American Law/Legal System

[Dreadsox]

I never said that the Constitution was a Judeo-Christian document dread. Show me where I said that. All I said was that these people when deciding to lay out the law they were guided by Judeo-Christian beliefs about how laws should be determined. Judeo-Christian as I have clarified on MORE than one occassion is that of taking from both the Old Testament and the New. If this link can shed light on that good stuff!

What exactly are Judeo Christian beliefs as to how laws are to be carried out? I am not sure I understand what this means.

Show me EXACTLY where there is one rule established in the Constitution of the United States of America that can be associated as a Judeo-Christian belief.

You quoted the rule about Monarchy before....and I provided links to the direct record of the convention from James Madison, considered to be the key author of the constitution in which NOT once is the Bible, Old Testament, New testament or scriptural verse recorded in the debate over monarchy.

 

[Dreadsox]

I will ask you point blank. Did they or did they not use the Bible, both the Old Testament and the New as a guide for how to make laws for our new (at their time) country? Yes or no?

No...there is my take. I have just returned from church. I have scanned through almost the entire transcript that James Madison recorded at the Constitutional Convention. If I have time tonight, I will finish it. No, they were not according to Madison using the bible in their meetings.

Interesting side bar, apparently there was more religion mixed in with the Confederation that was formed before the constitution. We all know how that worked out.

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q]The death penalty is determined by individual states. The Constitution garners the states rights to either enforce captial punishment or not enforce it. States rights etc.

And in that case, the death penalty in and of itself is without question a relgious based law.
[/Q]

Pretend I am really slow and work with 9 year olds.

How does this equate?

 

[thacraic]

I thought Christians believed Jesus paid for our sins?

He did. What does that have to do with the death penalty being based on religious law?

 

[thacraic]

That has to be one of the craziest statements I've read in here in a long time.

Why? What are the origins of the death penalty then? On what is it base?

 

[thacraic]

[Q]The death penalty is determined by individual states. The Constitution garners the states rights to either enforce captial punishment or not enforce it. States rights etc.

And in that case, the death penalty in and of itself is without question a relgious based law.
[/Q]

Pretend I am really slow and work with 9 year olds.

How does this equate?

Well it equates in the sense of that is the whole reason this discussion started.

I said that the reason the death penalty turns into a religious/politicial discussion is because the origins of the death penalty are religious.

Then it went into this huge discussion about which laws in this country are based on religion.

In truth the constitution should have never even factored in to the initial debate because of the manner in which the death penalty is carried out on a state to state basis.

Anyway on to you other post.

 

[BVS]

Why? What are the origins of the death penalty then? On what is it base?

Revenge. It's human nature to punish someone to the fullest extent when they take a life. So death penalty is a result of human nature. Where does religion come in? People were being killed for killing before "an eye for an eye".

To say it's based on religion when this is one of the most controverisal issues amongst religion is ludicrous.

 

[thacraic]

What exactly are Judeo Christian beliefs as to how laws are to be carried out? I am not sure I understand what this means.

Show me EXACTLY where there is one rule established in the Constitution of the United States of America that can be associated as a Judeo-Christian belief.

You quoted the rule about Monarchy before....and I provided links to the direct record of the convention from James Madison, considered to be the key author of the constitution in which NOT once is the Bible, Old Testament, New testament or scriptural verse recorded in the debate over monarchy.

Judeo-Christian beliefs as how laws are to be made and carried out etc is the philosiphy that God's law and man's law should be in harmony. That is found in the old and new testament.

I showed you EXACTLY where the people framing the Constitution held those beliefs (and I mean the link which provided quotes from the long list of people you pasted, the 55 delegates). I asked also, that with these people holding those beliefs would one not logically conclude that it would factor into their appraoch to law making. If that is not the case then why are people today so up in arms about Christians who hold office? People are willing to say that those who embrace Christian beliefs will allow that to cloud their judgement as it pertains to decisions concerning our entire country? It happened today but not then? I am looking at this in very black and white terms I suppose.

Are you asking me if, for example, the ten commandments are present in the Constitution, then no they are not. If you are asking me if the people who went about framing the constitution used the belief that God's law and man's law should be in harmony than yes, and I do not see how that is not a true statement. Is that what I have been saying all along or not?

I will look through that link you posted. It is very concise and I would agree probably the best source of information (online that is) regarding the Constitution. I will confess I have not had a chance to really give it enough attention. But it is what I asked for.... a credible source.

 

[thacraic]

Revenge. It's human nature to punish someone to the fullest extent when they take a life. So death penalty is a result of human nature. Where does religion come in? People were being killed for killing before "an eye for an eye".

To say it's based on religion when this is one of the most controverisal issues amongst religion is ludicrous.

People were being killed before "an eye for eye" came about yeh of course. However the laws on the books in our country came after the fact. On what were THOSE laws based????

 

[BVS]

People were being killed before "an eye for eye" came about yeh of course. However the laws on the books in our country came after the fact. On what were THOSE laws based????

They weren't laws it was revenge then. You still haven't shown a speck of why it's a religious based law!!!

