The Constitution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-02-2012, 12:18 PM
RE: The Constitution
Quote:Ghost:

Hey, Pete.

I wasn't making statements. I was saying "I suppose" "maybe". I was simply throwing stuff out there because I don't know what the answer is. But I for damn sure know the answer isn't, "Nope, nope, nothing to see here, move along."

That sentence with the period on the end did look more like a statement than a question. The perhapses referred to hypothetical arguments that you alone presented.
I certainly did not dismiss the bible: i merely pointed out that only a small segment of that work actually compares to the US constitution. What does compare has the same purpose and function: to establish the philosophical basis of a new country's structure of governance.
Nobody said that nations should not have a body of laws, or that laws shouldn't be obeyed. Nobody here, that i'm aware of (granted i'm a superficial scanner rather than an exacting reader) said that the Jews were wrong to follow the laws laid down by their rulers and priests.

Quote:People who follow the Bible are looked upon as insane for feverishly following that which was laid down in a text that's hundreds of years old.

Well, the feverish ones probably are a little touched, if not criminally insane (the difference is of degree and status) and it's not hundreds of years, but thousands, and a whole other part of the world, applied to a different lifestyle of a different ethnic community in different climatic, economic, international and cultural conditions. Two millennia do matter in history, and in the relevancy of rules.

Quote: But Americans, for example, are doing the same bloody thing. The only difference I've detected so far is that the Bible is stupid and the Constitution was written by smart people.

Americans think the bible is stupid? Only 12% of Americans even reject the damn thing and less than half of those come out against it. America is the most bible-revering nation on earth, next to Israel.... with less claim to the contents.
The constitution of every country (as i tried to point out) was written by smart men. The authorship of the bible is various and largely unknown.

Quote:OK. Great. That's a value judgement that is entirely historically contingent

and isn't generally made in the world i live in

Quote: that tells us nothing about WHY people are following old texts.

... which people do neither slavishly nor blindly, and the ones who do follow one, other, or both of these sets of rules know and can tell you why they do. These rules are not mutually inimical or exclusive, though some amendments may conflict with some biblical injunctions, in which case the secular law must supercede the religious one (No adulteress-stoning or exorcism of devils from three-year-olds ought to be tolerated by a civilized nation.) It's perfectly straightforward, age of documents notwithstanding.

I sincerely don't see as much here as you seem to.

(PS i understood from another thread that Pete is Lucradis.)

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2012, 12:57 PM
RE: The Constitution
Man, just go fuck yourself, Rahn. You ain't worth a damn.

Sup, Pete?

It's all good, man. You ain't gettin it. Erxomai and Sixth keyed in but no one else did. That's fine. No actually, its not, but whatever. Ideology won this time. Such is life.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2012, 01:11 PM
RE: The Constitution
Not to derail but just want to make it clear that lucradis I only lucradis. Only 1 IP per member folks. I barely have time to e on here as it is let alone as two people.
Who the hell is Pete anyways? And what thread is this that connects us?

Back to business people.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2012, 03:06 PM
RE: The Constitution
(01-02-2012 01:11 PM)lucradis Wrote:  Not to derail but just want to make it clear that lucradis I only lucradis. Only 1 IP per member folks. I barely have time to e on here as it is let alone as two people.
Who the hell is Pete anyways? And what thread is this that connects us?

Back to business people.

Pete=Peterkin.

As to the rest: Whuh??

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2012, 03:34 PM
RE: The Constitution
Ok, let's try this from the beginning and I'll do my best to point out your misconceptions and or misinterpretations.

Quote:What's the difference between the Bible and the Constitution?
They're both texts written hundreds of years ago that tell us how to live our lives.

Saying that these are both "texts that tell us how to live our lives" is an over simplification. A book cannot tell me how to live my life, but some people do use books like the bible to help guide them through difficult times.

The constitution doesn't tell me how to live my life. It doesn't guide me on proper nutrition, on what career I might like to work in, nor how I should raise my children.
The bible does give some rather horrific immoral stories about how fictional characters treated their children or what punishments should be given to people.
Snow White and Seven Dwarfs also gives us a story about how other fictional characters treated each other, but again, people don't use these books to tell us how to live our lives.

Quote:But following the life rules laid down in the Constitution is seen as making perfect sense while following the life rules laid down in the Bible is seen as the height of stupidity. Content aside, what's the difference?

