Now on ScienceBlogs: HeartlandGate: Anti-Science Institute's Insider Reveals Secrets
Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture
Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
« Disagreeing with Kuznicki | Main | Palin the Creationist »
Posted on: November 19, 2009 9:16 AM, by Ed Brayton
From our old friend Joseph Farah:
Further, I would suggest to you the big "take-away" from any biblical study of the death penalty would suggest that it is the very basis of God's rules for governance on Earth. It's the very foundation. Take it away and you take away the very underpinning of a Judeo-Christian civilization.
Sounds like another good reason to get rid of the death penalty.
Politicsdenialism blog 02.14.2012
respectful insolence 02.14.2012
uncertain principles 02.13.2012
confessions of a science librarian 02.13.2012
starts with a bang! 02.13.2012
Comments
Wow. That is just bizarre. I mean, it has nothing to do with being pro- or anti-death penalty. Just saying that the underpinning of Judeo-Christian civilization is killing people is weird. And saying the underpinning of Judeo-Christian civilization is killing people who deserve it doesn't make it any better; in fact, it makes it even weirder. To me anyway.
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 19, 2009 9:30 AM
According to the 10 commandmnets shouldn't members of the armed forces and emergency services be imprisoned for working on sundays?
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | November 19, 2009 9:30 AM
Chiroptera - Even wierder, if you read all the things that get people the death penalty in the Old Testament, it becomes pretty clear that parts of Levitical law are about killing people who didn't really deserve it.
Very creepy.
Posted by: Moderately Unbalanced Squid | November 19, 2009 9:40 AM
If we're supposed to kill those we think are guilty, then what the hell was Christ all about?
Posted by: Rodney | November 19, 2009 9:48 AM
At least we know Mr. Farah is not capable of accurately articulating exactly what he means by "Judeo-Christian civilization" within the framework of the American experience. If pressed he'd probably point to Sen. Joe Lieberman and then pat himself on the back for how tolerant he is of competing theologies.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 19, 2009 9:57 AM
Happy to report that in Australia, England and many other places besides, the Judeo-Christian 'Civilisation' has collapsed and nobody even noticed.
All here (relatively speaking) is well. No noticeable cat/dog sex, no axe-murders gibbering and running amok in streets, not even an upswelling (*ahem*) in licentiousness. Just same-sex civil unions, afordable socialist health-care for all and lots of sun.
Hope your Judeo-Christian 'Civilisation' collapses soon. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 19, 2009 10:13 AM
That's a sigfile quote for sure. The death penalty is the very basis for Christianity. Awesome.
Put it on billboards.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | November 19, 2009 10:14 AM
Assertions about what God requires of us all tend to say more about the asserter than about anything else--but they're not usually this blatant.
This is a very screwed-up guy.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | November 19, 2009 10:26 AM
I've never used the term "death cult" to refer to Christianity, but I guess Farah wants me to.
Posted by: Taz | November 19, 2009 10:31 AM
Whatever happened to "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"?
The more I hear from Christian pundits, the less their worldview sounds anything like that of the legendary man that they allegedly follow. Rather, they have become the very Pharisees that Jesus reportedly castigated for their lies and hypocrisy.
~David D.G.
Posted by: David D.G. | November 19, 2009 10:33 AM
What if the story went this way...
Due to crucifixion's classification as "cruel and unusual punishment" and the subsequent moratorium, Pontius Pilate sentenced Jesus Christ to a 5-10 year prison sentence. Christ, being the nice guy he was, was granted early release on grounds of good behavior. Upon his release, Jesus discovered that all of his cohorts went off and found real jobs. Feeling deserted, Jesus resorted to a life of crime and spent the rest of his life in and out of the clink on charges ranging from petit theft to prostitution. Jesus Christ died at the age of 47 - "complications from syphilis" being the cause of death as determined by the coroner. The fact that Christ was infected with such a deadly disease was a closely-guarded secret, known only by his long-time confidante (and alleged life partner), Paul of Tarsus.
See? No capital punishment, no Judeo-Christian civilization.
Posted by: Michael from Idaho | November 19, 2009 10:40 AM
Silly me, I thought the basis for Christianity was the resurrection. And here it was the crucifixion the whole time!
Posted by: RickD | November 19, 2009 10:41 AM
Well, if you follow the bible's version of Justice, then you have to follow Moses's example who slew whole tribes and cities for the crime of passing venereal disease to his soldiers.
