What if the U.S. institutionalized the Ten Commandments?

[Arrow]

Meanwhile I intend to rule the fucking world!

Cool. Can the SD.Net forum members be your senate/advisors/yes-men?

I wouldn't say that they're stuck up, so much as whiny. I know lots of psychology, fine arts, language and don't forget philosophy majors who would qualify as namby-pamby liberals who utterly despise the idea that there might be one, correct conclusion about something. This is usually because that idea would completely invalidate their chosen fields of study.

The whininess is the tip of the iceberg. They are quite vocal about their ideas and beliefs, and perfectly willing to put them in your face (usually by email spamming). I've actually had couple of them try to shove the idea that communism is a perfectly good 'social system' down my throat! And these folks claim to understand human nature?! Argh!

[Mr Bean]

Cool. Can the SD.Net forum members be your senate/advisors/yes-men?

Yes men will be shot on sight so applying for the position might not be to smart

I think the World would better be served by a Dwarf(Verticaly Challenged person) who walks over and waps the world leader over the back of the head once an hour while he's awake and reminds him "Your only human dumbass"

[The Dark]

I wouldn't say that they're stuck up, so much as whiny. I know lots of psychology, fine arts, language and don't forget philosophy majors who would qualify as namby-pamby liberals who utterly despise the idea that there might be one, correct conclusion about something. This is usually because that idea would completely invalidate their chosen fields of study.

My feeling is (as a philosophy minor) that there may be one true conclusion/solution. We haven't proven it yet, but it should be possible to do so eventually. The subjectivist/relativist philosophers haven't followed their philosophies through to their logical yet absurd conclusions, which are that nothing is real and we cannot even determine anything about ourselves.

[Durandal]

I wouldn't say that they're stuck up, so much as whiny. I know lots of psychology, fine arts, language and don't forget philosophy majors who would qualify as namby-pamby liberals who utterly despise the idea that there might be one, correct conclusion about something. This is usually because that idea would completely invalidate their chosen fields of study.

My feeling is (as a philosophy minor) that there may be one true conclusion/solution. We haven't proven it yet, but it should be possible to do so eventually. The subjectivist/relativist philosophers haven't followed their philosophies through to their logical yet absurd conclusions, which are that nothing is real and we cannot even determine anything about ourselves.

The thing about that kind of philosophy is that it generates nothing even remotely useful. No predictions, no testability, no application to real life. Frankly, most philosophy is mental masturbation sans the climax.

Some philosophy is useful, like moral and ethical philosophy, but even these can degenerate into patently ludicrous conclusions because they want to take into account what religions feel ... so again, it becomes a useless field, because subjective feelings on matters cannot be applied universally.

[The Dark]

The thing about that kind of philosophy is that it generates nothing even remotely useful. No predictions, no testability, no application to real life. Frankly, most philosophy is mental masturbation sans the climax.

True. Metaphysics is definitely nonscientific (no falsifiability). That's why I don't bother with it, except to pick apart problems with theories. The only one I haven't been able to tear completely apart is Hume's theory that everything consists of thoughts and ideas. I can't think of a way in which you could prove something wasn't a thought or idea (which means it's nonfalsifiable, but I like to look for other things too).

Some philosophy is useful, like moral and ethical philosophy, but even these can degenerate into patently ludicrous conclusions because they want to take into account what religions feel ... so again, it becomes a useless field, because subjective feelings on matters cannot be applied universally.

That's why I also tear apart subjectivism and ethical relativism. I definitely believe there are some objective moral values, it's merely that certain cultures present different views on those values. My courses for my minor are:
Principles of Philosophy (basic intro course)
General Logic (still need to take, very useful course for anyone)
Ethics (heh...fun tearing apart subjectivist arguments. I'm one of the few objectivists in there)
World Religions and Philosophies (covers both my major and my minor)
Fundamental Questions in Theology and Philosophy (major/minor again)
Aesthetics (what makes something attractive?)
Really only two "junk" courses by your definition, and I took them because they count double for my degree. The other course I wish we had was Epistemology, the study of language. Then maybe I could write clearer posts .

[Durandal]

The thing about that kind of philosophy is that it generates nothing even remotely useful. No predictions, no testability, no application to real life. Frankly, most philosophy is mental masturbation sans the climax.

True. Metaphysics is definitely nonscientific (no falsifiability). That's why I don't bother with it, except to pick apart problems with theories.

By the way, the name "metaphysics" intrinsically points to stupidity and the generation of massive bullshit. It means, "above physics"! It's impossible to collect evidence for something that doesn't follow our laws of physics because it can't exist! So what the fuck are you supposed to say about it? "Here's my wankfest about how I randomly pull blatantly preposterous premises out of my ass for arguments that long-winded and pompously-worded. Can I have my doctorate now?"

The only one I haven't been able to tear completely apart is Hume's theory that everything consists of thoughts and ideas. I can't think of a way in which you could prove something wasn't a thought or idea (which means it's nonfalsifiable, but I like to look for other things too).

How can it be tested? How can it be proven wrong? If it can't be, then you don't need to look any further for flaws in the idea.

