US law/society - based on Christianity?

Is our government and our system of law based upon Christianity, in the US? This is split from another thread.

First I'd like to ask: If our laws are based upon Christianity, which sect? Catholicism? Some form of Protestantism? The values and beliefs of those sects vary greatly. If it's based on the Bible, which translation? And which interpretation of that translation? Interpretations vary greatly.

So you're saying that US Laws were in no way based on the laws of a religion (christianity/catholicism) and that swearing on the bible in court for example is just a gimmick. --Doc Sark

You don't have to swear on the Bible. You can take an alternative oath, and merely swear or affirm to tell the truth.

In fact, Article 6, Section 3 of the US Constitution states:

Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

( http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html )

And in the Bible, Matthew 5:

33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.



Its just coincidence that robbery, murder, slander etc are illegal and that they also are in the ten commandments.

Let's take a look at how many of the Ten Commandments are law, or have anything to do with law. There is the question of WHICH Ten Commandments you mean, of course, because the list isn't definite. Some list "Have no graven images" as one of the commandments and combine coveting wives and property into one; some leave out the graven images and split the last commandment into two. Let's go with the first list.

There is also a great deal of question as to what these commandments even MEAN. Taken in their original ancient Hebrew context, they could very well mean things very different than what the modern English versions mean. For example, you might read http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10co.htm . But let's just go with the common-sense modern English approach.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Not law. In fact one could argue that our country was founded on the principle of religious freedom, and our government is expressly forbidden from promoting this commandment in any way.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

This would outlaw taking pictures of anything, or painting, or making a statue. This is far from illegal.

The rest of that commandment is rather interesting: "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"? This certainly isn't law; people can't be punished if their great-grandfather committed a crime. Not only is it not law, it's outright IMMORAL by my standards, to punish a child for the crimes of his ancestors. Interestingly, there's a thread in this forum about people seeking reparations from other people whose ancestors were slave owners; those cases have been struck down by the courts, so far as I know.

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Not law. Freedom of speech one of the basic human rights in this country. "Jesus sucks"; you can't send me to jail for saying that.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Not law. Businesses operate on Sunday (and Saturday, depending on which Sabbath you like).

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Not law. Closest thing I can think of is parental rights over their children; this isn't unique to Christianity, and it has nothing to do with honoring.

Thou shalt not kill.

This is law. It's also far from unique to Christianity. And it happens to be disregarded when the US goes to war, or when criminals are put to death. Depending on your interpretation of "kill", though.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Not law. Adultery is icky, but legal.

Thou shalt not steal.

Law, but again, far from unique to Christianity. I can find you some Buddhist scriptures which say not to steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Law; no lying in court.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Not law, and rather silly.


Now, we have three commandments which are law, and seven that have nothing to do with law.

Where is the Biblical basis for freedom of press? Freedom of assembly? Right to bear arms? Etc. etc.

You can argue that our society was founded by Christians, and that much of our culture and tradition in modern times is still Christian. I will agree. Our laws and our morals and our values, however, are not Christian, and haven't been for a long time, if they ever were.

This is just like the chicken and the egg - were societal laws based on religious morals, or vice versa?

Question: Would the laws, supposedly not based on Christianity, still be around if Christianity didn't exist, or at least had not become as big as it is today? Although some of those laws do not have religious counterparts, many of them were made into law because of the person or persons set of beliefs. Their beliefs had influence over the law.

Hmm...yep. In no part of my post did I say that western (US in this case) law was rigidly based on christianity to the exact letter. I know this would be absurd, so really Unne, you have gone to a lot of trouble to tell me (and countless others I don't doubt) a lot of stuff that was already plain to see. Moving on...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by me!!
So you're saying that US Laws were in no way based on the laws of a religion (christianity/catholicism) and that swearing on the bible in court for example is just a gimmick.

---

The religions stated in the parenthesis were meant as an example,
I did not make this clear enough, and my statement about swearing on the bible was not totally accurate, I accept this, my apologies. Anyway...

Why is it illegal for people to kill and I'm not talking about war as that is a whole other debate?

Why is it illegal to steal?

Why is it illegal to lie under oath?

