In the latest feature article at Reason (not online yet), Gene Healy looks at the growth of the all powerful, all knowing, all affecting, all healing, all preaching, all nourishing president.
Under the headline on page 21 reads the following:
Who can we blame for the radical expansion of executive power? Look no further than you and me.
Indeed. No other political office has come to mean so much to so many people. It wasn't supposed to be this way. Nonetheless, says Healy:
The chief executive of the United States is no longer a mere constitutional officer. He is a soul nourisher, a hope giver, a living American talisman against hurricanes, terrorism, economic downturns, and spiritual malaise....is America's shrink, a social worker, our very own national talk show host. He's also the Supreme Warlord of the Earth.
This messianic campaign rhetoric merely reflects what the office has evolved into after decades of public clamoring. The vision of the president as a national guardian and a spiritual redeemer is so ubiquitous that it virtually goes unnoticed.It's difficult for 21st century Americans to imagine things any other way....Americans appear deeply ambivalent about results, alternately cursing the king and pining for Camelot. But executive power will continue to grow and threats to civil liberties increase, until citizens reconsider the incentives we have given a post that started out so humble.
After recalling some drab and tired quotes and ideas about separation of powers, humility and caution from yesteryear by the likes of Madison, Jefferson and even Hamilton and John Jay, Healy rightly traces the roots of this shift chief officer of the executive branch to larger-than-life omnipotent, omnipresent overlord to the Progressive era....the period of backlash after the massive societal shifts...good, bad and yet to be fully understood (at the time)...of the Industrial Revolution. The "Progressives" were, according to a 2003 book, The Presidency and Political Science, "the nearest to presidential absolutists of any theorists or practitioners of the presidency". A leading light of this era was Teddy Roosevelt. Progressive era journalist and founder of the The New Republic, Herbert Croly ominously described Teddy as "a sledgehammer in the cause national righteousness". His relative popularity with liberals and conservatives speaks volumes on how influential Teddy and this era was in our modern political thought.
Indeed, the traces of Obama's hope, hosanna and Yes we CAN! and McCain's push to serve a cause "greater than self-interest" and promises of national redemption, greatness and defeat to all enemies of the state, within and without, can trace their roots back to Teddy's original bully pulpit at the 1912 Progressive Party Convention when he cried:
"To you who strive in a spirit of brotherhood for the betterment of our Nation, to you who gird yourselves for this great new fight in the never-ending warfare for the good of mankind, I say in closing...WE STAND AT ARMAGEDDON AND WE BATTLE FOR THE LORD!".
Sheesh. Get a grip, Teddy.
Two world wars and a depression (Fed created in 1913) were more than enough to solidify the new found all-powerful office of President of the United States of America. And rather than gulp with pause and reflexion on the God-like figure we've created, Americans seem ever more insistent and impassioned in capturing the prize for themselves via their party leader in the hopes of having all their dreams for a better world, a brighter tomorrow and salvation and redemption for all mankind...and the children...come true.
Pardon my over-the-toppiness. I just caught up in the moment. ;)
__________________________
Good points
The cult of the President is one reason why I support divorcing head of state duties from him. An appointed head of state could take care of the "hope" and other emotional issues while the President can be a dispassionate leader of the executive branch and his political party, not unlike Presidents or monarchs in parliamentary systems.
I would hope any such head of state would be someone apolitical, someone that represents the best of all of us. I'd expect a 2/3 majority in each chamber to be required to seat any such person.
The separation of the head of state and President also has the added advantage of clarifying the issue of criticism. Too often people sour at criticism of the man executing the office of President because they mistake the criticism for being aimed at the office itself.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
separation of spiritual and political roles
That's a decent idea. I've been pondering a similar separation of roles, but my instinct is to completely divorce the cultural role from the political role. I've had some thoughts inspired by Mike Gravel's National Initiative for Democracy and the Philadelphia II
mechanism...but I've been thinking of it in cultural rather tha political terms.
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Why would we need a spiritual leader...
at least in the sense of a national figure who guides the souls of people and says the "right things"?
Good politicians are like good refs in soccer...you don't notice them.
national issues need national leaders
Some issues need to be addressed to be addressed in a "national" (but not statist) manner, and often they involve aspects that could be called "spiritual" (or moral, philosophical, cultural, etc.).
For example, after the Sept 11 attacks, Americans were asking "how did this happen and how should we respond" -- and they were largely asking this as Americans. President Bush tried to step into the role of national spokesman on this issue, and he basically told us:
There are plenty of other people who I think would have been better suited to provide national guidance/perspective in this situation, but we don't really have any national institutions that we could have turned to. Therefore our options were to either:
If we turn to our own individual advisers then we are stuck in a bunch of separate echo-chambers --- Catholics listen to (and speak to) Catholics, Evangelicals listen to Evangelicals, and atheists listen to atheists. This doesn't provide us with any sort of national perspective or consensus that we can work from.
On more mundane issues, we often see the President commissioning panels/taskforces to address important national issues (recent ones including a Bio-ethics panel and a Math education panel). I'd like to remove that role from the Presidency.
To address this, I thought it would be nice to have a council of elected cultural leaders to help focus national opinions on important national issues. I figure that this should be a group that is large enough to encompass much of the diversity in America (> 7), but small enough that any one of them would be able to attract nation-wide attention if they had something important to say (< 25).
If these leaders are selected based on a proportional representation system (Single-Transferable vote is my favorite), then we could assure that any sizable cultural group would have some representation, and all Americans would have a sense of which thinkers/perspectives are popular among other groups of Americans.
I'd expect the council members to occassionally make statements or produce reports on national issues. They could develop a consensus among themselves when possible, but they could also make statements as individuals. Often, I would like them to just set the stage for a national debate -- defining important issues, describing the important considerations involved, and providing the people with the relevant perspective on the issue.
I think that Gravel's Philadelphia II proposal could provide a model for how to establish new national institutions, that are independent of the state. With enough support, we could probably establish a trust fund that could provide these representatives with a stipend and a small staff.
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas
chuckle, chuckle
Is this in the spirit of humoring the public or because you think it's a needed position?
I'm sensing you think it's the former.
You're right
Some people need a "spiritual leader". I don't, but others do.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
Isn't that what
priests, ministers, rabbis, pastors, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, popes EWTN, evangelists, mega-church leaders and the 700 club are for??
and the Catholic channel and Christian Radio Network and....?
:)
and...
parents?
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Ah, yes!
I knew I was forgetting one!
;)
And ironically, it's probably the most important one.
Yes
You'll get no argument from me on that, but the country is what it is. Some people need "spiritual leadership" from a head of state the same way they need religion. That isn't necessarily good, but it's the where we are in our social development as a country.
I need neither, but not everyone is me. Some people need that crutch -- take it away and they get really upset. Even Christopher Hitchens wouldn't take away freedom of religion and neither would I. Really, really bad things happen when you take away the freedom of the mind.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
I agree except on the last point
Nobody's talking about taking away freedom of religion. That's not the idea.
I never said it was
You're a hard man to agree with! :-)
I'd be happy if religion didn't exist, but it will and that's just the way it is. Similarly, I'd rather people didn't view the President/Head of State, etc. in the way you describe, but they do, and that's just the way it is.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
I'm not really disagreeing with you. :)
It was more of a point of clarification.
My fine print point is that I think religion is fine and that the practicing of religion is not the issue.
What I take issue with is the idea that we need an appointed, elected or officially recognized head "spiritual leader" that has anything to do with government in any way, shape or form to have freedom of religion. We don't. Nobody does.
I'm not saying you're saying that. I'm just spelling it out to clarify that having a national spiritual leader in any capacity and having freedom of religion are not the same thing and that the former has nothing to do with having the latter.
I'm sure you would agree...
Purge the evil from among you
What if more people actually tried practicing their religion?
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
chuckle...
Re: What if...?
I assume you meant this as a bit of a joke, but with a truthy edge. (The passage you cite isn't exactly a major tenet of any modern religion, after all.) Honestly though, I think we'd all be a lot better off if people actually did practice their religion. The problem isn't religion, it is the perversion of religion by leaders to further their own ends. Organized religion is probably particularly susceptible to this kind of perversion, but is not in and of itself a bad thing, IMHO.
Which is perhaps another way of saying that I agree with most of what has been said here regarding the intersection of religion and politics - the smaller that intersection is, the better off we all will be.
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Once again I turn to Deuteronomy
Forced Marriage of conquered people
Execute prisoners of war
Ladies shouldn't save their husbands
from losing in fisticuffs by a grabbing the other man's privates, otherwise the lady will have her hand cut off
Finish the job, don't show pity
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
So?
Four more examples of passages which are not practices or beliefs of any modern religion.