As an aside, what other gems can we expect from this Hume guy? "Pain and suffering is bad"?

[White Cat]

How many fundamentalist Christians do you know of who explicitly go around saying they want to make the Ten Commandments part of the body of national law?

While many Christians won't come out and say it, many of them sure act like they want to. Quite frankly, I've found that most Christians were I live to be very judgemental and would love nothing more than to force their views on you. I have two examples, from 5 to 7 years ago when I was still in high school:

1) There was a girl in my class that thinks the same way as many (or at least a few) people on this board, in that she detests the Christian religion. To express this, she dressed in black and wore and upside down cross. This made her an instant target of derision (sp?) and was sent to the principle's office for the slightests thing. After high school she needed to get some records from the guidence office, called ahead to let the school know she was coming and was promptly faced with the threat of arrest when arriving (the adminstration was going to press some bullshit story about her to the police). I had classes with this girl during my first two years of college, and she's quite alright. One of the nicest and honest people I've ever met. But just because she wasn't mainstream Christian (as defined by the local hicks), she was the subject of a witch hunt.

2) High school graduation: The valvictorian gave a speech on being humble and loving God and Jesus and blah blah blah. In the speech he gave an example of a doctor, who did much for mankind, going to hell for not believing in Jesus. Then a drunkass bum went to heaven for simply loving Jesus. While this may seem innocient, its not - it was actually a personal attack on the salutitorian (sp?). The salutitorian was a muslim girl, who is extremely brilliant and had already done biology work that had attracted the attention of the US and state governments. She was going to study to be a doctor and had over $100,000 in scholarships. On the other hand, over half of the class was well on their way to being drunk bums. I knew it was an attack on her and so did she. I was seated across from her (I was 9th in the class ), and the look on her face was a painful one that I'll never forget.

So, yeah, if they could force the Ten Commandments on the population at large, every Christian in my area would do it.

Let me try to follow your reasoning here.

You give an example of a school administration who harassed a girl for wearing an anti-Christian symbol, and one of a validictorian who used her speech to insult a Muslim. Since your argument is that Christians would "force the Ten Commandments on the population at large" if they could, and neither of your stories are examples of this, it is a red herring fallacy.

Even if your example were relevant, you are trying to judge all/most Christians (or at least "every Christian in [your] area") based on the actions of a handful of individuals (the validictorian, plus however many school staff were in on the harassment). This is a hasty generalization fallacy.

Basically, your argument boils down to "I know some Christians who are mean, therefore most/all Christians want to make their religion mandatory." This is an extremely large leap in logic, to boot.

[White Cat]

An elected official represents the people who elected him, firstly, just as the government is the tool of the people. An official in power is still a citizen, they still have freedom of speech, press, AND religion.

RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION DOES NOT INCLUDE PROCURING GOVERNMENT RESOURCES TO PEDDLE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, DUMBASS.

I'm getting tired of explaining this to you. If an elected official allows his religion to influence how he votes, that is an example of the government respecting a certain religion. If he speaks in public, he represents the government. The government cannot indicate any religious preference. Therefore, neither can he when he is acting in his capacity as an elected official.

Ooh, you are going way out on a limb here. Did you really mean it when you said that a member of the government cannot let his religion influence the way he votes, or what he says in a political speech? If so, how can you possibly justify this under freedom of religion, and even if you could, how could this possibly be enforced, short of disallowing all religious people from holding political office (which is also a violation of religious freedom, and probably unenforceable as well).

Let's say that Mrs. Whatshername is duly elected as a Senator by the voters in the state of Whatever. During her first term, the Blahblah Bill comes up for a vote. Senator Whatshername makes a public speech before the vote, saying in part that "I am a follower of Religion X, which clearly supports the provisions of the Blahblah Bill. Therefore, I will be voting Yes." And she does so. The bill passes, and in the next election, the people of Whatever overwhelmingly re-elect her.

What do you think should happen to Senator Whatshername? Should her vote be nullified because of her motivations? Should the Blahblah Bill be declared unconstitutional? Should she be forced to resign? Should the state of Whatever be expelled from the Union for supporting her?

(Note: I don't mean any of the latter paragraph as a strawman fallacy, since I don't think you would actually support any of those measures. It just seems that you didn't bother to think through the ramifications of your argument.)

[Darth Wong]

Let me try to follow your reasoning here.

You give an example of a school administration who harassed a girl for wearing an anti-Christian symbol, and one of a validictorian who used her speech to insult a Muslim. Since your argument is that Christians would "force the Ten Commandments on the population at large" if they could, and neither of your stories are examples of this, it is a red herring fallacy.

On behalf of Arrow, I would like to point out that his examples were simply designed to show that Christian intolerance is still alive and kicking in America. Your attempt to claim that this is a red herring is mere sophistry; if it can be shown that Christians can get away with being grossly intolerant in public without a whiff of censure, then it has already been shown that modern society is amenable to the kinds of intolerant measures which he's talking about.