Because generations of people since the dawn of religion have upheld these values and morals. The lines we see as right and wrong hold their foundations in religion. Yes other values were upheld too but were slowly eroded away over time as people became more enlightened. Notice I did not mention any other commandments in my original post other than Robbery, Murder, Slander (lying whatever) the ones you have accepted are law. You have correctly stated that the first few commandments have nothing to do with US law and are irrelevant to this discussion as they concern worship, something which no democracy can legally impose. I could not agree more and wouldn't even make a stab at countering that.


Consider the morals and values that you hold as an individual, who imparted these morals and values upon you, where did they get theirs etc. Religion in the past has been the law in many cultures. Slowly over time in most countries of the world societies have moved away from having their lives dictated to them by religious doctrine, this is a good thing as religious laws are far too rigid at times, but since there has been no revolution in the western world completely denouncing religion in all its forms how can modern society and modern law not find their roots in religion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc Sark

Why is it illegal for people to kill and I'm not talking about war as that is a whole other debate?

Why is it illegal to steal?

---

Because they are detrimental to society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc Sark

Why is it illegal to lie under oath?

---

Because it can lead to serious problems including: Wrongful imprisonment, defamation of character, etc.

Back on the issue of the laws of the Ten Commandments and such. The secular laws on them have been in existence far longer than that. For instance, murder and theft are listed as severly punishable crimes in Hammurabi's Code. They may have been based on the Commandments, but I doubt it, since nearly every one of the founding fathers was a Deist.

Now I could be wrong...but didn't Hammurabi pass the code of laws becasue the babylonian gods told him too? Was he not the Priest King? Thus did he not base the laws of his land upon what his gods told him? Therefore basing his laws and the morals and values he would impart upon his society, on religion.

Four words: In God We Trust.

What I always found so interesting about the US political system and the laws we've passed, is that there always appears to be an underlying belief in a higher power who has given us our rights to be free. If you look at the Declaration of Independence, when it says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.." where did self-evident come from? I've seen it as meaning that a higher power has said that it is true. So, even at the very beginning of the creation of America, religion, or a belief in God at the very least, has been intertwined with our law.

Of course, America, the land of the free, has also passed more laws segregating people than any other country I've ever seen, so it would seem that if our society is based partially on religion, we might have gotten the messages wrong.

Take care all.

I was just stating that those laws had been in existence before the Ten Commandments. They most likely were "divinly inspired". Anyway, I seriously doubt that the laws were based on the commandements, because, as I said, most of the founding fathers, most notably Washington, Jefferson and Madison, were Deists, not Christians.

Maybe not, but Deists believe in God. Their religious beliefs would still have come in to play when passing laws etc.

Captain, as usual, couldn't agree more.

Religious beliefs maybe, but they weren't Christian. We are NOT a Christian nation, the founders were Deists and so did not believe a god played any role in anything except creating the universe. Which to me makes more sense than some of the more popular religions. I'm perfectly fine with people using "God" in the pledge/money what not, but they really shouldn't try to pass "Christian" laws. Not that I'm singling out Christians, I'd still be angry if they passed Buddhist laws (I'm a Buddhist myself, so that says a bit, I guess) that aren't secular like most of the Christian ones they've been pushing.

Washington wasn't a Christain? Please state your source, my friend.


http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html

This site seems to have a contrary stance.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, most Deists believed in God, affirmed the existence of a life after death, and respected Jesus as a great teacher and the Bible as a source of moral teachings. But Deists either rejected or doubted the deity of Jesus and refused to acknowledge the Bible as authoritative for believers.

---

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=2240 (for the rest of this article)

Washington would most definitely have respected the bible as a source of moral teachings and would have wanted to, and did in fact, impart some of these morals onto early american society. We know this because he swore on the bible when he was made President.

Quote:

---

Originally poated by jebusabsolute
We are NOT a Christian nation

---

Most certainly not, the U.S and many other western societies are hives of culture and religion, incorporating people from all religions, beliefs and cultural backgrounds. You are right.

Probably shouldn't have included Washington. :/

Anyhow, Madison and Jefferson were quite well known to be Deist at least (and as soon as I can either find another source of can swipe my AP Gov book from school I can proof it) and those two were major driving forces behind two of our countries most important documents. Jefferson being the one that wrote the Declaration of Independance, and Madison being important in the final draft of the constitution, and is called the "Father" of the constitution.

Anyway, if they wanted this to be a Christian nation they would've made the Bible the final authority on the law, and not the way they did it.

Doc Sark: So all you're saying is that morals must come from religion? Well that's not true. There are many, many systems of morality which have nothing to do with religion. See utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Randian objectivism for examples. http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...-atheism.shtml is a good place to read about morality with respect to atheism.

Utilitarianism bases morality upon happiness and pleasure/pain. Kantianism bases morality upon duty and logical universalizability and rationality. Objecivism bases morality upon rational self-interest. Just examples.

I would argue strongly that people's morality generally does NOT come from religion, but rather that religion reflects the morality people already have. If morality came from religion, why does morality change over time? The Bible doesn't change, for example, but people's notion of what the Bible "means" does change. The Bible once was thought to condone slavery, the inferiority of women to men, the inferiority of non-Christians to Christians, and in fact many of those things USED to be laws and used to be thought moral; but those notions have since been discarded. Why?

If you look at the Declaration of Independence, when it says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.." where did self-evident come from? --The Captain

Self-evident means that it didn't come from anywhere. It's self-evident; it proves itself. It's self-evident that I exist, for example, because I can't question my own existence unless I do exist.

So far as the question some people have posed, of whether the founding fathers were Christian, who cares? Most of our politicians today are Christian too, but that doesn't mean they go check the Bible every time they do anything.

"Self-evident means that it didn't come from anywhere. It's self-evident; it proves itself. It's self-evident that I exist, for example, because I can't question my own existence unless I do exist."

Wouldn't self-evident mean it DID come from somewhere, but is obvious?

Take care all.

self-evident

a. Evident without proof or reasoning; producing certainty or conviction upon a bare presentation to the mind; as, a self-evident proposition or truth.

Yes, but how is something JUST true? That's not logical to me. The only way something to me is self-evident is because it cannot be explained otherwise, meaning it must be from a higher power or something else unexplainable.

Take care all.

They weren't saying that those truths were self-evident. They said they hold them to be - meaning they were saying that they needed no reason to prove that all men are created free.

Okay, that's a good point, but still, where did this concept come from? Someone just decided that we're all free?

Take care all.

Okay, that's a good point, but still, where did this concept come from? Someone just decided that we're all free? --The Captain

People got together and said "You there, write down some laws, and if we like them we'll all agree to them". And they did. Freedom was probably picked as one of the things protected by law because people tend to like freedom. Why do governments make laws, and why do we live by them? Well, there are all kinds of theories. Social contract for example.

If it was decided by people though, how is it self-evident?

Take care all.

Could you argue that we all shouldn't be free?

I'm having trouble following this argument any longer. The founders wrote "We have freedom of religion" on paper; everyone signed it into law, and so it is. We all have an implicit contract with the government: you protect my freedoms and I'll obey the laws and pay my taxes, and so the laws apply to all of us. We have yet to amend the law to revoke our freedom of religion, and so it still is law, until and unless we do. If someday we do amend the law to revoke it, then we'll no longer have those freedoms. Law is thought up by men, instituted by men, enforced by men. Something doesn't even have to be TRUE to be law, let alone self-evidently true. Everyone just has to agree upon it, and/or the government has to have enough power to enforce it.

Unne, you yourself have argued in the past that humans' are flawed and their choices cannot always be the be all and end all, thus wouldn't it be impossible for a self-evident truth to come from a human if by its very nature it is just true without flaw?

Take care all.

Atheism would not have existed without religion, it is a response to revealed religion. Most famous atheists were already living in a society whose morals and values had been predefined, particularly around the time of the enlightenment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Unne
The Bible once was thought to condone slavery, the inferiority of women to men, the inferiority of non-Christians to Christians, and in fact many of those things USED to be laws and used to be thought moral; but those notions have since been discarded. Why?

---

As I already stated earlier, to follow the bible or any other holy book to the exact letter would be absurd. Also I sdon't see how Utalitarianism, Kantianism and Objecivism are relevant to the foundations of U.S Law and society, could you please back this up somehow?

And yes I am saying that American Culture, its laws and its morals hold their roots in religion. I am not saying as you keep mistakenly suggesting Unne, that I am in fact some kind of fundamentalist who believes that a religious text is a legal doctrine and that Americans all go around praising Jesus, Ala, whoever and that keeping slaves and that treating others unequally is condonable. Because it is not in this "civilised" age.

