| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
| Should the 10 Commandments be there? |
| YES |
|
31% |
[ 6 ] |
| NO |
|
68% |
[ 13 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 19 |
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland |
I believe in evolution and I doubt our primate ancestors actually found thieving and stealing morally acceptable. What do you consider to be first and why is it important?
As for death penalties what you say is a cop out. You either agree or don't with the death penalty when it existed in your country. If you don't and do nothing then what's your moral stance on the matter. Or is morality determined by what the curch says as you apparently imply?
_________________
Kewl quotes:
I often have an odd sense of humor - Roach
Why quote somebody else, think of something yourself. - XeroX
...you won't have to unbookmark this site, we'll unbookmark you. - Val
Reports Myrthos for making me scared and humbled at the mere sight of his name - kayla |
Mon Sep 01, 2003 7:42 pm |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
Myrthos, we're starting to drift way off topic here, so to bring it back a little, let me comment on just one of your statements. (many of the others could be separate threads) You said it was impossible to separate morality and the law. That was my original point. That's what this whole debate on separation of church and state is about. Whether you like it or not, the American moral and to a large extent legal code is based on the Bible. As you yourself have said, they cannot be separated and therefore should not be. Case closed!! 
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Mon Sep 01, 2003 10:24 pm |
|
|
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland |
Not exactly, you can not separate morality and the law. We agree on that issue. What we disagree about is that religion is the foundation of current day morality. If we were in a different time a few decades ago (not to many though) we would probably have agreed. My point is that morality changes, points of view change and even if religion is the basis of the law so many years ago, times have changed. In a multi cultural society, with multiple religions and multiple attitudes morality changes. It is not a fixed thing that is set in stone once and stays like that, neither do laws.
As such I believe that what I consider to be my morality to not be based on religion, but on my surroundings. One of the elements in that surrounding is most likely to be religion, but it's not the only one and from my perspective not even the foundation.
Therefor I would disapprove of the 10 commandments being part of a Dutch court, unless they were accompanied with equal representations from all religions and non-religions that make up our modern day society.
_________________
Kewl quotes:
I often have an odd sense of humor - Roach
Why quote somebody else, think of something yourself. - XeroX
...you won't have to unbookmark this site, we'll unbookmark you. - Val
Reports Myrthos for making me scared and humbled at the mere sight of his name - kayla |
|
Mon Sep 01, 2003 10:49 pm |
|
|
sauron38
Rara Avis
Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 4396
Location: Winnipeg's Sanctum Sanctorum |
quote:
Originally posted by Myrthos
I believe in evolution and I doubt our primate ancestors actually found thieving and stealing morally acceptable. What do you consider to be first and why is it important?
Since the term cop out has now appeared four times, I will have to explain the history of Law. "In the Beginning..."
2350 BC: Urukagina's Code - Perhaps the oldest administrative codes ever, these ordinances laid out by the Mesopotomaian Kings were never found, but in writings that refer to them it says that their entire purpose was to make the people know that their "king was appointed by the gods" and to keep secure the throne.
2050 BC: Ur-Nammu's Code - Written by Shugli, son of Ur-Nammu, this code of laws was discovered in such poor condition that only five articles could be translated. It is however, the earliest set of laws actually uncovered partially intact. There were concepts of giving testimony under oath, but also rather barbaric practises, one of them being that blood money paid to a victim's family would satisfy the judges of the time and it could be paid in place of facing stoning.
1700 BC: Hammurabi's Code - The King came to power around 1750 BC, and under his rule, this set of rules, containing 282 clauses containing obligations to areas such as slavery, marriage, theft, debts, rights, professions, and commerce. "An eye for an eye" is a principal that does quite well to summarize the spirit of the Code. The punishments, however, are by most any modern standard, barbaric. "The punishment for theft was the cutting off of a finger or a hand. A man's lower lip was cut off if he kissed a married woman. Defamation was punished by cutting out the tongue. If a house collapses because the builder did not make it strong enough, killing the owner, the builder was put to death. If the owner's son died, then the builder's son was executed."