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Honestly though, I think
Then I listed some examples from the Old Testament that Jews/Christians mostly don't practice and get this response...
People in religions should cherry pick the parts they want to follow?
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Context
Of course they should! Freedom of religion, you know. Are you saying that all Jews, Christians and Muslims must literally follow every word in the Old Testament?
But beside that point, what you have done here is pulled a few passages out of context from a book that contains tens of thousands of words.
Even those who believe the Bible is literally true understand that the laws in Deuteronomy are the laws of an ancient land, not the laws of today. Just as you can read a history book on Sparta, accept that it is true, but not believe that your son must join the army.
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I'll interject with a quote from Sam Harris
"There's no place in the [Bible] where God says, 'You know, when you get to the New World and you develop your three branches of government and you have a civil society, you can just jettison all the barbarism I recommended in the first books.'"
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
Well, that's hardly fair
One of you bashes religion for what is written in the Bible, and the other bashes it for what isn't. What's a poor religion to do? :)
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
How's about we just let people congregate and practice faith
how they see fit?
Of course, that is a manner of speaking. Nobody should be "letting" anyone practice their religion. It's not a matter of "letting" because it's nobody's call to "let". It's a natural protected right.
Yep
I believe we are pretty much in agreement here.
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
"Live and let live"
is always a great starting point. ;)
Moderation = secularism
Harris rightly says that religious moderation has only occurred because of secular influence. We don't stone adulterers to death anymore because we decided that wasn't something civilized people do. We did this using our moral intuition, not some stuffy old book.
There are, of course, some parts of the Bible that are allegorical and not to be interpreted literally, but I don't think anyone can reasonably believe the monstrosities in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, et al. are meant to be interpreted in any way but in their literal, textual meanings.
People should own up to what they believe in, that's the only thing I demand of people of faith. I believe in certain things that can't be or haven't been proven either, and I fully embrace this. Others should as well.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
God's laws are purely subjective based on a given culture?
The laws of Sparta, to Christians/Jews, is not the law of God.
Christians work on Sundays because Jesus asked his followers to honor the laws of Moses, but the "future" followers of Jesus need not follow the laws of Moses?
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
God's laws
Re: God's laws are purely subjective based on a given culture?
I have no disagreement with that statement. You may be operating under the assumption that I am a religious person. I am not. I don't believe in God, at least not in any traditional Judeo-Christian sense. (I am open to the possibility of some form of "cosmic consciousness," but whether I can say I actually believe in such a thing varies from moment to moment. I guess that makes me agnostic?)
So yes, I think it is fair to say that "God's laws" are a function of the culture. And almost without fail, the function of God's laws are to create a more harmonious culture. In ancient cultures, where just surviving was one of life's greatest struggles, it is not surprising that God's laws were stricter and more xenophobic. As cultures progress and become more "enlightened," then so do God's laws. So I don't see any reason to hold modern day religions to the standards of ancient laws. That would be like condemning today's Egyptian government for the practice of slavery in ancient Egypt. It's nonsensical.
As I have said elsewhere, the common thread among almost all religions is the Golden Rule. That is the most important teaching of them all, and that is what I had in mind when I said that we would be better off if more people actually practiced their religion. All the mystical beliefs and wackiness are just a side show, and the specifics don't really matter. Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians and Muslims all have compassion at the heart of their religion. It's not religion that is the problem. It is the perversion and abuse of religion by anyone in power to further their own ends.
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Actually, not at all
Then God was made in man's image and everything in the holy books of every last religion purporting to ascribe their morality to an omnipotent being is nothing more than the musings of some random people who lived thousands of years ago.
No, if more people practiced their religion as told by their religious books, we'd be doing nothing but fending off attacks from Muslims, stoning people for cursing, and selling our children into slavery. What you mean is that if people practiced only the good parts of their religion, we'd be better off. And in this case "good" is defined as things we've evolved to see are morally correct -- completely outside the scope of religion. We don't need any supernatural deities to believe the Golden Rule is a good way to live our lives.
The hell they do. Have you read the Bible? I've read enough to scare the living daylights out of me. Any rational person can't believe that the "bad parts" are any moral way to live one's life. I can't speak to Buddhists or Hindus.