Do you celebrate Xmas? Many religious ceremonies have been assimilated by western culture and are now traditions. You cannot deny that this part of American culture is not founded in religion.

Unne, you yourself have argued in the past that humans' are flawed and their choices cannot always be the be all and end all, thus wouldn't it be impossible for a self-evident truth to come from a human if by its very nature it is just true without flaw? --The Captain

I'm still not understanding what you're getting at. I don't know what "come from" means, in the context in which you're using it.



Atheism would not have existed without religion, it is a response to revealed religion. --Doc Sark

I don't think you understand atheism. Atheism means lack of belief in gods. A newborn baby is an atheist. A person living in a remote place in Africa who never heard of Jesus is an atheist, with respect to Jesus. Atheism isn't a response to anything, it's the default position. You yourself are an atheist to Gonzo the Fire-God of Bilnor, because you never heard of him before I just made him up mentioned him. You didn't believe in him before I said anything; you don't believe in him after I said anything; your beliefs haven't changed. This is somewhat beside the point of this thread however.

Also I sdon't see how Utalitarianism, Kantianism and Objecivism are relevant to the foundations of U.S Law and society, could you please back this up somehow?

Just giving examples of a non-theistic morality. Your argument seemed to be "Morality can ONLY come from religion, therefore law in America comes from religion". I showed how morality CAN come from non-religious sources, so if the above was your argument, and if you agree that those things are examples of non-religious morality, then I think I've disproved it. I don't know what the founding fathers actually used as the basis of what they wrote. If you claim that the founding fathers based our laws upon religion, or upon Christianity specifically, then you need to back that up. You gave the examples of the Ten Commandments, and swearing on the Bible; I assumed that you were trying to show that our law IS based upon Christianity, which is why I responded to it.

If you're arguing something other than what I believe you're arguing, then if you can specifically state your position, I'll respond to it.

And yes I am saying that American Culture, its laws and its morals hold their roots in religion. I am not saying as you keep mistakenly suggesting Unne, that I am in fact some kind of fundamentalist who believes that a religious text is a legal doctrine and that Americans all go around praising Jesus, Ala, whoever and that keeping slaves and that treating others unequally is condonable. Because it is not in this "civilised" age.

Like I said, I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying. What is your definition of "religion"? You say that our laws are based upon "religion"; what religion? What parts of that religion? Or is it a mixture of all religions? A mixture of just some religions? A mixture of parts of one religion, and parts of another? Many religions, even many sects of the same religion (e.g. Christianity), have parts which directly contradict other sects or religions; what then? And which laws are based upon religion? All laws? Just some laws? Your argument isn't defined enough for me to respond to it, which is probably where I'm having a lot of confusion. I just need a better idea of what you're trying to say.

Do you celebrate Xmas? Many religious ceremonies have been assimilated by western culture and are now traditions. You cannot deny that this part of American culture is not founded in religion.

You can argue that our society was founded by Christians, and that much of our culture and tradition in modern times is still Christian. I will agree. --myself

All I'm getting at, is that a self-evident truth would seem to be one that has always been in existence, long before mankind.

Take care all.

US law is based on English common law which is based massively on the Bible, so i can simply say yes.

I think the whole idea of "truth" is that it's independent of man. "The earth is round" is true and has been for a very long time, but man didn't recognize it as true until fairly recently in history. "Man should be free" could be a truth which has always existed, even if man hasn't acknowledged it until recently. COULD be, that is; I don't know if "Freedom is good" is an objective truth, or if it even has anything to do with truth.

Hmm interesting point.

All I'm really saying, is that it always seemed odd to me that including self-evident into a document about freedom. It seemed that they were claiming they had a basic right as humans to be free, but then, where do these rights come from? That's all I'm getting at. If a truth is independent of a man, then it must just be true because it exists, correct?

So, to claim that it is self-evident, to me, would seem to say that right is given for all people who are humans and have come into existence. Yet, where did this truth come from? It's tough to agrue about this, if you don't have a belief in God or religion, because my claim that it came from their belief in God would have no value to you.

gokufusionss1, that is true. I believe many of the founding fathers had beliefs rooted in Common Law.

Take care all.

Well I gotta tell you Unne I can understand why people get ticked off with you in a debate.

