My Problems With My Country

Personally i'm no longer talking about America in particular, I;m just speaking about societies in general.

Quote:

---

Just what do the two of you choose to call this "framework" for acceptable social behavior?
You've ruled out morality, etc., and denied religion, family, etc., as being an "underlying" philosophy.
What is it?
Where does it come from?
Who defines it?

---

I'll choose"Universal declaration of human rights" as a good guiding principal. Where did the choice of these rights come from? Just plain ordinary humans, but to me it seems pretty sensible. Its just a logical list of rights for each member in a society and the principle it necessitates is that every member of that society respects the fundamental rights of every other member.

Quote:

---

Since nobody or nothing is to be exalted or held in higher regard than anyone or anything else, whence do societal rules come?

---

Ah, imo its exactly the same way with justice, all are equal before the law and you are judged by a jury of your peers. Laws are chosen by the society and all who choose to dwell within the society are subject equally.

Edit: I was religion bashing for no real reason

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ilw@21 November 2003 - 11:18
Personally i'm no longer talking about America in particular, I;m just speaking about societies in general.

Quote:

---

Just what do the two of you choose to call this "framework" for acceptable social behavior?
You've ruled out morality, etc., and denied religion, family, etc., as being an "underlying" philosophy.
What is it?
Where does it come from?
Who defines it?

---

I'll choose"Universal declaration of human rights" as a good guiding principal. Where did the choice of these rights come from? Just plain ordinary humans, but to me it seems pretty sensible. Its just a logical list of rights for each member in a society and the principle it necessitates is that every member of that society respects the fundamental rights of every other member.

Quote:

---

Since nobody or nothing is to be exalted or held in higher regard than anyone or anything else, whence do societal rules come?

---

Ah, imo its exactly the same way with justice, all are equal before the law and you are judged by a jury of your peers. Laws are chosen by the society and all who choose to dwell within the society are subject equally.

Edit: I was religion bashing for no real reason

---

But we must talk about America in particular, as it is the only country required to labor under the separation of church and state.

Apparently America is the one which needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into this otherwise civilized and enlightened world.

ilw-

Who decides/arbitrates this "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"? Who gets "veto power"?

"Logical list of rights"?

Whose logic? What rights? Neither of these have any quality which approaches your requisite "universality".

A list of fundamental rights does not (nor can it) arise from this extant disparity and nothingness.

Remember-you have already disallowed all those institutions which have informed social structure down through the ages.

i haven't denied family, community or religion as important elements of civilization. i'm denying the superiority of any single definition of those things over any other definitions. how simply do i have to state it? i suggest respect for a diversity of morality, customs, and policies. on our part. which is not going to happen, so you don't have much to worry about, anyway. i don't see where you're getting the idea that if we respect them, they must be forced to respect us-- forcing them to do something is disrespect.

and you're reading too much into it. whatever you're gathering from my posts, it seems to be verging on some kind of UN conspiracy theory in which the u.s. sacrifices its sovereignty and ideals to the whims of dirty heathens. there is no mandate. but if it's the united states' wish for other countries to be any less resentful toward us than they already are, we ought to show an ounce of respect for their ways-- rather than smacking them down whenever they stray from our ideals, and rather than sneaking around trying to manufacture changes in their governments, economies, and cultures. maybe you'd like to think they're ("they" being the proverbial "player-haters") all just angry because we don't follow their religion or because they're jealous that we're just so rich and so awesome, but i think it's at least in part because we refuse to stop meddling (both overtly and subtly) in their business. why should we show them a little respect? because it gets expensive when we don't-- they resort to terrorism and we resort to invading their countries and spending billions upon billions of dollars trying to make them see things our way and killing them if they won't.

but we won't stop meddling. it ain't gonna happen. we've got too much to gain, by molding the world to our satisfaction. well, i personally don't have much to gain, but people with deep pockets do. in light of that, i'm wasting my breath.

oh, and i don't think the philosophies of the u.s. are illegitimate. i think the philosophy set down in the the constitution & its amendments are perfectly legitimate-- but i think a lot of things that people have tacked onto that philosophy are bunk. i think the equating of capitalism with democracy is bunk. i think the monroe doctrine and its influence on modern politics is bunk. i think the disdain we've shown toward our indigenous population and toward foreign people near & far is bunk. i think the idea that puritan morality is interchangeable with "american" is bunk. i think the idea that symbols of government (the flag, the bald eagle, etc) are sacred is bunk. the constitution is all about personal freedom & the responsibilities of the gov't, it's nearly unassailable as a philosophical framework for a democratic republic-- and it manages this without once invoking morality or religion as the source of its authority. it is a secular document outlining a secular philosophy, acting as a contract between americans and their secular government-- and it's a heck of a lot more modern, civilized, and forward-thinking than a lot of other bunk out there that people seem to believe is equally important to the american philosophy.