Religion is a cancer that has cost far more lives than it has saved and has let immoral behaviors linger well past their usefulness. You can't argue with "but God says to do this". Get rid of God and all beliefs are on equal footing.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
I don't get it
You seem to be arguing that religion was not originally a product of human culture. But it is now being influenced/moderated by it. So if you actually believe that it is not fair to say that God's laws are a function of the culture, then what are they a function of? An actual God? Did God exist back then, but not anymore? Regarding your first paragraph above, don't you actually believe that to be true? In which case it seems to me that you agree with me.
I completely agree with this statement. But that doesn't by any means imply that believing in God is incompatible with leading one's life according to the Golden Rule.
And how many Christians out there do you think live there life based on the quotes that Brutus has provided so far in this thread? How many churches teach those passages as a way to live one's life?
I'm not saying that there are not some bad aspects to any religion, but the overall message is a good one - be nice to others. The biggest failure of religion, IMHO, is that too often, the message "be nice to others" is taught as "be nice to others like you." But there is still a lot of xenophobia in our culture, so it is not surprising that it is reflected in our religions.
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Po-tay-to/Po-tah-to
From a practical perspective whether God made man in his image or the other way around is actually irrelevant from the perspective of morality. As long as there is the notion of a Christian God and people behave as though he exists, for all intents and purposes he does, in fact, exist.
It is similar to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Even if they don't exist, they do.
I disagree. I understand your point but the reality is that a society's morality is typically discussed, debated, and shaped within the context of their religious beliefs.
Sure, we don't NEED one but for the vast majority of society as we know it such deities influence our behavior exactly as if they truly existed, even if in your view they don't.
This is personal opinion and nothing more. You have no way to quantify the number of lives saved so how can you possibly compare it to the number lost in any objective manner?
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
A commandment being given by God doesn't exclude it
from being influenced by culture. I believe that since God is for freedom of will he works within the framework of culture. Now we may view some of things in the OT as being barbaric, but I think God's commands were a way of moving his people forward. For example slaves were required to be released every seven years. God's civil laws weren't some kind of utopic order for society - they were simply the closest society could get to it at the time.
LOL
Which of course doesn't look ANYTHING like cherry picking on his part, eh?
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You really should work for the Clinton campaign
1: I never said I didn't cherry pick my passages. I needed to, to show my point.
2: I later claimed that people "cherry pick" the passages they want to follow based on what is compatible with their particular culture.
If Christians actually practiced their religion [my original reply was to a statement is not people practicing their religion] and not follow the mores of the Romans, polygamy would be allowed
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Which, of course, was precisely MY point ...
if you have to cherry pick to show your point, well, your point isn't all that significant in the over-all scheme of things which was SL's point.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
144,000 Lucky ones, Billions unlucky.
paraphrasing
John "people practicing their religion isn't a problem"
which rules to follow?
brutus "what about people practicing most of the stuff in Deuteronomy"
SL "Judeo-Christians don't care to follow most of God's word in Deuteronomy, so most of Deuteronomy doesn't matter"
Brutus "People should cherry pick
GR "you're cherry picking Brutus"
I used "cherry picking" incorrectly. I should have said:
People in religions should [only follow] the parts they want to follow [and ignore the rest]?
The only way I could show that people practicing their religion could be seen as a bad thing could only be done if I showed a good example of the possibility that the Bible supports questionable ethics. SL sidestepped the issue by saying people only practice the parts of their religion that they approve of, which wasn't what I was saying.
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Not sidestepping
I am not simply saying that "people only practice the parts of their religion that they approve of," although that is obviously true. I am also saying that the religion itself only teaches what is approved of. The quotes you chose from Deuteronomy are not part of the teachings of any religion, at least not in the sense of saying that these quotes are an example of how you should live your life. So these quotes are meaningless to your argument. Unless your argument is that, hypothetically, people practicing their religion could be seen as a bad thing. In which case, I agree, but so what?
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Sidestepping may not be the verb I was looking for
What do you mean by,
I was never talking about the "[current] teachings [or interpretations] of any religion"
As Jesus said:
. I did not come to do away with them, but to give them their full meaning. Heaven and earth may disappear. But I promise you that not even a period or comma will ever disappear from the Law. Everything written in it must happen.
"Don't suppose that I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets
"
Moses' sermons were the basis of Deuteronomy, which gave the laws that the Children of Israel were to follow.
Jesus never told his followers not to follow Deuteronomy.
My original question was: " What if more people actually tried practicing their religion?"
Your response seems be answering a question on "What if more people tried practicing a cultural reedit of their religion"
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Actually Jesus' entire ministry was focused on reworking
the understanding of the law, to not simply being outward works. Jesus' major split with the pharisees was over whether to emphasize an outward observance of rites or a religion from the heart.
Jesus taught that all of the law and prophets hung on the command to "love thy neighbor as thyself, and to Love God with your whole heart..." ( I might be slightly paraphrasing here) therefore we are clearly following the example of Jesus when we read the OT and what is aplicable in it to conform to that commandment which is called first.
But also the pharisees were
But also the pharisees were former adulterers trying to accuse and then kill an adulterer , one could take it that if the "accusers" in John 8 were righteous in there reasoning for trying to stone the women, then the stoning could proceed.
ie, follow the spirit of the law, if the law is going to be carried out.
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Another thing is
you're not separating one type of law from another. Clearly there's a distinction between the ten commandments and ceremonial laws, and civil law and the Ten Commandments. This distinction was clear from the time the Ten Commandments were written, for example the Ten Commandments were spoken by God himself before the people, written by his finger, put it in the ark of covenant. None of this is so of the ceremonial law. Nobody's relgion that I know of teaches that all of God's law including the ceremonial and civil is eternal. Therefore, you're attacking an imaginary relgion.
Others disagree
http://wcg.org/lit/bible/gospels/matt517.htm
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Anyways maybe the
Anyways maybe the Unitarians have it right
John 4:24
"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth"
---Servo [as God]: "Sorry, Unitarian. According to you, I'm in the butterflies and the sun, and I'm just a vague, benevolent force. [muttering] You're on your own."
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Unfortunately for you I followed your link
And the entire passage is basically goes against your entire point and makes my point. The point of the article is that we no longer have to keep the Sabbath commandment, and its listing several verses that would be a poblem to that viewpoint and explaining them.
It argues that the above verse cannot be used to argue for keeping the commandments because Jesus is talking about the whole Old testament which obvioulsy the Pauline Epistles teach us not to keep , so therefore this command cannot be interpreted to be Jesus telling people to keep the law, but rather that he fulfills. A relavant quote:
The Tyndale New Testament Commentary on Matthew offers another view of "fulfill." It emphasizes that Jesus was bringing the meaning of the Scriptures to their intended completion. It says:
"Jesus is bringing that to which the Old Testament looked forward; his teaching will transcend the Old Testament revelation, but, far from abolishing it, is itself its intended culmination" (page
Therfore they seem to be arguing that Jesus that this verse is speaking about the whole law, but that this is not a command to keep it.
Not a fan of context?
http://swordscrossed.org/node
http://swordscrossed.org/node/2195#comment-87539
"ie, follow the spirit of the law, if the law is going to be carried out."
What if an unwise person tries to respect the laws of the OT?
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
"What if an unwise person tries to respect the laws of the OT?"
Well it wouldn't say anything about what would happen if people kept their religion. Or are we moving the goal post to ask what would happen if an unwise person tried to keep their religion.
Considering that 100% of
Considering that 100% of people are for the most part unwise, the goalpost stands for now.
And the Jews don't exactly believe in the Holy Trinity...They pretty much only have the OT, the Muslims have their own book...
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
And the Jews don't teach that all of their old laws applicable
and I doubt most muslims teach that all of their laws are literally applicalbe. Your point was about if people actually kept their religion, not if foolish people tried to keep their religion.
The irony of the link you provided is that
my point is that no religion teaches that we should we should follow the ceremonial and civil law and that is eternally aplicable to our lives, and you respond with an article where the whole point of the article is that the Law regarding Sabbath is not applicable. Now here's the real irony, I believe the Sabbath is aplicable, so to argue against my point that in no religions is all the law teached as being aplicable, you quote somebody who thinks of it is as less applicable than what I do.
The question of whether to
The question of whether to follow the sabbath was the question they were dealing with, but it pertains to other OT laws.
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
And if it pertains to other old testament laws they would
be teaching that other old testament laws aren't applicable, which is my point. Nobody teaches we should keep 100% of the OT laws, so you argue against that point by providing a link of people who's whole arguement is that we aren't obliged to keep all of the law. Certainly you see the irony of that.
Speaking of religious debates, Brutus and J Mark,
you might find this
pertinent and interesting.
Ya I really do think...
Semantics. I don't think we are arguing about the same things.
Some of it depends on what definition one has for "set aside"
and maybe this will clear things up, maybe not...
"What if more people actually tried practicing [more of] their religion?