I don't think you understand atheism. --Dr. Unne

Well I do, please don't patronise me. If your opinion on the matter is different that is fine, but don't insult my intelligence. I like to think I have shown you the same courtesy.

To be an Atheist in western society is a conscious choice to reject religion and gods, because we are taught that these beliefs exist, whatever they may be, therefore it is a response to revealed religion. O.K your statement about a man living in Africa in a cave may hold some credibility but it is a far flung example I feel.

My arguement is society, morals and laws of American culture hold their roots in religion. This opinion has never wavered, I don't think you have disproved this at all. You have told me of other sources morality may stem from, which I accept are POSSIBILITIES in the the founding of American laws, yet unlikely as the majority of the populus were not Objecivist, or Kantianists etc. Now gokufusions raised an interesting point about English common law and the founding fathers. This adds more weight to my arguement.

You can argue that our society was founded by Christians, and that much of our culture and tradition in modern times is still Christian. I will agree. Dr. Unne

US Laws/Society based on Christianity. --Thread Title.

There goes society then as you have conceded that in the above statement.

Why would the founding fathers base the laws of the country on a belief that few others would understand. If as gokufusions says, they did take English Common Law as a template, laws that WERE undoubtedly based on or at least scrutinised by the English Church, it is not far fatched to draw the conclusion that American law comes from a similar source.

My reasons for believing American Laws/Society to be based on religion:

1. George Washington, Deist. Swore in on the bible. As a Deist he held respect for the bible as a source of moral teaching and imparted these morals on to his citizens. Lets face it, even some of the bibles less credible suggstions were taken on board. Like slavery, which was legal at the time.

2. Christianity was the major religion in America when it was founded. Why would the society be based on anything else.

3. Christian traditions have stayed in American Culture. Xmas, Easter etc.

4. American Law based on English Law. The whole concept of the American Constitution comes from the Magna Carta. England at the time was looked after by the Catholic church, though we know this changed in the 16th century. These laws were passed in the name of God.

http://www.magnacharta.com/articles/article04.htm (an essay backing this up)

Here is a translation in full of the Magna Carta for anyone that wishes to read it. It is long however and some of the laws are obsolete now, as you would expect, it is nearly 800 years old.

http://www.bl.uk/collections/treasur...anslation.html

So you are a long way from disproving me Dr. Unne. If the American constitution was based on the Magna Carta and the Magna Carta was passed in the name of God in a country effectively run by the church then as I have said previously, American Law (it seems we are in agreement that American society is based on christianity), must hold its roots in a religion, be it Catholicism or Christianity.

To be an Atheist in western society is a conscious choice to reject religion and gods, because we are taught that these beliefs exist, whatever they may be, therefore it is a response to revealed religion. O.K your statement about a man living in Africa in a cave may hold some credibility but it is a far flung example I feel. --Doc Sark

I wasn't attempting to insult your intelligence. I AM an atheist, and I feel that I understand the nature of what I believe, seeing as how I'm the one who believes it. You have a different definition of "atheist"; that's fine, but that's not the definition myself and many other atheists use, nor is it even the definition of the word "atheist" in a literal sense. I didn't mean it as a personal insult.

There goes society then as you have conceded that in the above statement.

Culture, traditions, yes, much of those come from Christianity. I don't think I ever said otherwise. I'm only saying that I think that morality and law doesn't. "Society" was a poor choice of words on my part, because I think society covers both morals/law and cultures/traditions. To be clear, I agree that much of our culture and our customs and our traditions come from Christianity.

1. George Washington, Deist. Swore in on the bible. As a Deist he held respect for the bible as a source of moral teaching and imparted these morals on to his citizens. Lets face it, even some of the bibles less credible suggstions were taken on board. Like slavery, which was legal at the time.

So far as being sworn in on the Bible, I think the Constitution proves that to be an invalid argument, unless you're arguing that Washington disagreed with the Constitution. It expressly forbids requiring a religion test. If Washington himself invoked God in some way, I consider that a personal decision, not reflective of the official stance of our government.

As I said, our current leaders are still mostly Christian, and yet our laws aren't now based directly upon Christianity. It is possible for someone to belong to a religion, and not let that religion affect everything they do in their professional life. George Washington's belief or non-belief in God doesn't prove anything about whether our law is based upon a belief or non-belief in gods.