Posted by: Chilidog | November 19, 2009 10:42 AM
Australia is now so off my vacation list.
Posted by: Mandrake | November 19, 2009 11:07 AM
Sorry, but I don't see anything wrong about Farah's statement. The Bible is chock full with death penalties and they are used as coercion for "the very basis of God's rules for governance on Earth".
From stoning and burning abomination-lovers at the city gates, to the annihilation of entire populations, to threats of eternal agony in the firepit of Hell the Judeo-Christian tradition is indeed built upon the fear of severe
Divine retribution.
Farah is just tellin' it like it is. The Judeo-Christian tradition is a fear and death cult.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 19, 2009 11:10 AM
So much for promoting the "Culture of Life" that the wingnuts were on about a few years back (eg. during the Terri Schiavo episode). Nope: the basis of civilization is killing the right people.
That, and men standing up to pee.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | November 19, 2009 11:19 AM
Just think how close we were to destroying Judeo-Christian civilization in 1972. A lost opportunity.
Posted by: Owen | November 19, 2009 12:22 PM
I think Farah should get props for being honest for once.
I agree that the foundations of a true "Judeo-Christian" society would be fear, intimidation and bloodthirsty revenge for even the most trivial of offenses or incorrect thought.
Posted by: Zachary Smith | November 19, 2009 12:41 PM
DingoJack: Much as I enjoy life in my Socialist Paradise, I think it would be stretching things to suggest that England enjoys lots of sun.
(Although we could claim to suffer from too much Sun.)
Posted by: SimonG | November 19, 2009 12:51 PM
Michael Heath "If pressed he'd probably point to Sen. Joe Lieberman and then pat himself on the back for how tolerant he is of competing theologies."
Faux-populist, opportunist weasel is theology now? And even if that's so, they're both FPOW.
David D.G. " Rather, they have become the very Pharisees that Jesus reportedly castigated for their lies and hypocrisy."
Pah! Didn't you read the Conservapedia Bible? The Pharisees were the Liberals-slash-intellectuals of their day! Jesus, being a Conservative, came to change things and found that Liberals wanted to maintain the status quo.
On a side note, words have no meaning anymore.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 19, 2009 1:13 PM
SimonG - Here, Penrith (in Sydney's western suburbs) is experiencing it's 41st day of temperature above 30 Celsius (> 86o F), Much of the south east of the continent in under extreme fire conditions (similar to that experienced during the last bush fires that killed hundreds of people, burnt out whole communities, and devastated the bush).
England, even in winter, is starting look preferable to here right now. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 19, 2009 1:17 PM
Current temperature (at around 5:15 am local) is 19.4oC or 66.92oF.
It's gonna be a scorcher, and it's only spring. Who can tell what summer will bring? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 19, 2009 1:22 PM
I gotta agree with Gingerbaker @15. To anyone who has actually read the bible, it seems like Farah has it exactly right.
Posted by: Jackbruce | November 19, 2009 1:25 PM
I just look at the pictures.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 19, 2009 1:28 PM
"judeo-christian" my not-quite-jewish ass. I wish these guys would stop implying that somehow jews are just like christians, except for the wee unimportant little thing about failing to accept christ.
Teh phrase 'judeo-christian' is used almost always as aa way to pre-empt jews as just another kind of christain, so that the christians can claim a greater rationale to inflict their theology and morality on those of us who don't want it.
Posted by: Lee | November 19, 2009 1:45 PM
He's right. Without the death penalty, there would be no need for Jesus' sacrifice. ("The wages of sin is death..." Romans 6:23 and "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." Hebrews 9:22, KJV)
And without hell, there would be no need for that "remission"; after all, if death equates to sleep or non-existence, well, that's the lot of everyone, forgiven or not.
So death and hell are the essential basics of the Christian religion.
Thing is, when I realized that, it was basically the final blow to my Christian faith. Why is it not for Farah?
Posted by: Susannah | November 19, 2009 1:57 PM
let's take this back a bit further...before other humans stuck their nose in this business. i just have to wonder if Farah agrees with God's direct decision to exile rather than execute Cain for murdering Abel (at the time 1/4 of humanity, right?).
Posted by: tony | November 19, 2009 5:53 PM
Susannah,
"Thing is, when I realized that, it was basically the final blow to my Christian faith. Why is it not for Farah?"
