IGX

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:So...,suck it up. I'm deadly serious.

And I don't take you seriously on this-- balance pertains.

=D> =D> =D>

Fair enough, I've never taken you seriously as all your opinions are clearly second and third hand.

Turdacious wrote:
Ok, under your idea-- what are just laws based on? Or are they mere laws and social norms?

Well, golly, Father O'Malley, everyone knows that just laws can only be based on the Christian Bible, duh. I mean there's never been a civil society without foundations in Christianity.

BucketHead wrote:

Turdacious wrote:
Ok, under your idea-- what are just laws based on? Or are they mere laws and social norms?

Well, golly, Father O'Malley, everyone knows that just laws can only be based on the Christian Bible, duh. I mean there's never been a civil society without foundations in Christianity.

Name one of the older successful (i.e. lasted for a good period of time) ones that isn't based on some sort of religious belief.

Turdacious wrote:
Name one of the older successful (i.e. lasted for a good period of time) ones that isn't based on some sort of religious belief.

I knew you'd change the subject. I would agree that a lot of morality was codified through religion (not the other way around). I also don't necessarily have a problem with a Nation state endorsing a religion. I just don't find it necessary or advantageous for the US.

BucketHead wrote:

Turdacious wrote:
Name one of the older successful (i.e. lasted for a good period of time) ones that isn't based on some sort of religious belief.

I knew you'd change the subject. I would agree that a lot of morality was codified through religion (not the other way around). I also don't necessarily have a problem with a Nation state endorsing a religion. I just don't find it necessary or advantageous for the US.

Have I changed the subject? I've never said that our government should be based on exclusively Judeo-Christian values.

A government should be based on some sort of religious values though-- serious oaths (like the one to tell the truth in court) would seem to demand it. What I've seen suggests very strongly that religious values had a significant impact on western government structures.

serious oaths (like the one to tell the truth in court) would seem to demand it.

So that's why nobody lies in court. Huh.

Testiclaw wrote:

serious oaths (like the one to tell the truth in court) would seem to demand it.

So that's why nobody lies in court. Huh.

My point exactly-- it should have consequences.

LOL

Consequences...like when a hippie threatens to punch me in my aura.

Turdacious wrote: Name one of the older successful (i.e. lasted for a good period of time) ones that isn't based on some sort of religious belief.

Spectacularly circular
Religion was the source of social order for most of mankind's history (note: religions that very often didn't look much at all like the Judeo-Christian-Mohammedan deity), so yes, that's the original source for much 'law.'

The laws of G-d and the laws of These United States aren't all that different in intent. They served a purpose in keeping people from raping and pillaging (unless ordained by G-d, natch, that allowed us to evolve into somewhat more rational societies that don't necessarily need a spooky man in the sky to keep us in line, because we do that ourselves.

milosz wrote:

Turdacious wrote: Name one of the older successful (i.e. lasted for a good period of time) ones that isn't based on some sort of religious belief.

Spectacularly circular
Religion was the source of social order for most of mankind's history (note: religions that very often didn't look much at all like the Judeo-Christian-Mohammedan deity), so yes, that's the original source for much 'law.'

The laws of G-d and the laws of These United States aren't all that different in intent. They served a purpose in keeping people from raping and pillaging (unless ordained by G-d, natch, that allowed us to evolve into somewhat more rational societies that don't necessarily need a spooky man in the sky to keep us in line, because we do that ourselves.

True-- it's kept us from the nastiness that rationalism can lead to.

Turdacious wrote:True-- it's kept us from the nastiness that rationalism can lead to.

Based on your flawed logic, this nastiness is impossible as the basis of all law is religion.

Further, religious based laws have delivered some history's most depraved rationalizations...(blue laws,jim crow, witch trials,inquisitions)...

Rationalism can lead to a lot of nasty shit. It also gave us flight, cars, modern engineering, the Internet, etc.
Irrationalism has lead to an enormous amount of nasty shit.

Believing in anything beyond question is dangerous - and the best, most rational, people know that. The real giants of science (etc.) don't act like Chris Hitchens. Skepticism about everything is the only way to proceed.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Turdacious wrote:True-- it's kept us from the nastiness that rationalism can lead to.

Based on your flawed logic, this nastiness is impossible as the basis of all law is religion.