2. Christianity was the major religion in America when it was founded. Why would the society be based on anything else.

This is the Argument from Incredulity, i.e. "I can't think of anything other than X that can be true, therefore X is true". That's not a valid argument.

3. Christian traditions have stayed in American Culture. Xmas, Easter etc.

I agree, but this has nothing to do with law.

4. American Law based on English Law. The whole concept of the American Constitution comes from the Magna Carta. England at the time was looked after by the Catholic church, though we know this changed in the 16th century. These laws were passed in the name of God.

Side note: I seem like a jerk in debates because people say things and then don't bother backing them up, and still expect me to concede the point. If you define your argument and back yourself up, as you just did, then I will respect your argument.

Anyways, this is a somewhat more convincing argument. I will agree that the founding fathers used the Magna Carta as basis for some US law.

Howeer, the links you posted don't say anything about the Magna Carta being based upon Catholicism, nor religion in general. In fact the second link says that it was formed because people were tired of the abuses of power by the king. The sections that do mention religion seem only to say "The king should not interfere with the church, or limit its power". This is not true in the US; churches are subject to law just as any other organization. We have church-state separation, but it seems to me as though it's as much intended to protect law from religion as it is to protect religion from law.

Could you give me a link showing specifically how religion was the BASIS for the Magna Carta? The document mentions God, but just saying "God" in a document doesn't mean that religion or God is the BASIS for that document.

It is long however and some of the laws are obsolete now, as you would expect, it is nearly 800 years old.

I think that is very relevant, actually. Assume that the Magna Carta was based upon Catholicism, and that the US used the Magna Carta as basis for our law. Even if that was true, would you at least agree that our CURRENT law is not based upon religion? Our law has changed a lot since the beginning. Witness the fact that abortion is legal, for example, but seen as wrong by Catholics. Divorce is legal (not permitted in the Catholic Church so far as I know). Women are equal to men; women are not equal to men in the Catholic church. Christians are equal to non-Christians in terms of our law; in Catholicism this isn't true.

As I said, it's possible to swear in court without using a Bible. It's possible to marry without using a church or a priest, and that marriage is equal to a religious one. I can own land, just like a Christian; in the very beginning, only Christian men could own land, but we've abandoned that kind of primitive notion. Women can vote and hold office; they can't be priests in the Catholic church.

To say that US law is "based upon" religion, you seem to be using "based upon" in an extremely weak sense, that is, very unspecific. A government based upon religion, to me, is for example an Arab country in which the official religion is Islam, and Islam features specifically in the law. I would say that some of the early colonies' governments WERE deeply rooted in Christianity; it was illegal not to go to church in some places, for example; non-Christians were thrown out of society; etc. etc. That kind of thing is, to me, being "based upon" religion. That's not true of the US as it turned out, or as it currently stands.

You could as much say that our country is "rooted" in ancient Greek beliefs as you could say that our country is "rooted" in Christianity, since democracy is THE overriding principle upon which we function, and the Greeks were famous for implementing democracy.

I would argue that our country was (and is) influenced by a great many things in a great many ways, including but not limited to religion, but to say that religion is the "basis" for our country is to take things a bit too far.

Unne, I don't expect you to concede anything. You are entitled to what you believe as am I. As far as being a jerk, well you would be if you conceded a point without good reason so I respect you for not, just don't be rude. I am an Atheist too, because I have considered the options and decided they are all poppycock (how very british of me to use that word!!).

As for the argument of incredulity, hmmm you don't seriously expect me to agree with that. What I said is fact. It's not that I couldn't think of anything. Also I am not saying that the laws in America today are directly from religion, obviously amendments have been made to the laws since they were first written to accomodate changes in society.

As for the founding fathers. It has been noted on this thread that some of them were Deists, it is concievable that they believed in passing laws etc they were doing Gods work. Monarchs and Leaders have done this in the past. "In God we trust."

http://www.britainexpress.com/Histor.../christmas.htm

As I said, it's possible to swear in court without using a Bible. It's possible to marry without using a church or a priest, and that marriage is equal to a religious one. I can own land, just like a Christian; in the very beginning, only Christian men could own land, but we've abandoned that kind of primitive notion. Women can vote and hold office; they can't be priests in the Catholic church. --Dr. Unne

First off, marriage is a poor example because again it IS based upon a religion. It is a religious ceremony that we have assimilated into our culture, like Xmas and Easter, whether we adopt the religious way to do it or not.

