[MD] Christian Ethics and U.S. Law

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu>:

> [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? 

Where are homosexuality and not keeping the sabbath crimes?

> 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.

You seem to have a hang up on business and wealth. Without them, you wouldn't
have your present lifestyle which, because you are living it, I presume you
find of value. But your constant attack on Christian ethics flies in the 
face of religious tolerance, something the Founding Fathers tried to build
into law. Just shows how frustrating it can be to try to legislate morality, and
how easy it is for those who rail against religion to exhibit hypocrisy.

> [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".

I don't know why not. Take the best and leave the rest. We do it all the time.

> [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?

I don't support the Christian Coalition any more than I support the PC Nazis. 
Both are cut from the same cloth -- intolerant.
 
> [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.

Maybe you can't find any Biblical support, but the Founding Fathers apparently
did.

> 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)

I'm no Biblical scholar, but didn't Jesus imply if not actually say that
we're all God's children and so equal?

> [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. 

You assign to the Founding Fathers the same seriousness as football players?
Arlo, I'm nonplussed.

> 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?

What I don't understand is you want to take the Bible literally yet lecture
that we shouldn't take words metaphorically. Perhaps you can clear up my confusion.
 
> [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.

American Indians enslaved (owned) their captives. And traded what they owned
for rifles and other white man goods.  

> 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.

A slave owns nothing except what is granted to her by her master. Is this
your idea of an ideal society?
 
> 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.

And where are the Indians today?




-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/