Do you honestly think before the Bible humans were just letting murderers go?

 

[thacraic]

They weren't laws it was revenge then. You still haven't shown a speck of why it's a religious based law!!!

Do you honestly think before the Bible humans were just letting murderers go?

Ohhhhhhhhhhh I see now! When the death penalty was introduced into law in our country (in colonial times) it was not law it was just random acts of revenge. Nothing was carried out by the governing bodies of the colonies which enforced the death penalty that was part of the law. Further on down the line when we were no longer colonies, states carried out the death penalty. But then again it was just revenge and not in the law books. So therefore that is why these laws are not based on the relgious principle of an eye for an eye. Gotch BVS.

And no I have never said other systems of government throughout histroy did not influence the law making in this country. Never said that so twist what you will, you will still not be able to show where I have stated that.

 

[BVS]

Ohhhhhhhhhhh I see now! When the death penalty was introduced into law in our country (in colonial times) it was not law it was just random acts of revenge. Nothing was carried out by the governing bodies of the colonies which enforced the death penalty that was part of the law. Further on down the line when we were no longer colonies, states carried out the death penalty. But then again it was just revenge and not in the law books. So therefore that is why these laws are not based on the relgious principle of an eye for an eye. Gotch BVS.

And no I have never said other systems of government throughout histroy did not influence the law making in this country. Never said that so twist what you will, you will still not be able to show where I have stated that.

I misread you post and thought why was there "death penalty" before written law. I've re-read your post and I go back to my original post. HUMAN NATURE!!!

But you still haven't shown me where it's religion based.

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

American law? Or USA law? Many American countries laws are Christian based.

It's usually me who points things like this out and I've grown tired of attempting to correct something that is very unlikely to be changed.

 

[thacraic]

I misread you post and thought why was there "death penalty" before written law. I've re-read your post and I go back to my original post. HUMAN NATURE!!!

You don't believe the origin of the death penalty in this country is rooted in religous belief, fine. I am not even going to go in to it. You are saying human nature, ok thats fine. Sounds good to me. I am not going to go round and round anymore about things. (I have mixed feelings about the death penalty by the way, so I am not saying that it is rooted in religious belief because I am trying to justify it).

Dread if you want to reply to anything I have said since your last posted do so at thacraic@yahoo.com If you want to ask me more questions on my views feel free to do so as well. I am going to devote a good bit of time to that link (The Madison one). It is reallllly goooooood.

But to be completely honest I can see that this discussion is starting to get like the other thread, steering off topic, and it was my fault this time with my comment about the death penalty.

At any rate I just realized that I have spent collectively, over this past day, hourrrrrrrrrs at this forum. For me, with everything I have going on, that's not a good thing. I have got to stop doing that! If you can't email I understand. But I would love to continue the discussion. Anyhoo your call.

 

[Dreadsox]

I showed you EXACTLY where the people framing the Constitution held those beliefs (and I mean the link which provided quotes from the long list of people you pasted, the 55 delegates). I asked also, that with these people holding those beliefs would one not logically conclude that it would factor into their appraoch to law making. If that is not the case then why are people today so up in arms about Christians who hold office? People are willing to say that those who embrace Christian beliefs will allow that to cloud their judgement as it pertains to decisions concerning our entire country? It happened today but not then? I am looking at this in very black and white terms I suppose.

You showed me quotes taken out of context of a whole document.

The George Washington quote for example had NOTHING to do with the framing of the Constitution. It was his farwell address.

If you want to use quotes taken out of context, verses the actual transcript of the debate, in which there is no reference to the Bible, Old testament, or New testament, fine.

Do the Bible's Morals Guide me through my daily life....yes....Does that make everything I do Judeo-Christian....no.

When the Old and New Testament are not mentioned in the transcript of the account in my opinion, it trumps your source of quotes taken a different points in the founding father's lives.

 

[Dreadsox]

Death Penalty or Eye for an Eye exhisted before the Old and New Testament. Hammurabi's Code of Laws possessed it. You cannot say it is a Judeo-Christian Concept, if it exhisted in other cultures long before there was a Judeo-Christian set of laws. If it appears in many non-Judeo-Christian cultures, then it is clearly a human concept.

 

[BVS]

You don't believe the origin of the death penalty in this country is rooted in religous belief, fine. I am not even going to go in to it. You are saying human nature, ok thats fine. Sounds good to me. I am not going to go round and round anymore about things. (I have mixed feelings about the death penalty by the way, so I am not saying that it is rooted in religious belief because I am trying to justify it).

How is it going round and round when you haven't even tried to explain it?

 

[thacraic]

You showed me quotes taken out of context of a whole document.

The George Washington quote for example had NOTHING to do with the framing of the Constitution. It was his farwell address.

If you want to use quotes taken out of context, verses the actual transcript of the debate, in which there is no reference to the Bible, Old testament, or New testament, fine.

Do the Bible's Morals Guide me through my daily life....yes....Does that make everything I do Judeo-Christian....no.