I think the following quote epitomises morality and interpretations of this have changed over time as human beings as a race advance and become more enlightened, for me at least, it is one of the most profound statements the bible has to offer.

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Not too fussed about the I am the lord bit because I don't believe in him, but nevertheless this is telling human beings to be good to one another and it works within a society. I very rarely consult the bible for quotes but this concerns the essence of morality and the law is there to uphold the morals of society. For me this deals with your fundamental laws. Not doing unpleasant things to one another. I think now I would have to say that I don't believe Civil Laws to be based upon a religion, having researched the Magna Carta further today, though it is interesting to point out that the law was passed in the name of God and after the King James II was deposed it was made law that all leaders of England had to be Church of England Protestant, I believe this was in 1689. It is clear that the curch had an unnatrual amount of power, something it no longer has. Yet in an interesting yet rather confusing contradiction, early civil cases were dealt with in a church court.

http://www.englishorigins.com/help/ChurchCourts.aspx

I would argue that our country was (and is) influenced by a great many things in a great many ways, including but not limited to religion, but to say that religion is the "basis" for our country is to take things a bit too far. --Dr. Unne

This too is a very weak arguement. Very unspecific as you have accused me of at times. Obviously a country today, ANY country, is shaped by its history. Maybe I do take things a little too far by what I have previously said, but I think I have made a case for American laws and society, as is the title of the thread, hold many of their roots, not all perhaps though you have yet to give me an example of anything else, in religion, in this case Christianity and Catholicism.

I honestly think we have hit a brick wall here. There clearly is not going to be a right or wrong to this debate, as I don't honestly think there is a 100% right or wrong answer. I think we could debate this for days on end but I am supposed to revising for my finals in 12 days and I have spent a lot of time and energy debating this with you, my opinions are important to me Dr. Unne but I would like to get my degree!!! :) I've definitely learned a lot from this which can only be a good thing right?

I would be willing and delighted to concede any argument, if someone shows me how I'm wrong.

I think the following quote epitomises morality and interpretations of this have changed over time as human beings as a race advance and become more enlightened, for me at least, it is one of the most profound statements the bible has to offer.

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

I think this is the epitome of morality too, i.e. treat others like you want to be treated. It's also part of almost every single religion on the planet, and it's also part of my own morality even though I don't believe in God. My point being, I think that morality is for the most part a "common sense" thing, and just because Christianity grabs some parts and claims them, doesn't mean that it originated there.

Maybe I do take things a little too far by what I have previously said, but I think I have made a case for American laws and society, as is the title of the thread, hold many of their roots, not all perhaps though you have yet to give me an example of anything else, in religion, in this case Christianity and Catholicism.

I gave an example of many things which directly contradict the position of Catholicism. Equality of women, abortion, divorce.

This too is a very weak arguement. Very unspecific as you have accused me of at times.

Exactly. I was never making a specific claim, you were. I don't think any one thing can be pinned down as the basis of US law.

There clearly is not going to be a right or wrong to this debate, as I don't honestly think there is a 100% right or wrong answer.

I think there's almost always a right or wrong, but sometimes things are a bit fuzzy, especially where the terms aren't rigorously defined. I'm willing to drop it.

I've definitely learned a lot from this which can only be a good thing right?

That's the whole point of talking to anyone, right? I always learn something.

Actually, I don't think it really matters whether or not our laws are based on Chrisianity. I've never heard anyone say that they don't think murder, theft, rape, assault, etc. should be illegal. Thus, the whole argument is pointless.

It is pointless, until someone says something like "Gay marriage should be illegal, because our laws are based on the Bible, and all laws are based on the Bible". Then, it becomes useful to know whether or not the Bible does/should hold any sway when deciding our laws.

we'll for a christian the bible is the word of god and surely the words of the creator should have some bearing on our society and laws?

It is pointless, until someone says something like "Gay marriage should be illegal, because our laws are based on the Bible, and all laws are based on the Bible". Then, it becomes useful to know whether or not the Bible does/should hold any sway when deciding our laws. --Dr. Unne

Exactly. Thanks for the challenge Dr. Unne you certainly don't make debating easy. It's refreshing to have someone argue back with relevance. You don't happen to know anything useful on the Harlem Renaissance do you? I have to answer a question on it for one of my exams. PM me if you have any opinions on it, I would be most interested to hear them.