That is the ultimate question about religiosity. The failure of atheists to come up with a rational (very important word, there) answer for that question is why we remain not only a minority, but a vilified minority.
The other atheists whom I encounter in life and on the internet are, almost to a person, nearly exclusively concerned with slapping down believers, wagging their schlongs about how wonderful they (the atheists) are, and patting themselves on the back for their lives of rationality.
The trouble is, their comments show them to be anything but rational.
Daniel Dennett is about the only person I've ever heard of who actually uses his intellect to try to understand the phenomenon of religiosity, rather than merely writing off all religious experience as “delusion” and “willful ignorance.” Of course there is a lot of delusion and willful ignorance associated with religion, but so is there with nearly every human endeavor, including science – one of the most important and common being that calling oneself “good in science” somehow equates to being rational in all the other parts of one’s life.
PS Those who label me a “concern troll” will be proving my thesis. Thanks.
Posted by: 10000li | November 19, 2009 6:47 PM
"The other atheists whom I encounter in life and on the internet are, almost to a person, nearly exclusively concerned with slapping down believers, wagging their schlongs about how wonderful they (the atheists) are, and patting themselves on the back for their lives of rationality."
I have to wonder exactly where you've been hanging out. The atheists I congregate with are heavily concerned with religion's entanglement with government and other areas of public life, such as public school science classes.
I don't know any atheists who seek to "slap down believers", they seek to challenge the unquestioned privilege religion has enjoyed in the culture for far too long, and to highlight the harm it wreaks in areas such as civil rights, equality for women, gays and non-white races, reality-based sex education (such as the radical notion that condoms don't actually cause AIDS, thank you pope Palpatine), a whole realm of issues that affect the lives of real people, every single day.
But please, if you know of atheists who wait outside Sunday schools with bullhorns and baseball bats, ready to berate the stupid believers, by all means, show the evidence.
Posted by: Rick R | November 19, 2009 7:32 PM
Rick R "But please, if you know of atheists who wait outside Sunday schools with bullhorns and baseball bats, ready to berate the stupid believers, by all means, show the evidence."
What about the obnoxious atheists who protest outside UnPlanned Parenthood, hmm?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 19, 2009 7:43 PM
10000li, 28: PS Those who label me a “concern troll” will be proving my thesis. Thanks.
Well, you have to admit, that comment itself sort of leads one to the suspicion that you are a troll, not necessarily of the concern type.
And you're welcome.
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 19, 2009 9:14 PM
Chiroptera,
Point taken.
Rick R.,
So because the extreme case you mention is not in evidence, then my entire argument is false?
Pointless atheist actions: Protests of "In God We Trust" on money, "10 Commandments" and nativity scenes on government land, and invocations at the start of government activities; reading and reporting on the drivel posted at WND and such websites; pulling up roadside crosses that mark accident sites where people have died; sticking one's nose into the private affaris of families and how they educate, or in the atheist's opinion, miseducate their kids and it's cousin - pretending that raising kids in religious households is a form of child abuse; and getting one's panties in a bunch over presidents ending speeches with "God Bless" - to name a few.
These are not as extreme as the imaginary activity Rick R made up as a straw man, but they are things that atheists engage in with no apparent goal.
Does religion "get a pass" in American society? I suppose, but since the claims of religionists are false from the get-go, I don't see them having a negative influence on people who are already rational. If the listeners are not already rational, then the issue is not to censor the speech of the religionists, but to incentivize the listeners to develop better cognitive skills and scepticism. Since the majority of atheists are people who are former theists, there must be some way to convince people that gaining an understanding of objective reality is better for them than living with blinders on.
Posted by: 10,000li | November 19, 2009 10:13 PM
Sorry for the typos, I know they invalidate my entire post. (Not)
Posted by: 10,000li | November 19, 2009 10:16 PM
Sorry for the multiple posts: Razib at Gene Expression has some excellent discussion about other authors I was not aware of who discuss the evolution of religious thought:
http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/11/the_faith_instinct_how_religio.php#more
If it is a goal of atheists to free humanity from the shackles of religion, then atheists ought to use their intellects, vast and cool but sympathetic, to understand the phenomenon fully. Razib gives us some clues where to start.
Posted by: 10,000li | November 19, 2009 10:26 PM
You really want to know the scary part? Compared to the usual laws of the day, Biblical law was a huge improvement. In Hammurabi's Code, the penalty for a barmaid overcharging a nobleman was drowning, the penalty for a nobleman murdering a peasant was a fine. Hebrew law at least made a token effort at equality.