Never said that. Try again.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Turdacious wrote:Further, religious based laws have delivered some history's most depraved rationalizations...(blue laws,jim crow, witch trials,inquisitions)...

Those are all pretty tame compared to some of the things this world has seen. You really ought to study some 20th century world history some time.

milosz wrote: Skepticism about everything is the only way to proceed.

It also makes it almost impossible to move in any sustained direction.

I don't really care why fundi-fucks think murder is wrong, I do too...we all agree in that one,

The problem with Turd and his ilk is at the end of the day, they want to defer to a set of rules that they believe to be divine in nature. We can change the Constitution by consensus, the Bible takes nearly a thousand years to change that way.

Religious basis for law is really about seeking control without agreement, therefore, a free society should distance itself from such nuttery, hence Separation of Church and State is one of our most valued principles. The GOP is fundamentally at odds with this.

Turdacious wrote:A government should be based on some sort of religious values though-- serious oaths (like the one to tell the truth in court) would seem to demand it.

In a heterogeneous society, it could work. When swearing on the Bible is as serious as swearing on Harry Potter for a good part of the country, things don't quite go as planned.

Turdacious wrote:A government should be based on some sort of religious values though-- serious oaths (like the one to tell the truth in court) would seem to demand it.

Frankly Turd's logic is so soft I'm surprised he isn't swearing on a pasta strainer,

I'll bet not a third of the people swearing an oath in court give two flying fux whether it's the Koran, the KJV or Cabela's catalog...what puts the real fear in them is the consequences of perjury. Man's Law will hold your attention like that. God has all sorts of silly laws about shellfish and getting a good price for slaves.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:I don't really care why fundi-fucks think murder is wrong, I do too...we all agree in that one,

The problem with Turd and his ilk is at the end of the day, they want to defer to a set of rules that they believe to be divine in nature. We can change the Constitution by consensus, the Bible takes nearly a thousand years to change that way.

It should take time to change the Bible-- it keeps fads at bay and acts as a check on unscrupulous people. You don't really want the Borgias and their ilk to have too much influence do you?

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Religious basis for law is really about seeking control without agreement, therefore, a free society should distance itself from such nuttery, hence Separation of Church and State is one of our most valued principles. The GOP is fundamentally at odds with this.

The opposite works too-- separation of Church and State was designed to keep the State out of religious business (i.e. state sanctioned religion). The effect, I think you can agree (if you really think about it), is the same. Neither of us is in favor of a Divine Right of Kings.

Turd, serious question and if you choose not to answer I completely understand. I mean no snark when I ask:

If there is a Heaven, do you think you're going there?

If yes, do you think you pass all the standards with room to spare, or are "just enough"?

Turd, your context derailleurs are charming as always. We're not talking about the rise of powerful families subverting the long settled legal precedents of an open and free society, we are talking about the GOP....
wait whut? Romney/Bush/Borgias..Touche'....I see where you're going with that.....

But still, that's not the point, the context is the GOP's social platform and why it is a profound bust as it has been since Reagan. It is a BUST because it is radically out of step with core republican values of personal choice and responsibility. Hell, even that romney-twat Chessman thought it was a doctored version of the American Taliban.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:personal choice and responsibility.

Well, you see, if there was an All-Knowing, All-Powerful and All-Just omnipotent Deity, he would handle everything.

But since there isn't, he can't, so we need religious-based laws.

i see what you did there.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Turd, your context derailleurs are charming as always. We're not talking about the rise of powerful families subverting the long settled legal precedents of an open and free society, we are talking about the GOP....
wait whut? Romney/Bush/Borgias..Touche'....I see where you're going with that.....

Not really. You know as well as I do that bad ideas can be couched rather easily under the guise of rationalism, and that rationalism is prone to faddishness.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:But still, that's not the point, the context is the GOP's social platform and why it is a profound bust as it has been since Reagan. It is a BUST because it is radically out of step with core republican values of personal choice and responsibility. Hell, even that romney-twat Chessman thought it was a doctored version of the American Taliban.

It's not out of step with them, it puts them in a broader and more productive context.

Testiclaw wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:personal choice and responsibility.

Well, you see, if there was an All-Knowing, All-Powerful and All-Just omnipotent Deity, he would handle everything.

But since there isn't, he can't, so we need religious-based laws.

You really don't understand Christianity at all.