 & Galatians 3:28.We...Tam: <BR/>1 Corinthians 7:21-22 & Galatians 3:28.<BR/><BR/>Were I a non-Jew in that area of the Middle East (prior to 70CE), and had the opportunity to be a slave to a godly (or consistent) Jew, I would certainly consider that as a fabulous career opportunity compared to most alternatives. Jews were supposed to treat their slaves better than their own children. It was expected that Jew would treat their slaves so well that they would not want to be a freeman (-woman) at the end of their period of servitude (a mere 7 years). <BR/><BR/>The Bible accepts slavery as a human condition, but it does not condone it. It changes slavery to what we would call 'indentured servant' instead. <BR/><BR/>Even Roman law (the hated gentiles) insisted that food be provided for slaves, and that a slaveowner himself could be enslaved for not providing it. Depending on era and location, it was common for people to sell THEMSELVES into slavery to avoid starvation.<BR/><BR/>The Bible also has a procedure by which ones own offspring can be put to death by stoning. But it doesn't recommend that course of action except as a last resort and to protect the rest of the family and community from a murderous offspring.<BR/><BR/>Again: these laws are for JEWS living in a very small part of the world. For the rest of us (even those Jews living outside that area), the Bible is the revelation of God about Himself. It reveals personal moral character, not political organization. <BR/><BR/>Gods idea of politics is a Theocracy--with He HIMSELF sitting on the Throne of David. That has not happened (yet) in world history.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07374641635681945300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-41800339468923538932009-02-20T14:00:00.000-06:002009-02-20T14:00:00.000-06:00The Bible is a book ... one written by men. It jud...The Bible is a book ... one written by men. It judges nothing.<BR/><BR/>Humans judge everything.<BR/><BR/>You think this "God" judges all? Show me your "God". Trot him out for us. I'll wait.<BR/><BR/>Count me as one of those atheist fanatics. I'll tolerate religion as long as I don't have to pay for it.<BR/><BR/>There is a reason the first amendment was added to the bill of rights, folks ... making the State stay out of this fight is a good thing . If the christ crowd did get themselves installed as an official religion, they would be fighting over which sect got to be in charge ... personally, I'd like to see the Snake-Handlers running the show, just for comic relief. It would also make school prayer interesting, if nothing else.closedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642713237849918722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-85331120386757322152009-02-20T08:44:00.000-06:002009-02-20T08:44:00.000-06:00"It was the Bible (allegedly written by an infalli..."<I>It was the Bible (allegedly written by an infallible God) that allowed the people of the US to declare that slavery was 'wrong' even if legal. In fact, I will define 'injustice' as making legal that which is immoral.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Dude, where in the Bible does it condemn slavery?<BR/><BR/>For heaven's sake, it contains instructions on how to sell your daughter.Tamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07285540310465422476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-71534084243196739352009-02-20T00:17:00.000-06:002009-02-20T00:17:00.000-06:00Errrmmmmmm I'm not sure what 'trump the constituti...Errrmmmmmm I'm not sure what 'trump the constitution' means. <BR/><BR/>Howsomever, the Constitution primarily exists to organize government and as such is a political document. <BR/><BR/>The Bible is also a political document, but only for Jews and only if they live in a (currently hotly contested) chunk of real estate in the Middle East. But that is its secondary or even tertiary role. It is primarily a document of PERSONAL morals and ethics. <BR/><BR/>The Bible is not subject to amendment, the Constitution is. It is the Bible that represents a higher morality separate and apart from the legalities of the Consitution. It is the Bible that is enlightens moral judgement. It is said to even be the embodiment of Natural Law. If, for example, the people of the USA passed a Constitutional Amendment that [fill in the blank: your choice of minorities; homosexuals, Okies, T-Sip, Aggies, Pollocks, blacks, whites, greens, pinks, brown, reds, polka-dots or paisley] people were to be taken out back and hung from the nearest lamp post, it would be the morality of the Bible that would allow me to say that such an amendment is 'wrong'. <BR/><BR/>Ergo, the Constitution, being a document written by fallible men, IS subject to being morally wrong. We know that, for example, the first 80+ years of its existence, it permitted slavery. It took a civil war and a couple of amendments to fix that.<BR/><BR/>It was the Bible (allegedly written by an infallible God) that allowed the people of the US to declare that slavery was 'wrong' even if legal. In fact, I will define 'injustice' as making legal that which is immoral. <BR/><BR/>So there is no conflict between the Bible and the Constitution. The Bible deals with morals, and the Constitution deals with the organization of government. But the Bible (and those who adhere to it) JUDGES the Constitution. It does not 'trump' it. <BR/><BR/>It is biblical morality that judges the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of a human law--even the Constitution.