And it depends on your definition of "keep 100% of the OT laws"
I thought Jesus, more or less, clarified the OT laws, not told his followers not to follow them. It depends on what Matthew 5:18 means.
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I guess it depends on what your definition of keeping
one's religion is. If you define it as following the interpretations of the Bible as your church teaches them, then obviosuly no religion ( that I know of ) teaches people to follow 100% of their ancient scriptures in a literal matter. All relgions teach that while the scripture is useful to learn from, some of it is not applicable as a command for us today.
If your interpretation of a religion is following every rule in a person's holy - book to the letter like it applied the same today as it did thousands of years ago, than I guess you're are right.
Somewhat off topic
Bible opposes public prayer...but people don't really follow that.either.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%206:5,6;&version=9;
and
Punishment worse than that for Sodom and Gomorrha
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%206:11;&version=9;
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Once again you show that you're not a fan of context.
Your moving my goalpost...
A lot people seem to almost arbitrarily not follow all of one OT law but follow a different OT to its fulfillment. What if people followed more of their religion.
Exodus 22:18 no sex with animals, they should be put to death
same with
Leviticus 18:22 no sex between two men, they should be put to death
But follow other OT laws and the death penalty...
__________________________Numbers 35:17, murderers can be put to death.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
That's because the overall context of scripture tells us that
some laws are applicable and some are not. You ought to read a book on biblical exegesis. However, the way you take things out of context I don't think you really interested in knowing what the Bible says or what religion actually says, you are only interested in finding ways to attack both of these things. You don't seem to be an intellectually honest person after truth, just someone with an agenda, who will take a very simplistic view of Biblical hermeneutics so that you can attack the Bible.
Reggie White and biblical exegesis...
I suppose I could even quote John 3:16 and that all that is needed to get into heaven is to believe in Jesus and Jesus died for our sins and you'd read more into what I am saying and claim I'm taking it out of context.
Or cite that the Bible may endorse socialism over the free market...Mark 10:21
or maybe I should have used qualifiers...
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
It seems people can make the Bible say about anything
they want it to, sort of like the constitution. That doesn't mean there's not a correct meaning. But like I said I really don't think you're interested in theology. If not I'm sorry I misjudged your intentions.
A headless state?
Even in the animal kingdom there is a pack leader.
Are wolves cultists?
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Imperial President or Messianic President
People seem to treat the President as messiah. This analogy reveals the long history of humans conflating religious and secular leaders.
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas
+5
and interestingly, it's a relatively new phenomenon.
That's why presidents after the founders and before the Progressive era are relatively unknown and misunderstood.
new in America, not in the old world
I think it's quite old in the rest of the world. Think of how people thought of their kings -- this is especially apparent in "the divine right of kings" and was often seen in how Russian's treated the Czar as a father figure, and were very hesitant to blame him for misgovernment of the country (they figured that underlings were to blame). Likewise, think of how the Japanese treated the Emperor.
I mentioned the "messiah" because many of Jesus' followers supposedly expected him (the messiah) to be a secular ruler in the mold of King David.
Roman emperors were systematically deified after they died, and eventually they were even deified while they were alive. I believe that Egyptian Pharohs claimed divinity also.
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas
absolutely
It's the very attitude the founders feared, tried to temper and planned against when they conceived this country.
I guess the human will to have some archetype of a kingly figure was simply too strong for the original vision to endure.
Trying to put my finger on what exactly
bugs me about this rant.
It shows a great disrespect for the office of the Presidency, and more basically our country, which is made up of people.
We have a process that we have been given to keep our government in check and many constitutional fundamentalists degrade that process with cynical attacks on how it works.
/Giving the finger to the good ole US of A and denying that politics is the art of concensus and compromise, social studies, and leadership.
In order to gain a competitive edge in the petrol wars, in the free markets of the world someone somewhere in the VP's office decided that it was time for the executive to have more power not less. I don't think the cultists had any say in the legal memo's written by David Addington.
Nor did the cultists have any say when Harriet Miers gave the finger to the Congress and said no I don't have to answer to you.
It's ironic that the new head of Russia, Dmitri A. Medvedev
was the chairman of Gazprom the largest Oil Company in Russia.
It is these elite businessmen that often cynically use religion, media monopolies and whatever other means to galvanize voters.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
every tyrant relies on support from some portion of the people
Is it disrespectful to tell our neighbors that they are wrong? I see no disrespect in openly disagreeing with others, especially when their foolishness has such a strong impact on everyone else around the