Posted by: Gray Falcon | November 19, 2009 10:37 PM
10,000li:
I'm an atheist. I don't give a flying fuck what anybody believes in--until it impinges on my liberty. I don't need to be rational about that.
Posted by: democommie | November 19, 2009 10:40 PM
Democommie @ 36 stated:
Reads pretty rational to me.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 19, 2009 11:01 PM
Gray Falcon "Hebrew law at least made a token effort at equality."
Um, you might want to look up the punishments for breaking most, if not all, of the Ten Commandments. An eye for an eye sounds okay, until you get stoned for the terrible crime of gathering kindling on a Saturday.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 19, 2009 11:11 PM
Wow! Democommie is a libertarian! Whodathunkit?!?!
If only dc and MH's comments were the norm, rather than the exception, just think how far along atheism would be. But, the politics of atheits are hindered by the fact that most atheists are liberals - a group not known for "live and let live" philosophy. No matter how benign and helpful liberal policies appear on the surface, there's always that "we're gonna MAKE you do it OUR way" aspect lurking underneath.
Posted by: 10,000li | November 19, 2009 11:30 PM
10,00li, #39: No matter how benign and helpful liberal policies appear on the surface, there's always that "we're gonna MAKE you do it OUR way" aspect lurking underneath.
That sounds pretty much like conservative policies, too. Except that conservative policies don't appear to be benign or helpful, not even on the surface. But other than that, very similar.
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 19, 2009 11:41 PM
"If it is a goal of atheists to free humanity from the shackles of religion"
Bzzzzzt. Wrong.
Posted by: Rick R | November 19, 2009 11:56 PM
Chiroptera,
Evaluation of conservative policies is a matter of perspective: For those in certain economic and social subgroups, conservative policies are very benign and helpful, otherwise only total misanthropes would ever vote for conservatives.
One trouble with the entire process is that both liberal and conservative policies are sold to the electorate as being for the benefit of a majority (defined differently by each), when in both cases only tiny minorities actually profit. The biggest irony wrt liberal policies is that the minorities who profit from such are also mostly white and already rich.
Posted by: 10,000li | November 20, 2009 12:09 AM
@RickR
Not a goal of atheists? Then why do atheists comment about theists actions at all?
Posted by: 10,000li | November 20, 2009 12:16 AM
10,000li "But, the politics of atheits are hindered by the fact that most atheists are liberals - a group not known for "live and let live" philosophy."
If "live and let live" implies "blindness to sectarianism on the public dime", as you seem to be implying, then words have no meaning.
I don't care about someone else's religion, until they try to force it on me on the public dime. If they want to pray in public school, they're free to do so (as long as it doesn't disrupt classes). They are not free, however, to get the school to force me to go along.
They're free to think that the Law is based on the Ten Commandments up to the point that they try to use the State to advertise it.
"No matter how benign and helpful liberal policies appear on the surface, there's always that "we're gonna MAKE you do it OUR way" aspect lurking underneath."
I know, right?! Saying that the Constitution even protects unpopular Americans and unpopular views is...what? and keeping the Ten Commandments off of courthouse steps is...what? and keeping State/school mandated prayer out of public schools is...what?
Protecting all citizens is only forcing religion to do something in the sense that it's preventing them from using the machinery of State to force their religion on everybody else. And, no, not being able to force religion on somebody is not the same as forcing atheism on everybody. Keeping the Ten C's off of courthouse steps isn't oppressing Christians.
Try a test. Put the Roman Catholic version up in front of the courthouse or start a public school class with a Muslim prayer or teach Hindu creationism in science class and see how many former defenders of the idea don't go apeshit. Suddenly the secularists will have a bunch of temporary allies.
"One trouble with the entire process is that both liberal and conservative policies are sold to the electorate as being for the benefit of a majority (defined differently by each)..."
So, what you're saying is that politicians stretch the truth to support their own agenda? The heck you say!
"...when in both cases only tiny minorities actually profit."
I know, right! Gay marriage only benefits gays! Outrage!
"The biggest irony wrt liberal policies is that the minorities who profit from such are also mostly white and already rich."
I know, right! I can't believe how much money things like "minimum wage" has made billionairs like that Soros guy the Right is always bitching about.
"Not a goal of atheists?"