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07374641635681945300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-56588387422335902362009-02-20T00:11:00.000-06:002009-02-20T00:11:00.000-06:00Mr. Lawdog Sir. (and I do mean that honestly, I ha...Mr. Lawdog Sir. (and I do mean that honestly, I have a great deal of respect for you)<BR/><BR/>I don't believe I ever stated which president or party brought about the one man/women. doesn't mater what party did. don't ask/don't tell was just as wrong in my not at all humble opinion. making homosexuals second class citizens because it plays to the bible belt is still bigotry no mater how many people want it. replace the words "gay" and "lesbian" with the word "negro" and see how that legislation reads.<BR/><BR/>And as for Rabbi's/Imans etc<BR/>how many? 18? out of 200 plus years? only since 2000?<BR/><BR/>seems a pretty poor record to me.<BR/><BR/>I think we can agree that the stem cell research was tied into the Abortion issue which is very much a Christian hot button. as someone who has been directly affected by that legislation, (Diabetic) I took that one rather personally. why does someone else's religious belief mean I and millions of others must suffer?<BR/><BR/>the Pagan Solder Headstone was pretty well publicized. but I can present cites for it if you wish.<BR/><BR/>as a non Christian it may be I see more "pushing" of Christianity because I look and see the pushing of Christianity, while Christians and Nominal Christians just see "what should be"<BR/><BR/>I do not mean to offend, but to present from a different point of view.Foo Barhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00439295291024100247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-62426986971049841142009-02-19T21:19:00.000-06:002009-02-19T21:19:00.000-06:00"Jefferson was a Deist, Paine was an outright..."Jefferson was a Deist, Paine was an outright atheist ( despite the fact that Atheism was a capital offense under the crown ), and as for Franklin, he was a member of the Hellfire Club in Europe ... heh. Most of the rest were part of Washington's and Co.'s Masonic clique. Only two were Christian ministers."<BR/><BR/>Tell me, how are the religions of TJ & TP relevant to a document of which neither was responsible for a authoring a single word?<BR/><BR/>TJ: Declaration of Independence<BR/>TP: Common Sense<BR/>Gouverneur Morris: Preamble of the COTUS and several major sections ; probably more of his words than any other author's in the COTUS.<BR/><BR/>FTR, TJ was in Paris at the time of the writing of the COTUS.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-66967954931201571772009-02-19T20:23:00.000-06:002009-02-19T20:23:00.000-06:00""As the Government of the United States of Americ..."<I>"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 tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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.</I>"<BR/><BR/>-From the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the Senate and signed by President John Adams in 1797.Tamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07285540310465422476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-10224627184031402392009-02-19T20:08:00.000-06:002009-02-19T20:08:00.000-06:00“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and re...“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John AdamsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-24843998478705016822009-02-19T20:07:00.000-06:002009-02-19T20:07:00.000-06:00"marriage is between 1 man and 1 women"Direct quot...<I>"marriage is between 1 man and 1 women"</I><BR/><BR/>Direct quote (except the original uses wom<B>a</B>n rather than wom<B>e</B>n) from the Defense of Marriage Act signed into law on 21 Sept 1996 by President William J. Clinton. <BR/><BR/>Shall we discuss which political party President Clinton belongs to?<BR/><BR/><I>the State supports Christianity, obvious every time we read "in god we trust" on our currency or when they open congress with a Christian Prayer.<BR/><BR/>ONLY Christian Prayer.<BR/><BR/>not Jewish, or Islam, or a moment of meditation led by a Buddhist, or an Invocation to Draw down the Moon by a Wiccan or any other non Christian religion.<BR/><BR/>only Christian denominations.</I><BR/><BR/>The Chaplain of the House of Representatives has a webpage -- Google can help you find it in less than a second. <BR/><BR/>On that webpage, the House Chaplain lists the guest chaplains who have led the prayer opening the sessions of Congress since 2001. <BR/><BR/>http://chaplain.house.gov/chaplaincy/guest_chaplains.html <BR/><BR/>By my count seventeen rabbis -- including one female rabbi -- and a gentleman by the name of Imam Hassan Qazwini (on October 1, 2003) have given the Opening Prayer in Congress.<BR/><BR/>A Hindu holy man gave the opening prayer during the 2000 session.