Attempt to override the constitutional amendment process

[Vince]

What a tired argument... You two are so removed from what actually happened it's funny. Yet, you don't try to learn from it; Hells no, why get that edumacation thing? Never stopping to think that if you're not upto speed on this part of it, maybe this is indicative of your overall position.

Instead keep making ignorant comments which show just how little you know on this given topic like:

They were both inspired by "something greater than man".

Nope, that's an opinion and not a fact Joe.

Which is blatently false and then when someone shows the actual, documented, private and public words of these individuals that show just how wrong you are, you turn to some tired, used up, argument like, Yup, and didn't they think slavery was ok too?

What a joke, you should be shamed of yourself. For not only being a total ass in light of the work of these very men which provided for the great country you live in and raise your families in.

Ohh, and that wasn't a personal insult. I'd say more along the lines of "Bioethical advice"

 

[digitalwanderer]

Thus the "living document" aspect of the Constitution.

That's an opinion, not a fact.

No Joe, it's NOT an opinion...it IS a fact. You know them silly rules we got for ammending the Constitution? THAT is what makes it a living document, it's able to change with the times.

Now this is classic:

Uhm, I'm about to vent a bit...but it's just a knee-jerk reaction to a typical and stereotyping attitude that I hate and loathe that causes it, please don't think it's entirely directed at you.

BACK THE FUCK OFF!!!

What makes you so damned sure you have the slightest clue about what my personal beliefs/philosophy is? You hear me say I think religion is bullshit so suddenly I'm a heathen atheist who doesn't believe in shit?

Grow up!

But Digi...I'm not insulting you...just saying that one particular belief system is lunacy. Why such a reaction? Especially if it's not YOUR belief system

Uhm, yeah...ok, touche.

This is funny....

so now...it's just "formal religions" more or less that are loony, and you have no respect for them...but YOUR own personal "religion" or view of things is just peachy keen. What at riot this has become....

No. My view of things is that things should be viewed and thought about by the individual and not dictated to them by authority figures when it comes to spiritualism as I feel that ANY religion gets in the way of the individual from finding "their way to God". (Quotes 'cause I can't figure out any non-religious way to say it. )

Yup, and didn't they think slavery was ok too? :|

You mean, the accepted morals of the day are vastly different than the morals of today? That is, the Constitution was based on "fantasies of yesteryear?"

Yes Joe, it was. That's why the founding fathers added the ability to ammend it as new information was discovered, thus the LIVING DOCUMENT aspect of it.

 

[digitalwanderer]

What a tired argument... You two are so removed from what actually happened it's funny. Yet, you don't try to learn from it; Hells no, why get that edumacation thing? Never stopping to think that if you're not upto speed on this part of it, maybe this is indicative of your overall position.

Instead keep making ignorant comments which show just how little you know on this given topic like:

They were both inspired by "something greater than man".

Nope, that's an opinion and not a fact Joe.

Which is blatently false and then when someone shows the actual, documented, private and public words of these individuals that show just how wrong you are, you turn to some tired, used up, argument like, Yup, and didn't they think slavery was ok too?

What a joke, you should be shamed of yourself. For not only being a total ass in light of the work of these very men which provided for the great country you live in and raise your families in.

Dude, get off your high horse! They were PEOPLE, not gods!

I do respect them for what they accomplished, but I'm not going to consider them beyond criticism for some of their thoughts or actions....that seems just a wee bit off the deep end to me.

Ohh, and that wasn't a personal insult. I'd say more along the lines of "Bioethical advice"

Don't worry Vince, I don't think you could insult me if you tried. For someone to insult me I have to respect the person insulting me, and I'm pretty sure me and you have past that point long ago.

 

[John Reynolds]

Ohh, and that wasn't a personal insult. I'd say more along the lines of "Bioethical advice"

If you can't do better than tell people they "pollute their gene pools" then I suggest you start posting elsewhere.

 

[digitalwanderer]

The slavery comment is a bit non sequitur, Dig. People are products of their environment to a large extent, and some of the Founding Fathers were very uncomfortable with the institution of slavery. Washington, for example, had in his will for all his slaves to be freed (Martha, however, did not respect that).

True, but I was merely using it as an example to point out that the founding fathers weren't omnipotent or perfect by any means.

 

[Vince]

True, but I was merely using it as an example to point out that the founding fathers weren't omnipotent or perfect by any means.

Thats beside the points. You were totally and unambigously wrong in your position. And then you turn around and instead of saying you were wrong or just avoiding it, you bash them for their beliefs regarding slavery.

It's no high-horse nor do I think they're God's, but what you did by covering up your inabaility to know what the hell your saying by bashing them is utter BS.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Thats beside the points. You were totally and unambigously wrong in your position. And then you turn around and instead of saying you were wrong or just avoiding it, you bash them for their beliefs regarding slavery.