1300 BC: The Ten Commandments - "According to the Bible, it was in approximately 1300 BC that Moses received a list of ten laws directly from God. These laws were known as the Ten Commandments and were transcribed as part of the Book of Moses, which later became part of the Bible. Many of the Ten Commandments continue in the form of modern laws such as "thou shalt not kill" (modern society severely punishes the crime of murder), "thou shalt not commit adultery" (modern society allows a divorce on this grounds) and "thou shalt not steal" (modern society punishes theft as a crime). The Bible chapter that contains the Ten Commandments (Exodus) follows the recitation of the Commandments with a complete set of legal rules, which are based on the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" legal philosophy of Hammurabi's Code."
1280 BC to 880 BC: The Laws of Manu -
621 BC: Draco's Law -
600 BC: Lycergus' Law -
536 BC: The Book of Punishments-
These laws, I group together because they had some things in common. Yes, they all took issue against stealing, murder, and the like, however, they were all extremely barbaric in how they dealt with such crimes. Goodness, the phrase 'draconian' comes from one of those, and it is by no means the worst of them. Definite class systems were created and strictly enforced, infanticide was turned into a science, and one would be liable to lose a nose (or somethings much worse) if they were caught doing something 'wrong.'
Yes, there were laws before the Ten Commandments, but until quite recently, all of the other codes or sets of laws were, as said a couple times before, absolutely barbaric. Sure, there are parallels in what actions are taboo, but why is it that one set seems to have superseded all of the sets that surrounded it in history? People are not publically tattooed or branded (much) anymore, but monetary recompense or confinement for a set duration are often sought if someone was wronged in the eyes of the law.
I could (as always) say more, but it wouldn't add anything of value at the moment.
quote:
You either agree or don't with the death penalty when it existed in your country...
Firstly, the Greek/Hebrew 6th Commandment should be read as "Thou shalt not murder." Canada has no such death penalty. If, however, one were to be in place, I would not oppose its existence. I feel strongly in neither direction, but am mildly for it, but am for staying as at present slightly more. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
I do not know if morality is determined by what the Church has to say. I do however know that The Holy See says it's all right, and that's fine with me.
quote:
What we disagree about is that religion is the foundation of current day morality.
Morality and law are inseparable, as you say. Mm... I could get a good run out of that one, but no.
Of course religion is the foundation of our morality today, that is if the premise that morality and law are inseparable is true. This of course is because a foundation is the base point, the beginning, the first stone, etc.
The first laws (and therefore, "imposed morality") were set by kings who wished to remain kings, in order to do this, they said that it was the gods themselves who made them kings and so they created laws based on the principal that they were divine beings. Keep this in mind. The kings had wealth and power and armies and loyal, tax-paying subjects. The kings did not want their wealth being stolen, their power undermined by wandering savants, their armies to grow gluttonous, and worst of all, their tax-paying subjects to end up killed in a dispute over a paltry amount of bread. Thus, all of the above were banned, and it was only as a secondary effect that the peasantry was also protected from having stuff stolen from them or having their family killed.
"The king, may he live forever, told me not to beat you to the ground if I caught you stealing my chicken but instead to go see the magistrate he, in his infinite and divinely inspired wisdom, appointed. That way, if you are in fact found guilty of stealing my chicken by a group of unbiased citizens, you will be punished according to the laws of discipline set out by the king in his most infallible writing position, I will be compensated much more than I would be if I were to have beaten you up, and your family will not try to get revenge for a dozen generations to come. The king is l33t."
And so you have witnessed the birth of law (and therefore morality?) and you can see that it is well grounded in religion. Maybe? 
If your point is more along the lines that although there was the obvious contribution that religious Law made to countries like America historically, it should have no grounds today... *sigh*
"Welcome to America. Now speak English."
Again, I like to think that Americans have “Freedom of Religion” not “Freedom from Religion.”
quote:
Therefor I would disapprove of the 10 commandments being part of a Dutch court
That's the thing. The Monument itself held no power, it could neither condemn nor pardon, but that which it represented was a critical aspect of American Law. Keeping the Monument or taking it away has no bearing on how the decisions will be made in the court, to use an analogy, it's like taking off your wedding band. You're still married, but people who look at you won't know that.
quote:
unless they were accompanied with equal representations from all religions and non-religions that make up our modern day society.
Now that is impossible. Someone once said that "The best possible religion was one that borrowed from all others." Ten minutes later, someone else said that "The worst possible religion was one that borrowed from all others."