</rant>

So you think the U.S. Constitution is a pretty neat document, huh?

Secular through and through?

Purposeful in it&#39;s exclusion of religious mention?

Free from the input of the religiously informed?

Well, the Constitution proper ends with Article VII, which reads thus:

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names....


THAT tells me all I need to know about that.

Kind of a glaring oversight for a collection of people whose intent (you seem to think) was not just to create a document to govern and guide matters secular, but instead formulated to drive a wedge between religion and government.

You, along with many others, mis-state the intent of the framers&#39; words; in no such public document is the intent stated to literally keep religion and government separate, per se, merely to avoid respecting any one religion over another. This is indicated rather clearly by one other mention of religion, in Article VI, Clause 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

If their intent was as you say, no mention here would have been required.

The fact that this is so widely misunderstood is, I guess, a tribute to how well the revisionists have done their job. ;)

if we are going to pass laws based on the morality of a religion, we are respecting it over another. our laws descend from interpretation of the constitution, not from interpretation of scripture.

anno domini? is that how you explain how badly i&#39;m trying to pervert the intentions of the constitution? and once again, you miss the point-- it is the basis of a secular philosophy that does not invoke morality or religion as the source of its authority. i stand by that claim, 100%. the separation of church & state comes from the supreme court&#39;s interpretation of the constitution. the constitution is by its very nature open to revised interpretations of its intent-- decrying "revisionism" as if we are obligated to honor the interpretation set forth by earlier americans at a specific date, is to miss the point.

to sincerely think that the phrase "the year of our lord" disproves all that (and i suppose archaeologists, anthropologists, etc are all paying explicit tribute to jesus by using the terms "B.C." and "A.D.")... to accuse me of corrupting the intentions of the constitution and then to hold up its use of the commonly accepted calendar system as a sign of religious devotion...

bah, nevermind.

</rant again>

Can we not even agree that words mean things?

Tell me this then:

If the Constitution were being written today, would those phrasings have been included?

Believe me, 3RA1N1AC, the Founders were NOT intent on erasing any possible role for religion as a guidepost for socio-cultural mores.

Religion(s) (the Ten Commandments, etc.), across cultures and time, has/have been the predominant basis for ALL law, period.

This is not to say it informs as much today, nor that it should-but to fail even to acknowledge the truth of this? :blink:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@22 November 2003 - 15:17
Religion(s) (the Ten Commandments, etc.), across cultures and time, has/have been the predominant basis for ALL law, period.

This is not to say it informs as much today, nor that it should-but to fail even to acknowledge the truth of this? :blink:

---

did religion arise as a simple means of communicating & enforcing human-conceived (or even instinctual) standards of acceptable and practical behavior? or did religion conjure these standards out of thin air or divine inspiration? which one is truly dependent on the other for its existence?

it&#39;s a riddle akin to "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" not a difficult riddle to solve. but good luck getting someone to agree with you, if their understanding of what constitutes reality (or human nature at the very least) is different from yours.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+22 November 2003 - 22:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC &#064; 22 November 2003 - 22:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@22 November 2003 - 15:17
Religion(s) (the Ten Commandments, etc.), across cultures and time, has/have been the predominant basis for ALL law, period.

This is not to say it informs as much today, nor that it should-but to fail even to acknowledge the truth of this? :blink:

---

did religion arise as a simple means of communicating & enforcing human-conceived (or even instinctual) standards of acceptable and practical behavior? or did religion conjure these standards out of thin air or divine inspiration? which one is truly dependent on the other for its existence?

it&#39;s a riddle akin to "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" not a difficult riddle to solve. but good luck getting someone to agree with you, if their understanding of what constitutes reality (or human nature at the very least) is different from yours.[/b][/quote]
All this merely to say that you prefer thin air over divine inspiration?

Why didn&#39;t you just say so? :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@22 November 2003 - 23:33
...(and i suppose archaeologists, anthropologists, etc are all paying explicit tribute to jesus by using the terms "B.C." and "A.D.")...

---

The dating&#39;s changed. They&#39;re now CE and BCE, which translate to Common Era and Before Common Era.

:ninja:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MagicNakor+22 November 2003 - 23:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MagicNakor @ 22 November 2003 - 23:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-3RA1N1AC@22 November 2003 - 23:33
...(and i suppose archaeologists, anthropologists, etc are all paying explicit tribute to jesus by using the terms "B.C." and "A.D.")...

---

The dating&#39;s changed. They&#39;re now CE and BCE, which translate to Common Era and Before Common Era.

:ninja: [/b][/quote]
MN-

Why wait &#39;til we&#39;re all tired and stuff?

I gotta go to bed now. :(

I know dating&#39;s changed-that&#39;s why I got married.

I don&#39;t have the energy anymore.