No Vince, I wasn't wrong. My position is that if they DID intend to base the constitution on God than they were wrong and fortunately that's been corrected with the good old 'seperation-o-church-and-state-thang' that I was edumacated about back before I dropped out of school in the 3rd grade.

It's no high-horse nor do I think they're God's, but what you did by covering up your inabaility to know what the hell your saying by bashing them is utter BS.

What inability? I was pointing out that the founding fathers were just as perfectly capable of getting things wrong as you or I am, where in lies your problem with that? :|

 

[Vince]

No Vince, I wasn't wrong. My position is that if they DID intend to base the constitution on God than they were wrong and fortunately that's been corrected with the good old 'seperation-o-church-and-state-thang' that I was edumacated about back before I dropped out of school in the 3rd grade.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=238738#238738

Seems like Joe was making the case that the Bible and Constitution were both written by men, inspired by more than man. You, then stated that that's an "opinion" wrt to the Constitution. This is false, I show it false. You state it's false, but your still right because they were wrong. I disgress.

What inability? I was pointing out that the founding fathers were just as perfectly capable of getting things wrong as you or I am, where in lies your problem with that? :|

Guess. Getting it wrong is irrelevent when you stated that the Constitution's influence by theology is an "opinion" and someone shows the actual founders words which state that God guides them and was an influence. This isn't that hard to understand. But, whatever, not like this is going anywhere.

 

[John Reynolds]

Seems like Joe was making the case that the Bible and Constitution were both written by men, inspired by more than man. You, then stated that that's an "opinion" wrt to the Constitution. This is false, I show it false. You state it's false, but your still right because they were wrong. I disgress.

No, insofar as the Constitution is concerned you showed that it was drafted by men of faith. Was it "inspired by more than man"? As a Christian I'd say yes, but I don't think it's a provable claim or statement. How does one quantify divine inspiration or influence?

 

[digitalwanderer]

No Vince, I wasn't wrong. My position is that if they DID intend to base the constitution on God than they were wrong and fortunately that's been corrected with the good old 'seperation-o-church-and-state-thang' that I was edumacated about back before I dropped out of school in the 3rd grade.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=238738#238738

Seems like Joe was making the case that the Bible and Constitution were both written by men, inspired by more than man. You, then stated that that's an "opinion" wrt to the Constitution. This is false, I show it false. You state it's false, but your still right because they were wrong. I disgress.

You do tend to digress, on that I'll agree...but you missed my point entirely again Vince. You're claiming to know just what inspired those people to write the Constitution and that it's based on religion, and I'm claiming that no one knows what inspired 'em.

I really ain't seeing what you're trying to point out.

What inability? I was pointing out that the founding fathers were just as perfectly capable of getting things wrong as you or I am, where in lies your problem with that? :|

Guess. Getting it wrong is irrelevent when you stated that the Constitution's influence by theology is an "opinion" and someone shows the actual founders words which state that God guides them and was an influence. This isn't that hard to understand. But, whatever, not like this is going anywhere.

-sigh-

It does NOT mean they were right Vince, something you seem entirely unable to grasp.

BTW-I made something just for you Vince, here:

 

[DemoCoder]

When will humans get past arguing over ancient fiction? I could care less what the bible, koran, torrah, or whatever says. I will not be governed by millenia old fiction, I will be governed by what our generation decides. We have a right to self government, to a code of ethics and morals decided by men today, not decided by tribalists and mystic nuts from 2000 years ago.

That's all well and good...

However, what separates a 200 year old document, from a 2000 year old one, other than a few years?

It's very simple. The Constitution was written by men, not by God. It is legitimized by men. Tho it be 200 years old, it is constantly reviewed. From time to time, we make changes to it. Even Jefferson said that men should not be governed by generations past. I have no problem with any generation rewriting the constitution, or scraping it entirely and doing a new one, if that's what they decide.

The bible is not subject to amendment, unless you count the mormons. Indeed, it is not even supposed to be laws written by men according to reason, but unchanging laws handed down by a supreme being that we must accept, period.


As for those quotes Vince, they're cherry picked. You can find anti-christian quotes from Lincoln, Jefferson, and Franklin as well.

I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.
SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short

 

[Joe DeFuria]

It's very simple. The Constitution was written by men, not by God.

The bible is not written by god either.

Tho it be 200 years old, it is constantly reviewed. From time to time, we make changes to it.

Yes, this is the difference, but only a technical one IMO. That is, the constitution has a self-defined means for technical amendments to fit the "morality of the day."

However, in practice, the same is done to the bible all the time. It was not written with an "amendment process" per-se, so the end result is lots of different groups self-amending it (not in word, but in meaning), to fine tune it to their own personal view of morailty of the day.