_________________
Make good choices. |
|
Tue Sep 02, 2003 4:33 am |
|
|
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland |
Forgive me for not reading all of that, I really hate lengthy posts. I scanned through it and what I gathered from it is what I already said in one line of text. In an other era of time I might have agreed.
But this is another era and I disagree with the concept that morality as it exisits today as a whole is defined by religion or even solely based upon it. Religion is one of the aspects that define morality, but not the one and only. A thousand years ago, things were different as morality is not a fixed thing.
Morality is defined by people. Even a king that passes laws to keep himself on the throne does not pass these laws out of religion. His morality to do so is not based on religion either. He uses religion to get the laws enforced and accepted and he uses religion to make them morally right.
Religion is mixed into our laws. But not only christian religion is. There are laws in my country supporting other religions as well, that might not have made it if we would view things from a christian point of view only. By putting up the 10 commandments only a direct link between the law and only a subset of religions is made. Our modern day law is not defined only by one religion alone. There are many laws that are not defined by any religion either.
I don't expect any person walking into a Dutch courtroom to be judged by the 10 commandments, as such they have no place there.
Besides that I don't consider all laws to be neccessarily moraly right, even though my neighbour might think differently about that.
_________________
Kewl quotes:
I often have an odd sense of humor - Roach
Why quote somebody else, think of something yourself. - XeroX
...you won't have to unbookmark this site, we'll unbookmark you. - Val
Reports Myrthos for making me scared and humbled at the mere sight of his name - kayla |
|
Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:29 am |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
I think we're starting to go in circles here. Myrthos, I believe the main point Sauron (and to some extent myself) was trying to make, is that the foundation or base of American Law, was the 10C's. It has developed and changed from that, and perhaps for many people, all of those commandments no longer apply to their personal morality. However, the monument was not saying this is the LAW for today, rather I see it as an historical piece honouring the origins of the current law. No-one is saying this is even current morality for all people, but some are saying that it should have NO part in the modern legal system, even as a piece of history. I think that's enough from me on this topic.
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
|
|
Tue Sep 02, 2003 12:30 pm |
|
|
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland |
Well we are not starting to go in circles, we have been for a while 
Anyway a court is not just another institution. It's where people are judged and trialed as objective as possible (or at least it should be like that). In some places peoples life depend on it.
The 10 commandments are a strong religious symbol, regardless if it is the basis of modern day law or not, it might indicate preference and bias in a court of law, atleast it would to me.
_________________
Kewl quotes:
I often have an odd sense of humor - Roach
Why quote somebody else, think of something yourself. - XeroX
...you won't have to unbookmark this site, we'll unbookmark you. - Val
Reports Myrthos for making me scared and humbled at the mere sight of his name - kayla |
|
Tue Sep 02, 2003 1:36 pm |
|
|
sauron38
Rara Avis
Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 4396
Location: Winnipeg's Sanctum Sanctorum |
A preference in which direction? Personally, I'd be more afraid of seeing the 10C's before me than any other religious code, even if they in effect said the same thing, because for the purposes of this, one is *real* and one is a *silly confused thing*, if I were to have violated a secular law that also existed in both the 10C's and the hypothetical religious code.
_________________
Make good choices. |
|
Tue Sep 02, 2003 3:15 pm |
|
|
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland |
I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying here, even if it's a lot shorter 
If I ever need to be trialed then I want to be trialed based on the law. My lack of religion, the religion of the judge, whether or not I did something that conflicted with the 10 commandments or any other religious code should be of no importance and relevance. Having the 10C's up there could indicate otherwise.
_________________
Kewl quotes:
I often have an odd sense of humor - Roach
Why quote somebody else, think of something yourself. - XeroX
...you won't have to unbookmark this site, we'll unbookmark you. - Val
Reports Myrthos for making me scared and humbled at the mere sight of his name - kayla |
|
Tue Sep 02, 2003 3:40 pm |
|
|
sauron38
Rara Avis
Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 4396
Location: Winnipeg's Sanctum Sanctorum |
And upon what was the law based? ...
As you seem to suggest, the best that could be gleaned from the Bible is a history lesson. So ought not they remember where the laws of the court came from? To deny that something happened is different than dismissing the modern day importance of it.
Eg. The fact is: the first known 'court' decision was in 1850 BC.