Again you oversimplify both as "life rules" and intentionally want to disregard the content of each. You might as well call Mary Poppins and MacBeth documents that give us "life rules".
It is in the content of each that we can discern their differences and what each one represents.

Quote: This from Ben
The constitution was designed to protect the rights of people. It's a minimum standard designed to be above the whims of the current politicians, but not unchangeable.

The constitution is a document designed for governments. It lays out protections for it's citizens. It defines citizenship. It details how the governed body of a country works and how it can treat it's citizens. A constitution is a set of governing principles that lays out the rights of it's citizens.

Let's examine that - the rights of it's citizens - In the US, I have the right to bear arms. I can purchase a gun, if I so choose. There are lots of stipulations that I must follow in purchasing that gun, but no where in the constitution is it telling me that I MUST purchase a gun, that I MUST be trained on how to use one, that I MUST live my life this way as a "life rule"

Now the bible describes the actions of some fictional characters in the book. It also describes some commandments that were written in stone.
These commandments in that story do repeat what people have already known for thousands upon thousands of years. Do not murder. Do not steal. Do not eat too much. Don't be lazy.
I'm sure these are the life rules you are talking about. We have laws in this country that have been created so that people can live in relative safety and peace. It is our laws that describe what we CAN'T do, not what we should do nor do they tell us HOW to live our lives.

The bible gave many fictional accounts of immoral acts that people in the book supposedly carried out. Like executing a child if it didn't obey it's parents.

Quote: Bible quotes
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. -- Exodus 21:15

He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 21:17

The constitution is a governing document used by governments to help protect it's people.
The bible is a book that individual people may use for guidance when they are struggling with an issue.

One offers real LEGAL protection
The other offers religious guidance

If I may oversimplify
One is a body guard with a legal degree
The other is a seeing eye dog.

You also keep referring to these documents as being "old texts" and asking why should we follow these "old texts". The age of a good idea has no validity with regards to the soundness of it's principle. A circle was a circle since the dawn of time. The math that describes it's properties are old but still valid.

Writing a good idea down a thousand years ago doesn't invalidate that good idea.
The laws we have today help perpetuate a relatively peaceful society.
Many of the commandments of the bible that talk about executing a disobedient child are outlawed today in this country. In other countries, not so much.
It's not a good idea. It's not a good way to treat your children.

Let me use the sabbath as one last example.

The bible says that people should not work on the sabbath.
Quote:Exodus 20:10
But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.

If someone should see you working on the sabbath and they assault you, then they are breaking the law and will be arrested for assault.

Our laws are written to protect it's citizens from other citizens in domestic issues.

Our Constitution was written to help protect it's citizens from larger governmental issues and to set the standards for how the government can operate. The Constitution is not a collection of stories. It doesn't contain fictional characters, nor does it describe how the universe came to exist. It doesn't offer any prophecy nor does it describe any religious practices that it's citizens MUST uphold.

The bible is a collection of fictional myths and immoral stories that convey the creativity, the chauvinism, the barbarism and tortuous ideology of the time. It doesn't describe how a government operates or how citizenship is defined. It doesn't describe legal protections for all the people in the country. It doesn't do anything except poison minds and make a mockery of moral foundation.

To simplify
The intent of the Constitution is to provide legal protections to it's citizens and define governmental actions
The intent of the bible is up for debate. Let's just say that the stories it contains do not offer any legal protections to the citizens of this country, nor does it define governmental actions.

Is ANY of this sinking in ? I don't know how long a post that I can write, but I will test the limits of my patience and describe in as much detail as I can, even to the point of typing out the entire constitution for you to read until you understand.

I hope that it doesn't come to that.

The content of each are VASTLY different. To simplify both into being remotely the same cannot be done through rational means and this thread borders on Insanity as defined in my signature.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2012, 05:35 PM
RE: The Constitution
(01-02-2012 01:11 PM)lucradis Wrote:  Not to derail but just want to make it clear that lucradis I only lucradis.
Who the hell is Pete anyways?

Sorry, poor memory. Somebody somewhere, a while back, was addressed as Pete, to which i mistakenly responded.
Peterkin - not Pete.
But, as Ghost says when he's disappointed, whatever.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peterkin's post
02-02-2012, 09:46 PM
RE: The Constitution
Rahn.