I look at it this way:

Every church that claims to be "based in the bible" is essentially the "activist supreme court" which in effect amends it to suit it's personal morality. It's just an "end-run" around tehcnically altering the bible.

 

[DemoCoder]

I don't really think it's a technicality. Our legal system tells us we have a right to self government, to evolution, and to revolution if neccessary. It clearly tells us that our laws are to be decided by us democratically.

The fact that people's "interpretation" of the bible changes over time, and that the authoritarian Catholic church from time to time sees fit to step out of the dark ages (e.g. admit Galileo was right) is not very relevant. The system is anti-democratic at it's core and tells us there is a supreme authority that overrules man's laws.

We make fun of Muslim governments with their ayatollahs, or asians, with their emperors as divine gods, but the basic principle is the same. Power is invested into a supreme authority beyond reproach. The fact that we have removed the figure head and simply worship a book is a difference not worth two pennies.

Isn't it patently obvious that billions of people have ethics and morals who have never even heard any of the Abrahamic religions? Where did these people get their morals from? Why aren't they out raping and pillaging everyday?

Religions are just fictional codifications of common morals and ethics that already exist in a society , "enforced" by the fear of punishment by a supreme authority. (and often enforced by religious police) In modern society, we do not need a supreme authority to enforce behavior. We have a justice system to take care of that.

Hence, we should no longer be shackled by laws codified thousands of years ago. Laws that codified the social taboos of those societies, not ours. Our children can learn appropriate behavior based on humanistic morals, taught in school and by their parents. We need no longer scare them with fanciful stories of Satan and fire in hell.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Religions are just fictional codifications of common morals and ethics that already exist in a society , "enforced" by the fear of punishment by a supreme authority. (and often enforced by religious police) In modern society, we do not need a supreme authority to enforce behavior. We have a justice system to take care of that.

Hence, we should no longer be shackled by laws codified thousands of years ago. Laws that codified the social taboos of those societies, not ours. Our children can learn appropriate behavior based on humanistic morals, taught in school and by their parents. We need no longer scare them with fanciful stories of Satan and fire in hell.

The Dig sits stunned for a moment upon reading DemoCoder's post, then slowly puts down his coffee cup and rises out of his chair clapping quietly and respectfully.

Word. 8)

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I don't really think it's a technicality.

I'll simply have to disagree then.

The system is anti-democratic at it's core and tells us there is a supreme authority that overrules man's laws.

Not very different than the constitution being rooted in "self evident" truths, that overrides any laws man may come up with, IMO.

The fact that we have removed the figure head and simply worship a book is a difference not worth two pennies.

Except that when you have a figurehead, he's likely to physically, financially, or otherwise personally punish you for disobediences. Worshiping a book only promises the same. That's a big difference.

Isn't it patently obvious that billions of people have ethics and morals who have never even heard any of the Abrahamic religions? Where did these people get their morals from?

The same place where people who wouldn't know a constitution if they sat on it get their morals from. Not sure I understand your point here.

Why aren't they out raping and pillaging everyday?

Why would they? Am I claiming that people are unaware of a set of morals unless they have a book, constitution, or anything else to "guide" them?

Religions are just fictional codifications of common morals and ethics that already exist in a society , "enforced" by the fear of punishment by a supreme authority. (and often enforced by religious police) In modern society, we do not need a supreme authority to enforce behavior. We have a justice system to take care of that.

Constitutions are just codifications of common morals and ethics that already exist in a society, "enforced" by the fear of punishment from the supreme governmental authority.

Hence, we should no longer be shackled by laws codified thousands of years ago.

Who's shackled, exactly?

Our children can learn appropriate behavior based on humanistic morals, taught in school and by their parents. We need no longer scare them with fanciful stories of Satan and fire in hell.

No, just scare them about stories about jail and the gas chamber.

Don't get me wrong. I completely agree that morals can be taught without any religious context. I just don't see a major difference between the two, or why it's "wrong" to use a "religious" moral system that you agree with, vs. any other context. A tool for teaching "morals" is being able to use concepts of reward or punishment. Be it from "God," or governmnet.

 

[Natoma]

The Constitution can be changed and allow a society to evolve.

The Bible can't. In the book of Revelations it says that anyone who changes the bible will be cast into the lake of fire because it is god's immutable word, good from beginning to end, set in stone. That's why you can't have a society based on the bible or other immutable religious morality. The society would never progress.

That's why the concept of separation of church and state is so important to our democracy.

 

[Legion]

He's def not a fringe scholar and from what Ive read in BR (sister mag of BAR) the scholarly consensus is both that the word means kill and not murder and the soddom and gomorrah story inferes rape and not homosexuality per se.

I would say he definately is a fringe scholar.

One only has to read through numbers 35 to realize they'd lose any for of context if ratsak were translated as "to kill"

So, with that said your first statement wrt to there being no context to translate ratsak into "to murder" is simply wrong.

Its not unusual to see a word translated into other meanings elsewhere. 'Hell' for example in most english bibles is translated from up to 4 different words most of them referring to the grave. So refering from another passage the same term doesnt mean it means something else. The hebrew word for murder (I wish I knew it right now I read that article a few years ago) is very specific but its not the same as the word for kill.

Stop spinning your wheels. You aren't addressing the issue. There is a great deal of context within the terminology of ratsak which validates its translation as "to murder". Ratsak is continuously used throughout the Tanak and translated, in context, as murder.

Most english bibles are badly translated but the most literal ones say its thou shalt not kill...

Weak excuse. The fact of the matter is all variations of the bible i can find, regardless of language, make clear disctinctions in Numbers with regards to what is murder and what is not. This was obviously elaborating on the earlier commandment "thou shall not committ murder". In order to phrase the matter "thou shalt not kill" you'd have to completely ignore further context and explanations.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The Bible can't. In the book of Revelations it says that anyone who changes the bible will be cast into the lake of fire because it is god's immutable word, good from beginning to end, set in stone. That's why you can't have a society based on the bible or other immutable religious morality. The society would never progress.

Chrstianity hasn't progressed or changed? I could've sworn that almost every day brings a "new Christian religion" claiming to to be based on the Bible, each with differing moralities, and all claiming to be "true".

 

[Sabastian]

Religions are just fictional codifications of common morals and ethics that already exist in a society , "enforced" by the fear of punishment by a supreme authority. (and often enforced by religious police) In modern society, we do not need a supreme authority to enforce behavior. We have a justice system to take care of that.

Ahh, but you have a hook in your lip here. Without absolute right and wrong there can be no justice. All we have are a bunch of rules made by men for other men. I am not going to get into a big debate regarding if there are absolutes or not... I received my lumping from MFA and Horndevil on that. (BTW there may be a few here who might be happy to hear that I have changed my attitudes towards a great many things these days to one of indifference.. I have had enough of the fighting with regards to so many things. But my contrary nature still gets the better of me sometimes yet. ) If man is the maker of laws there is little justice without absolute truth. Absolute truth does not come from men and so Justice and your "supreme authorities" are a farce. But I don't think I am telling anything to you DC that you are not aware of. Simply a matter of just saying.

 

[Vince]

No, insofar as the Constitution is concerned you showed that it was drafted by men of faith. Was it "inspired by more than man"? As a Christian I'd say yes, but I don't think it's a provable claim or statement. How does one quantify divine inspiration or influence?

I'd contend that one quantify's it based on the words of the founders who were expressing their beliefs and thinking which led to the Constitutions present form. If they claim that they were guided by the teachings and belief's of the church and Judeo-Christina teachings - I'd say that's pretty justifiable and objective. Which I posted many of and clearly show this. Several President's, such as Adams, stated this blatently.

tend to digress, on that I'll agree...but you missed my point entirely again Vince. You're claiming to know just what inspired those people to write the Constitution and that it's based on religion, and I'm claiming that no one knows what inspired 'em.

I'm claiming that they stated it themselves. You've stated (after I posted the list) that they did state that, but they were wrong. You're argument has mutated uncontrollably from:

It's questionable if the were inspired by God to they were and were wrong just as they believed in slavery and now back to this pseduo-argument of "Nobody knows what inspired them" to which I respond they most certainly did and they most certainly wrote about it.

It does NOT mean they were right Vince, something you seem entirely unable to grasp.

I grasped it, move on to what I'm saying which is that what you stated and the argument you made before I posted (ff is an opinion) was fallicious and wrong as you can look to see what they stated themselves and it contradicts that which you put forth.

It's like me saying, "The Sky is Hot Pink" and then when questioned to my position on the color of the sky, you say, "it's just an opinion of what he thought" and when someone digs up my quotes and proves you wrong you say, "Well, he was wrong.. the sky is blue". God, you really are acting like a village idiot.

As for those quotes Vince, they're cherry picked. You can find anti-christian quotes from Lincoln, Jefferson, and Franklin as well.

Most certainly true, although of the founding fathers (Lincoln?!?), Jefferson's beliefs were certainly in the minority. And many secularists routinely take quotes out of context to support their agenda, as often happens with Adams quotes which are hacked to pieces. For a country founded by those who wish to escape their persecution in Europe for their beliefs, it's insane to believe that the experiences and beliefs of the founders didn't influence their drive for Independence and the constructs of this Country. Ever read George Washington's farwell address?