You know, you could reach farther back in history and claim our American laws are a derivative of the Justinian Code. It gathered Roman law under one roof back in the 6th century, and eventually became the basis for Western law. The Magna Carta, on the other hand, was more a set of concessions made the King of England to his people.

The Justinian Code and the philosophies of John Locke. If you wanted to say America was based on a certain religion, it'd have to be Protestantism (seeing as Maryland was the only Catholic colony that became a part of the U.S.). Still, it's a bit of a stretch to say our laws and society were based on religious doctrines and the like.

at my school is a five hundered page book of the documentation of america's roots in God. The founding fatherd didn't want a bill of rights because they considered it redundant, it would codify rights given by God. Washington's inauguration speech: "this country owes more to the invisible hand [God] than any other on earth" terrible paraprase, but...
let me ask you. What are the battle cries of the revolution. Have you ever heard them. I'd be supprised if you did, they're pretty politically incorrect: "No king but King Jesus!" Modern historians try to claim that the founding fathers were deists. This doesn't work. Jefferson and Franklin were, and coincidentially they are focused on more than any others. That deist concept doesn't work because the prayer journal of Washington is considered to be one of the better christian prodistant devotional works. Go back further. The first governing city on this continent was the massachusets colony, who saught to become a "shining city on a hill" the same language used in matthew five to describe the followers of christ. The fact is that if the colonists weren't fighting for their God they wouldn't have revolted knowing what would happen to them. Most of the signers of the decleration of independance had bad happen to them in the war. Five were executed as traitors.Twelve had their homes raized to the ground. Two had sons killed in the war, two more had sons captured in the war, nine died in the war! What can make men do this. Liberty that they will never taste. What makes iraqis blow themselves up in the streets for a hopeless cause. Colonial america is much to england as iraq is to us as far as military power (it's not imperialism, don't get any ideas).

Now to the government itself. Why do we have a senate. That's roman. Why do we have two houses? That's the form of government used by the jews sometime after the decline of their monarchial powers. It's strongly religious. It was fed with many religious things. That's why the marriage amendment is so debated. Marriage is religious. The church essentially owns marriage, and the conservative church wants it back the way they gave it to them. Religion loaned somthing to the government. The responsibility of the government is to take care of what we have given to them as we want it taken care of. The reason there's so much controversy is because the church is as happy with getting back a different form of marriage as you'd be if while I was houssitting for you, I burnt your house down because I claimed it as mine. Now I know that's a touchy subject but it's the best practical example of lending somthing to the government. PLEASE take it as such and not a point to debate. I don't want to start a terrible tangent.

Clyde Arronway, without giving sources, there isn't much to debate anyways; just a bunch of assertions on your part. I find it hard to believe a lot of what you said, and I rather fully disagree with you about marriage, but I'll drop it.

Doc Sark, I've never heard of the Harlem Rennaisance.

Oh well never mind. It's considered to be an important movement in American Modernity, loads of fromer slaves flocking to New York because it was seen as a cultural mecca, blah blah blah. Is it possible fro something to be interesting yet deeply boring at the same time

"Doc Sark, I've never heard of the Harlem Rennaisance."

Wow, really?! I always thought that was a major event in the history of progressive thought in America, and thus was well known throughout the country. Perhaps I'm just bias because I live close to Harlem..

Langston Hughes, jazz music, it all came out of that time.

Take care all.

I love langston hughes. His poetry is great. Hey captain maybe you can help me. Please PM me if you have info on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Unne

Clyde Arronway, without giving sources, there isn't much to debate anyways; just a bunch of assertions on your part. I find it hard to believe a lot of what you said, and I rather fully disagree with you about marriage, but I'll drop it.

---

The marriage was an example, I did not make a statement.
And most of what you have learned in your life is sourceless. In this world that is how education works. You have your own opinions and have not cited them once (doc sark has, I'm not aiming this at all of you).

If you want sources, give me yours first. I will however find for you the book you might just want to read before you consider america atheist.
Also remember that a large amount of your evidence may well be fabricated. There's a famous letter used by american history text books that shows the sexist nature of adams. Consequently it was discovered that that letter never exitsted. It was made up by the text book.