Some do. I only care what others believe when they try to force it on me and, even then, only when they try to use the State to do it.
"Then why do atheists comment about theists actions at all?"
Because when they're wrong, they're wrong. Adding "The Bible states..." onto the front of a bad idea doesn't make it any less wrong. Whether or not "The Bible states that homosexuality is an abomination" should in no way effect the Law (Law runs on reason, not revelation) and even if "The Bible states that the world is 6,000 years old" it in no way should effect science class, which runs on evidence, not revelation.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 20, 2009 12:34 AM
10000k - Actually liberal policies tend to help more people than conservative policies*, it's just that under both the rich have better education and more resources to get their cut.
As to why atheist bother to comment, it's because religious types think that their god(s) gives them the right to dictate political policies based on thier weird morals and weirder rules. Would you complain if the a Taliban-like organisation took over America? - DJ
----------------
* don't believe me? Compare: 'share the wealth' (greater resource equality for all) with 'tickle down' (more for the rich in the hope they make more jobs). Which benefits more people do you think? Why or why not?
Posted by: DingoJack | November 20, 2009 12:36 AM
Modus,
Your comments would be on point if I were a conservative, but as I am not, then they are mostly just typical liberal rhetoric.
However, I'll point out some things to try to expand your consciousness beyond two political dimensions:
That you think that YOU have the right to force tax-paying religionists to behave in secular ways on government property is exactly what I'm talking about with the "MAKE you" argument. Sure, you spin it with the "I don't want them forcing religion on me on the public dime" rant, but how do you thereby get the right to force your secularist POV on them on the public dime? Because secularism is "right" and religionism is "wrong"? Religionists believe that their world view permeates their entire life, in school and out, in court and out, just like you believe that your world-view permeates your entire life. What right do you have to tell them they can be religionists over there, but not around you?
You've also brought up the "save the children" fallacy by invoking schools and science classes. Since it is a fact that most atheists are former theists, any claims that growing up with religious influence prevents someone from becoming a freethinker are demonstrably false.
The law religion based, but to claim it is rational shows you've never actually been in court. Lawyers are doing their utmost to play to the righteous indignation of the jury (the lawyers for the plaintiff, including the state) and to their sympathy (the lawyers for the defense), while dressing everyting in the appearance of rationality. We have loads and loads of irrational laws, and lawmaking is in no way immune to usurpation by people with a social-engineering agenda. I'd say we were "blessed" by District Judge Jone's decisions in Kitzmiller, when you see how he has ruled in other cases. The fluke in Dover is almost a miracle.
More to follow....
Posted by: 10,000li | November 20, 2009 1:33 AM
"Your comments would be on point if I were a conservative, but as I am not, then they are mostly just typical liberal rhetoric."
It's hardly typical. If anything, it's awesome liberal rhetoric. I'm an awesome liberal. The text on my mug agrees, going so far as to declare me "#1".
"That you think that YOU have the right to force tax-paying religionists to behave in secular ways on government property is exactly what I'm talking about with the "MAKE you" argument."
But they don't have to. That's part of the point. They can praise Jesus and pray all they want, as long as they aren't representing the State while they do it. The DMV is there to license drivers, not evangelize them.
"...but how do you thereby get the right to force your secularist POV on them on the public dime?"
Because it's a secular State. This isn't that complicated. It's not "me" (it's not even "us"), it's the Constitution*. They have the right to try to change it. We have the right to push back. Until they win, it supports and protects everyone's liberty up to the point where liberties collide, not just mine and not just theirs. That they feel not getting State sponsorship is oppression isn't my fault, it's theirs.
"Sure, you spin it with the "I don't want them forcing religion on me on the public dime" rant..."
1) Not a rant.
2) Again, secular State
3) Again, State supports everyone
4) State funded/sponsored sectarianism supports some at the expense of others.
"What right do you have to tell them they can be religionists over there, but not around you?"
Because when they're on their own time, on their own time, it's none of my business what they do. When they do it on your time, using your money to do it, they're breaking the law. The State is religion-neutral. The Law applies to, and protects everybody. With the 10 C's on courthouse steps, they're putting forward their view on State property (in effect, with State endorsement) at the expense of everyone else. Picking one group over another is saying "You don't matter" to those who aren't a member of the Popular Majority. Not picking any group, at least, means that everyone can be equally displeased.
"The law religion based, but to claim it is rational shows you've never actually been in court."