<BR/><BR/>Are the rest of your assertions as well researched as the above examples?LawDoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05232684877582591461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-14255485042603410182009-02-19T18:11:00.000-06:002009-02-19T18:11:00.000-06:00And Benjamin Franklin was a Deist, Alexander Hamil...And Benjamin Franklin was a Deist, Alexander Hamilton, a Huguenot, was a Presbyterian and an Episcopalian and suited his social ambitions and his politics, George Reade was Episcopalian, as was George Washington.<BR/>Are we going somewhere with this? I can pull down the religions of all the founding fathers that AREN'T my ancestors, but why?<BR/>Practising or not, they were all nominally Christians.<BR/>LawMomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-41622044718565326272009-02-19T16:45:00.000-06:002009-02-19T16:45:00.000-06:00Practicing christians were in the minority when th...Practicing christians were in the minority when the constitution was written ...<BR/><BR/>Jefferson was a Deist, Paine was an outright atheist ( despite the fact that Atheism was a capital offense under the crown ), and as for Franklin, he was a member of the Hellfire Club in Europe ... heh. Most of the rest were part of Washington's and Co.'s Masonic clique. Only two were Christian ministers.<BR/><BR/>As for the origins of our form of government, it has more to do with out Greco-Roman heritage ... if we stuck to Judeo-Christian values, we would have chosen a King.<BR/><BR/>Methinks that most of the problems we are having with religion and government are the result of too much government. Get government out of a particular enterprise ( education, say ), and religious involvement becomes a market issue, not a legal issue.closedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642713237849918722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-57984575595570633012009-02-19T16:43:00.000-06:002009-02-19T16:43:00.000-06:00If I recall my history correctly, the separation o...If I recall my history correctly, the separation of church and state was lifted from the Danbury Baptist Association, and referred to a wall separating the wilderness of the state from the garden of religion. In other words, a guarantee that the state would not interfere with religion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-54319542219270542922009-02-19T13:43:00.000-06:002009-02-19T13:43:00.000-06:00Flipping back and forth between Constitutional int...Flipping back and forth between Constitutional interpretation and recipes for sweets is very confusing!<BR/><BR/>AntibubbaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-23999096992802519432009-02-19T12:44:00.000-06:002009-02-19T12:44:00.000-06:00Since this country was founded by Christians (alth...Since this country was founded by Christians (although I have my doubts about Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson), it follows that the Constitution would be formulated and written by men who were. There simply wasn't much permissible scope in those days.<BR/>It was, I think, enlightened and far-thinking of them to make the First Amendment so flexible, in that they did not specify a CHRISTIAN religion.<BR/>Perhaps they didn't think they had to; but then again, many of these man were brilliant and perceptive far beyond their time. They had more experience of religions other than Christian ones than we like to think they did. <BR/>The unholy Spanish Inquisition and Cromwell's ghastly Puritan reign of terror couldn't have been too far from the basically European minds of America's early leaders.<BR/>Undoubtedly the founding fathers felt compelled to write something into the Constitution that would attempt to stop religious persecution from ever happening in this country. They were wise to do so.<BR/>Perhaps the Amendment may be interpreted as applying only to Christian religions, but it doesn't SAY that.<BR/>Civil government and religion must be separate in order to prevent such terrible actions from ever taking place in this country. No matter what race, religion, political party, or social standing, most people are basically control freaks; they want things their way or no way, and this allows for persecution and wars.<BR/>If church and state are allowed to mix, we open the door for terrible things.<BR/>What we depend upon is the upbringing of our leaders as people who believe in the basic tenets of any decent and moral peoples, Christian, Jewish, Moslem, pagan, or whatever. Unfortunately, some of our leaders simply aren't good people.<BR/>As to 'In God We Trust' and prayers in schools, before football games, and in our nation's government, there again, we have a lot of latitude. Outside my window in Libya, I heard five times a day, "God Great. In the Name of God, the One, the Benvolent, the Merciful, there is no God but God."<BR/>That is the translation of the "Allah hu Akbar" Moslem call to prayer given me directly by one of the magus who spoke English.<BR/>Who is to say what God may be called in other languages? I prefer the old mystic Allfather, myself.<BR/>Whoever we have in our souls, we may call Him by any name we wish.<BR/>As to the Books which lay down the guidelines for specific religions, you might be surprised to find how alike they are in moral and ethical concepts.<BR/>LawMom<BR/><BR/>William the Coroner-<BR/>Mint tea is always in vogue with cinnamon rolls. I guess they could be frosted chocolate?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com