Saying that it was not in 1850 BC is outright lying, but saying that it should not be the basis for all law seems to be much more acceptable. If this were not the case, the most powerful people in society would be corrupt judges and the winner of legal proceedings would be the party best at personal duelling.
_________________
Make good choices. |
|
Tue Sep 02, 2003 4:17 pm |
|
|
dteowner
Shoegazer
Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 7570
Location: Third Hero of Erathia |
quote:
Originally posted by corwin
However, the monument was not saying this is the LAW for today, rather I see it as an historical piece honouring the origins of the current law.
If it's a historical piece, why are all those zealots down there only talking about God? Those protests aren't being held by the Alabama Historical Society...
_________________
=Proud Member of the Non-Flamers Guild=
=Benevolent Dictator, X2/X3 and Morrowind/Oblivion Forums=
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
RIP Red Wings How 'Bout Dem Cowboys! |
|
Tue Sep 02, 2003 9:13 pm |
|
|
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland |
I'm sorry Sauron but I can only reply by running the same circle again. If required, I am judged by modern day law, not the one in 1850BC or whatever era. I don't want to be be judged by the 10 commandments. Whether or not they are the basis of the law is irrelevant for that.
Putting such a symbol up in a court of law, which is not a museum, to me indicates a bias towards religion. Ideally a court of law should be a place without bias.
Now I've run through the circle enough times I gather.
_________________
Kewl quotes:
I often have an odd sense of humor - Roach
Why quote somebody else, think of something yourself. - XeroX
...you won't have to unbookmark this site, we'll unbookmark you. - Val
Reports Myrthos for making me scared and humbled at the mere sight of his name - kayla |
|
Tue Sep 02, 2003 9:14 pm |
|
|
goshuto
Wanderer
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 1142
|
The first known code of law is Urukagina's Code, around 2350 BC. US law, and the law of most modern countries, is actually based in Roman law, not the ten commandments. The ten commandments represent not the origin of the law, not religious preferences, but the very core of the American culture, and part of what made the US what it is today. American citizens should be protesting, not just christians.
Removing it is a mistake.
_________________
"Tree stuck in cat. Firemen baffled."--Simcity 3K
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."--Soren Aabye Kierkegaard |
|
Tue Sep 02, 2003 10:34 pm |
|
|
Lord_Brownie
High Emperor
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
Posts: 575
Location: Unfashionable arm of the spiral galaxy |
Religion, law, and morality. U.S. law is based only partialy on religion, fact is, instead of making a new huge body of law from scratch, the young country 'cut and paste' British common law, thus aboration was legal for many decades. A postion that many Christians nowdays would find unacceptable. British comman law has a long and varied history, and it would incorporate many sources, not just Christian. Saying that U.S. law stems soley from religion or that morality stems soley from religion seems too far reaching or broad of a postion to be quantified. Can someone be moral outside of the context of religion? Would he know if he was moral? Does he need to know if he is moral, if he has not preexisting religious compass or others to tell him/her? My guess is he would indeed coming up some form of morality, and a name for it, but is this a religion by defination? A from of spirituality, it is. Morality would then stem form spiritality (Spiritality deff. from merriam-webster online: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal). So as we learn to define things, we also give them a 'spiritual' value, and thus form morality. Subjective, yes, but there seems to many be many who can agree to many things. Reminds me of a Computer Gaming World bit they used to do years ago. Once a month they would ask a computer game maker to say what kind of game he would make if he had no techincal or time limits or buget limits. One answer (I cant recall who) was something like this: I would a 100% accurate interactable with virtual world. Then I get 1000s of people, erase all their memories and put them in world with knowledge of the real world. I would leave them there for 100 years, and comeback to see if they had invented religion yet.
Seems like this would solve some mystory around the matter.
LB |
|
Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:29 am |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
quote:
Originally posted by goshuto
... The ten commandments represent not the origin of the law, not religious preferences, but the very core of the American culture, and part of what made the US what it is today. American citizens should be protesting, not just christians.
Removing it is a mistake.
There is no core American culture, if you haven't noticed. Ask a Muslim or a Scientologist, or a Wicken whether the 10Cs is the essence of their culture. It may be a part of many American's culture, but not everyone's. That monument belongs in a museum or a church, but not a courthouse. The core of American culture should be freedom from the kind of bias created by placing religious monument in an instutution that belongs to everyone.
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:34 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:54 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