Sheesh. I do believe that I made the "revelation v reason" comparison.
"We have loads and loads of irrational laws, and lawmaking is in no way immune to usurpation by people with a social-engineering agenda."
Yes. Yes we do. And your point is that even secular government isn't perfect? Is everybody perfect? No. I never said they were. Muddying the waters with Revelation hardly helps matters, it just gives ideas (which in and of themselves may or may not be bad) more weight than they deserve. "I don't think that my age-of-majority neighbours should be able to buy booze on Sundays" without valid reasoning behind it sounds, and is, daft, but replace "I don't" with "God doesn't" and, even with no rational reason behind it, boom, it's law.
"I'd say we were "blessed" by District Judge Jone's decisions in Kitzmiller..."
Agreed.
"More to follow...."
Others here can probably phrase my statements better. Democommie, in fact, already did.
*I should note that I'm not American, making part of that sentence almost a complete and total fabrication.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 20, 2009 2:39 AM
Hmm. I may have missed your original point, that seeming to be that "Pointless atheist actions" "are things that atheists engage in with no apparent goal". Except that they aren't pointless, as theocratic/"Christian Nation" myth creep is still theocratic/"Christian Nation" myth creep. "In God we trust" should not be on money and the Ten Commandments should not be on courthouse steps, because neither of the other group reflects the actual foundation of the country (the former being an anti-communist change and the latter clearly not being the basis of US law). If there must be a motto on cash, it should be "e pluribus unum" and the Constitution should be on the steps. Anything else replaces the actual USA with a false memory of it.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 20, 2009 4:02 AM
Not to nitpick, Modus, but I believe that, while "E pluribus unum" is good, and does adequately capture an important aspect of the ideas and spirit that animated the formation of the first american democracy, a better motto would be the following:
AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!
Even modern conservatives would find something to love in that, I'm sure.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | November 20, 2009 4:31 AM
Because secularism is the neutral state. It isn't a matter of religion on one side and secularism on the other, it's a matter of Catholicism on one side, Pentecostalism on another, Judaism on another, Hinduism on another, and atheism on yet another side, with secularism in the middle. Secularism is the philosophy that tells us to set aside our religious disagreements so we can actually handle the worldly business of the state, like getting the garbage collected and maintaining an army.
Posted by: DaveL | November 20, 2009 5:59 AM
So Fara admits that murdering homosexuals, prostitutes, and children is the basis of the jesus cults' code of ethics? Well, what the hell would you expect of death cults.
Posted by: MadScientist | November 20, 2009 6:02 AM
@DaveL: Don't lump the godless in with the god-naggers. Most (if not all) godless people are secular. I have yet to meet a godless person who pimps some sky fairy. The god-naggers are 'sectarian' because they want to split the world into "them" and "us"; the problem is that all the god-naggers claim some exclusive access to The Truth, and you really can't trust anyone who makes such claims.
Posted by: MadScientist | November 20, 2009 6:14 AM
@Lee #5: I always thought it was "judaeo-christian" in recognition of the fact that most of the ideas were stolen from the Jewish religion. I can assure you that in the pre-Vatican 2 Roman catholic church, no one wanted to be associated with the Jews. The Jews were god killers and should all be killed. And my grandma always wondered why I fell on the floor laughing whenever she said her eternal god was killed. Dem nasty Jews killed my unkillable god ... because god made them do it, and therefore blame all current Jews for something the undead god forced them to do. That's why I was never a good catholic; I always thought the church was full of shit.
Posted by: MadScientist | November 20, 2009 6:23 AM
Also, "an eye for an eye" was an attempt to stem the rather brutal wars of escalating retribution that tended to occur.
Posted by: Gray Falcon | November 20, 2009 8:55 AM
So let's see if I got this eight here...
Stealing $20 is like picking up some twigs on Saturday.
The first gets you jail-time in the county pokey (in most cases) and a conviction on your record, the latter gets you buried up to the neck in the ground* and then beaten to death with thrown stones.
Oh yeah I can see the exact equivalence there. - DJ
------------
* I assume the punishment was not carried out immediately so some kind of confinement might also occur.
Posted by: DingoJack | November 20, 2009 9:05 AM
Also the matter of blood feuding is interesting.
I wouldn't have thought like-for-like punishments would have worked particularly well.
In Australian Aboriginal cultures usually used ritual spearing with the shedding of blood being atonement for the crime. In Saxon England they set up a coroner's court. Both were more effective, and humane.