Put down your condescension and give it up. Even if you had something to teach me, which you don't, you've already blown your chance. I'm done with you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2012, 10:10 PM
RE: The Constitution
Hey Ghost,
I'm curious for more of your thinking on the topic.
So let's assume we have moved forward another few centuries. Should we assume the Constitution will still be treated the same way, or will a new form of government need to be established to deal the evolution of Human Society?
And what would be a suitable replacement? Anarchy perhaps?

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2012, 02:43 AM
RE: The Constitution
I will see if I can clear this up.

I think one of the most important parts of this conversation will be to gain some perspective into how Canadians (generalizing) such as myself and ghost view the constitution. I will admit I am on Ghosts side hear as the constitution has always baffled me. But before I continue I would like to add some Canadian history.

Canada has had various charters of rights throughout its history. Often these were used informally and the government could pass laws which could be considered as discriminatory. In fact Canada did not gain its own constitution until 1982. it went sort of like this.
Canada: hey England we can we have our own constitution?
England: Why are you asking us, seriously you've been a country for like 100 years already. Go away we're having tea with France.
And so Canada got its own constitution. BUT not every one follows it.
Now this might be straight up Bullshit as I heard it along time ago and I haven't been able to find anything about it in the 7 minutes I searched Wikipedia but I believe there is a clause in our constitution that allows a province to opt out. Originally designed to appease separatist Quebec, the idea being that any government that would disregard a constitution would be corrupt and would therefore lose the next election. This backfired in that Quebec was totally okay with this and this allowed them to set their own language laws. Even if this is total BS Quebec does not follow the country's language laws that are laid down in the constitution. That is a fact.

So After I made you learn I will tell you how, at least me and Ghost, see america and its constitution. Coming from a country where the constitution is relatively unimportant we see is if anyone challenges the constitution they may well have said the worship Satan. Even if its the smallest of change. We also see the constitution as outdated. Example being the right to bare arms. Yes Back in 1777 when there when minute-men had to be ready to repel the rightful rule of the British (guess my background) Then that law made sense. Of course now america has the highest gun related deaths of any modern nation. (double Finland who is the next highest and over three times Canada's) of course I'm just pulling statistics.

Also In terms of divine penmanship, the founding fathers have been almost deified by the American people. Say anything bad about George Washington and they will ask you why you hate America.

So What me and Ghost see is two documents that are both written well before our time that are vehemently revered and the act of questioning them is blasphemy and is treated to the same degree of severity.
Of course its bad enough when the fundies do this but the distressing thing is that we sometimes see atheists who having expunged the bible for being old and fallible treat the constitution as a religious document. That is the dilemma.

Now Ghost is not suggesting that we should get rid of the american constitution ( at least I hope not) What he is saying is that perhaps an overhaul would be a good idea, to make it match up with today's standards. Of course a suggestion such as this made to the american public by a politician would be suicide.

P.S I hope I have not put words in Ghost's mouth. I recently Had that happen to me on this site and it is one of the most infuriating things that can happen.

P.P.S. I am a Christian so I don't actually believe the Bible outdated, I was just making a point.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2012, 06:18 AM
RE: The Constitution
(03-02-2012 02:43 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  I will see if I can clear this up.

...

Also In terms of divine penmanship, the founding fathers have been almost deified by the American people. Say anything bad about George Washington and they will ask you why you hate America.

So What me and Ghost see is two documents that are both written well before our time that are vehemently revered and the act of questioning them is blasphemy and is treated to the same degree of severity.
Of course its bad enough when the fundies do this but the distressing thing is that we sometimes see atheists who having expunged the bible for being old and fallible treat the constitution as a religious document. That is the dilemma.

Now Ghost is not suggesting that we should get rid of the american constitution ( at least I hope not) What he is saying is that perhaps an overhaul would be a good idea, to make it match up with today's standards. Of course a suggestion such as this made to the american public by a politician would be suicide.

That view is inaccurate. The U.S. Constitution is not viewed as holy, nor questioning it blasphemy. There are 27 Amendments. How many amendments are there to the Bible?

The authors of the U.S. Constitution are viewed as intelligent and courageous men of the Enlightenment (or incorrectly as Christian gentlemen by the fundies).

But what people are saying is that the comparison is facile and rather silly.

Quote:P.S I hope I have not put words in Ghost's mouth. I recently Had that happen to me on this site and it is one of the most infuriating things that can happen.

P.P.S. I am a Christian so I don't actually believe the Bible outdated, I was just making a point.

P.S. I believe the Bible is outdated - has been since the get-go.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: