[MD] Christian Ethics and U.S. Law

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Arlo previously]
Christian ethics derive from the Authority of God. As such, what he 
says to do is "ethical". No??

[Platt]
Ethical but not literal. Remember your lectures about metaphors.

[Arlo]
Then why take some of what is said as "literal", such as 
"homosexuality is wrong", but others, such as "keep the sabbath holy" 
as "metaphor"? Why encode one into law, while ignoring the other? 
What you appear to be proposing is law based on a subset of 
"Christian ethics" that does not interfere with business and wealth 
acquisition. In other words, keep only those "ethics" that grant 
power of others, and forget about all the ones that would require 
sacrifice of your own.

[Arlo previously]
And in the meantime, do you feed him or not? Do you shelter him or 
not? Do you heal him or not? I am all for teaching people how to 
fish, but the "Christian ethic" is quite clear, in the meantime, you 
feed, shelter and heal.

[Platt]
So now you are all in favor of the Christian ethic? You do tend to 
vacillate, Arlo.

[Arlo]
No, I'm saying if _you_ want to legislate "Christian ethics", this is 
what it would entail. You can't pick small pieces, ignore the rest, 
and then claim you support law "based on Christian ethics".

[Platt]
Law and ethics are two separate subjects, though related. Remember 
the adage, "You can't legislate morality, although the PC Nazis sure try.

[Arlo]
As does the Christian Coalition, no?

[Platt]
You have offered no basis for the claim that Founding Fathers based 
some of their judgments on reason. Not saying the didn't, just that 
you haven't offered any evidence.

[Arlo]
The evidence that I offer is that there is no Biblical support from 
which to see our "freedoms", as expressed in the Constitution and 
DoI, derive from the Bible, or the Word of the Christian God.

Pirisig offers this. "And yet, although Jefferson called this 
doctrine of social equality "self-evident," it is not at all 
self-evident. Scientific evidence and the social evidence of history 
indicate the opposite is self-evident. There is no "self-evidence" in 
European history that all men are created equal. There's no nation in 
Europe that doesn't trace its history to a time when it was 
"self-evident" that all men are created unequal. Jean Jacques 
Rousseau, who is sometimes given credit for this doctrine, certainly 
didn't get it from the history of Europe or Asia or Africa. He got it 
from the impact of the New World upon Europe and from contemplation 
of one particular kind of individual who lived in the New World, the 
person he called the "Noble Savage." (LILA)

[Platt]
You mentioned Indians, but then turn around and say that the Indian 
culture isn't based on reason. I can quote speeches of the Fathers 
where the attribute to God their worldview and that He influenced 
their decisions. But why bother? You would deny what they say.

[Arlo]
I have no doubt that some of the "founders" attribute their decisions 
to God, but so do player's who score touchdowns in football games. 
Ultimately, the best parts of the Constitution and the DoI are that 
which are founded on Reason. And, as I said, the bad parts were based 
on mercantilism and racism. And those are the parts that Reason 
should continue to chip away at. After all, the few bits of actual 
"Christian ethic" that were included in early law (forbidding 
business on Sunday) were overturned. Or do you want to reinstate those?

[Platt previously]
You said Marx reflected the teachings of Jesus. Marx proposed making 
slaves of the people by confiscating all private property.

[Arlo then]
He proposed freeing them in such a way, yes.

[Platt]
Oh, my God. I never thought I would see such an Orwellian statement 
on this site like "Slavery is freedom." But I guess after mountains 
of verbiage, the truth will out.

[Arlo]
Marx, and Jesus, would have argued that "private property is slavery, 
not freedom". We've had this discussion before. The Amerindians owned 
no property, and yet they lived free. Ownership, in fact, entails a 
loss a freedom. When you "own" a lake, it means that no one else has 
the freedom to use it. Oh sure, YOU do, but your "exclusive freedom" 
through ownership comes at the expense of denying everyone else's 
freedom to use that lake.

In our culture, we agree to this arrangement in the hopes that by 
allowing you to limit my freedoms (by owning that lake), I too can 
secure "exclusive freedoms" over something. We sacrifice common use 
(real freedom) for exclusive use (segmented freedom). Indeed, our 
entire concept of "freedom" becomes an expression of ownership, while 
the Indian just laughs and laughs at how we enslave ourselves.