Perhaps Judeo-Christian ideals aren't such a good basis for a legal system after all. - DJ
----------------
PS: In my last post: 'eight' in the first line sould be 'right' (overuse of the spellchecker, sorry).
Posted by: DingoJack | November 20, 2009 9:15 AM
DingoJack, what I'm trying to get at is that ancient Hebrew law is simply one of the earlier stages of the evolution of law, but nonetheless, an improvement over other laws of the time period in question. Attempting to go back to them would be a big step backwards, and we know that. The important reform, and probably the only part worth keeping, is that the same law applies to everyone. (Granted, they did seem to have different laws for slaves, but it's also worth noting the Biblical law was that escaped slaves that entered their territory were given sanctuary, and that one couldn't be kept as a slave forever, both improvements over the laws of the day.)
Posted by: Gray Falcon | November 20, 2009 9:43 AM
Gray Falcon "but nonetheless, an improvement over other laws of the time period in question"
Not being a student of history (I majored in recess), I can't disagree, but I have my doubts. I do!
"The important reform, and probably the only part worth keeping, is that the same law applies to everyone."
You might want to read up on "The Golden Calf Incident" and "David gets a guy killed so that he can get laid" to see who gets punished how badly for what, among other biblical tales. The pretense of equal isn't the same as equal, then or now.
"...but it's also worth noting the Biblical law was that escaped slaves that entered their territory were given sanctuary...."
Um, okay? It's been a while since I've been buried in the narrative. I mostly remember a lot of "And the Lord said to X, 'Don't do that.'" followed, eventually by "And the Lord said to X, 'Do that.'"
"...and that one couldn't be kept as a slave forever..."
I'm going to assume that you're arguing in good faith, so I'll simply point out that that only applied to Hebrew slaves.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 20, 2009 10:52 AM
Simply put, the principles (or the primitive ancestors of said principles) are there, but practice doesn't always apply. And David was punished for taken Bath-Sheba, but it's a punishment that made sense in his own time period.
I mostly remember a lot of "And the Lord said to X, 'Don't do that.'" followed, eventually by "And the Lord said to X, 'Do that.'" That's because you didn't understand the context in which the laws were written. For example, the rules against homosexuality were only written to keep people from practicing foreign fertility rites, and are pretty much as meaningless as the ones against blended fabrics (limited technology) and pork (poor food prep techniques). What I'm getting at is that most scholarly Christians know better than to base modern law off of Bronze Age developments.
Posted by: Gray Falcon | November 20, 2009 11:06 AM
10000li,
I assume you are referring to his book Breaking the Spell? Check the bibliography. Dennett's book, while containing much of his own thought, is mostly a survey of the academic study of religion...most of which has been conducted by non-believers, particularly in the cognitive realm.
You also might want to check out this book.
Posted by: Gretchen | November 20, 2009 11:25 AM
10,000li@39:
"Wow! Democommie is a libertarian! Whodathunkit?!?!"
Way wrong. I'm a farleft socialist where human suffering is concerned, a center right rationalist where economics and finance are concerned.
"PS Those who label me a “concern troll” will be proving my thesis. Thanks."
I would not apply that label, plain old "troll" works just fine.
Posted by: democommie | November 20, 2009 11:35 AM
Gray Falcon - I'm sorry if I seemed to argumentative in my first post, it was just the equivalence that got to me. However your point about runaway slaves is also interesting.
Imagine if a devout Jew in late 1850's America sheltered a fugitive slave. Would the Fugitive Slave Act (and common-law property rights) supersede the 1st Amendment right of a devout Jew to practice his religion as laid down in scripture (even in Christian scripture)? - DJ
Posted by: Dingojack | November 20, 2009 11:39 AM
I'd have to look up the chapter and verse for the Hebrew law on escaped slaves (I forgot where it was), but the Fugitive Slave Act is commonly listed as one of the worst laws in American history. It violated several other Constitutional principles by construction, and was only successfully invoked a few times, as anyone who did so would probably have been beaten. I doubt the issue ever came up.
Posted by: Gray Falcon | November 20, 2009 11:45 AM
DingoJack:
Slaves were only 3/5 of a human. Jews were prolly, like, 70, 75% tops. So they wouldn't ahad no 1st Amendment rights.
Posted by: democommie | November 20, 2009 2:00 PM