Basically, your argument boils down to "I know some Christians who are mean, therefore most/all Christians want to make their religion mandatory." This is an extremely large leap in logic, to boot.

Nice strawman, dumb-ass.

[EmperorMing]

The last thing I want to see is a religeous document like the 10 commandments posted on any public building. As far as I am concerned, it would just give any christian religeous group more reason/justification to influence our government. People like Falwell and his kind come to mind...

[Durandal]

Didn't this thread die?

Ooh, you are going way out on a limb here. Did you really mean it when you said that a member of the government cannot let his religion influence the way he votes, or what he says in a political speech? If so, how can you possibly justify this under freedom of religion, and even if you could, how could this possibly be enforced, short of disallowing all religious people from holding political office (which is also a violation of religious freedom, and probably unenforceable as well).

Oh give me a fucking break.
Answer me this: How can Congress pass no law respecting establishments of religions if the members are basing their decisions on whether or not a bill respects their establishments of religion?

Let's say that Mrs. Whatshername is duly elected as a Senator by the voters in the state of Whatever. During her first term, the Blahblah Bill comes up for a vote. Senator Whatshername makes a public speech before the vote, saying in part that "I am a follower of Religion X, which clearly supports the provisions of the Blahblah Bill. Therefore, I will be voting Yes." And she does so. The bill passes, and in the next election, the people of Whatever overwhelmingly re-elect her.

This has happened. See the ban on prostitution, the ban on gay marriages, the life-sentences for sodomy between two consenting adults, the restrictions on pornography, the imprisonment of atheists for "being communists" during the McCarthy era, et cetera.

That's what happens when representatives let their religions influence their vote. People who aren't members of your religion get their views trampled on and rights violated.

If they can't put aside their religious beliefs and vote based purely on a bill's objective merit, then they shouldn't be in office. John F. Kennedy didn't have a problem with this, and publicly advocated the idea that a president or official not allow his religion to influence his decisions in any way because ... survey says ... CHURCH AND STATE ARE COMPLETELY SEPARATE.

What do you think should happen to Senator Whatshername? Should her vote be nullified because of her motivations? Should the Blahblah Bill be declared unconstitutional? Should she be forced to resign? Should the state of Whatever be expelled from the Union for supporting her?

Yes. If the bill infringes on others' rights, and Senator Whatshername voted on it because it agreed with her religious views, her sorry ass should be thrown out because she's incompetent to be in Congress.

[Darth Wong]

Falcon is actually a good example of religious circular thinking. First, they try to influence the government to post religious documents in public places, with the "it's harmless" argument. Then, they refer to their previous victory as proof that the country and government are inherently religious ("look at those religious documents; they prove we're a Christian nation!"), so we need more religious establishment.

In other words, Falcon has been using the existence of unconstitutional religious activity in government as proof that it's OK and should be permitted (or even extended) in future. Words fail me to describe how irritating this is.

[EmperorMing]

Falcon is actually a good example of religious circular thinking. First, they try to influence the government to post religious documents in public places, with the "it's harmless" argument. Then, they refer to their previous victory as proof that the country and government are inherently religious ("look at those religious documents; they prove we're a Christian nation!"), so we need more religious establishment.

In other words, Falcon has been using the existence of unconstitutional religious activity in government as proof that it's OK and should be permitted (or even extended) in future. Words fail me to describe how irritating this is.

This is *exactly* the kind of thing I don't want happening. Once they get started, it get's out of hand.

[Marcus]

Ohh, goodie, the fundamentalists came back and saved us from a nasty internal fight between the 'Mechanics-R-Good' and 'Oooh, Philisophical Shiney' subsets of SD.net.

[White Cat]

On behalf of Arrow, I would like to point out that his examples were simply designed to show that Christian intolerance is still alive and kicking in America.
Your attempt to claim that this is a red herring is mere sophistry; if it can be shown that Christians can get away with being grossly intolerant in public without a whiff of censure, then it has already been shown that modern society is amenable to the kinds of intolerant measures which he's talking about.

Basically, your argument boils down to "I know some Christians who are mean, therefore most/all Christians want to make their religion mandatory." This is an extremely large leap in logic, to boot.

Nice strawman, dumb-ass.

Actually, no. Arrow clearly stated that "So, yeah, if they could force the Ten Commandments on the population at large, every Christian in my area would do it." Now, you suggested in your first sentence that what he really meant was just that "Christian intolerance is still alive and kicking", but that's still not what he said.

[Durandal]

Actually, no. Arrow clearly stated that "So, yeah, if they could force the Ten Commandments on the population at large, every Christian in my area would do it." Now, you suggested in your first sentence that what he really meant was just that "Christian intolerance is still alive and kicking", but that's still not what he said.

Yeah, and? Every Christian in a small rural town in Alabama would probably enforce the Ten Commandments. That's not generalization; it's just a fact. When a town in Florida can get away with putting up a public decree banning Satan from their town, you can't claim that such scenarios are unlikely or impossible. They're extremely frequent. Like it or not, lots of groups of Christians in predominantly Christian rural towns will gang up on any non-Christian and drive him or her out of town.