When the Old and New Testament are not mentioned in the transcript of the account in my opinion, it trumps your source of quotes taken a different points in the founding father's lives.

Ok I am back. Said I wasn't going to carry on with it but I just can't stay away. I'm a saddo I know...

You are very right that the speech George Washington gave had nothing to do with the framing of the Constitution. You are right in terms of the Bible actually being used at the Constitutional Convention. (I think anyway? I have read however where many of the delegates did consult their Bibles etc but maybe not on the floor as it were?)

But to state again, I never said that the Constitution in and of itself was a Judeo-Chritian document. I said the it and most law in the country is rooted in Judeo-Christian belief. If the people who framed it approched lawmaking with the belief that God's law and man's law should be in harmony, what else should I make of that. That is a Judeo-Christian belief is it not? If you admit they had that belief but then turn around and say it was not a factor in their decision making law, I don't understand how you get there. I mean I can see why you say it. But on the other hand are you willing to say that people today, who have religious beliefs that serve in Congress or even the White House, do not allow their beliefs to interfere with their politics? Would you say that? If so then I guess you are not one who would argue the point that crazed Right Wing Christians are taking over the America.

I said these men held a Judeo-Christian belief of law making. I don't know what they did in their spare time. It is quite possible they drank beer down the pub with the trollops every night etc, but it does not change their view on lawmaking. And since that is what is being discussed, as I said, I think it logical that if they believed what the essence of the law should be, it wouldn't be so far out there to think that is how they approached making said law.

 

[thacraic]

Death Penalty or Eye for an Eye exhisted before the Old and New Testament. Hammurabi's Code of Laws possessed it. You cannot say it is a Judeo-Christian Concept, if it exhisted in other cultures long before there was a Judeo-Christian set of laws. If it appears in many non-Judeo-Christian cultures, then it is clearly a human concept.

But say in colonial times was it Hammurabi's Code that these people based their laws on or were the Puritians more concerned about what the Bible said about it?

 

[thacraic]

How is it going round and round when you haven't even tried to explain it?

Because it started going round and round the minute eye for an eye was brought up. The Puritians and those a century down the line when laying out state constituions relied very much on the belief of an eye for an eye. That is a biblical concept is it not?

Your point is that it is not a biblical concept (even though it is in the Bible). My point is that it is a biblical concept. My point is that these people were more concerned about Biblical references than Hammurabi's code. And this is completely seperate from the discussion of The Constitutional Convention.

If you (or dread) want to say that when delegates from the individual states did not use the Bible when forming their state constitutions then I think you will be pretty hard pressed to find evidence of that.

 

[Dreadsox]

Puritainism was GONE at the time of the writing of the constitution.

 

[Dreadsox]

If you can show me a historical PRIMARY source that they were reading their Bibles while they worked, I would say, ok. I have never run into a source saying such a thing.

I provided primary sources. THat is what I would use as a historian to write an essay about it.

If there was a Bible in the room though that would make it influenced by Judeao-Christian beliefs?

 

[BVS]

Your point is that it is not a biblical concept (even though it is in the Bible). My point is that it is a biblical concept. My point is that these people were more concerned about Biblical references than Hammurabi's code. And this is completely seperate from the discussion of The Constitutional Convention.

Now you are twisting my words, something you've become very good at. I never said "eye for an eye" was not a Bible concept, yes it's in the Bible. I'm saying the death penalty existing before the Bible was ever printed. If eye for an eye was used to make US law there would be a lot of theives with missing fingers running around.

 

[thacraic]

Puritainism was GONE at the time of the writing of the constitution.

Ok but the death penalty wasn't dread. That is what I am talking about in terms of Puritanism and that of the death penalty being rooted it in Biblical principle. There is nothing in the Constitution about the death penalty. It is left up to individual states. And these individual states 100 years after Puritanical rule still enforced capital punishment. What was that based on?

 

[Dreadsox]

The death penalty existed in Rome......long before Christianity.

How does that make it a Judeo-Christian Concept?

 

[thacraic]

If you can show me a historical PRIMARY source that they were reading their Bibles while they worked, I would say, ok. I have never run into a source saying such a thing.

I provided primary sources. THat is what I would use as a historian to write an essay about it.

If there was a Bible in the room though that would make it influenced by Judeao-Christian beliefs?

Well I know the Ben Franklin opted that each session be opened with prayer and that was shot down and never brought up for debate. I agree with why they chose not to do it btw. For instance, I am not comfortable with the Senate opening each day with prayer personally...

If they believed in the Judeo-Christian belief that God's law and man's law should be in harmony would that not mean that they took a Judeo-Christian belief to lawmaking? Yes or no? Bible in the room, back at the hotel, whereever it was, do you not believe that they approached law making with that philosiphy.

It is just simply asking was that or was that not their philosiphy. YOu can say no mention of God was made, or no one opened a Bible at the proceedings all that is fine and well, but from everything I have read (and some things I have quoted here) it leads me to believe that they had sort of a preconcieved notion of what law should be. I do not see where you have disproven that.

 

[Dreadsox]

So the transcripts of the meetings mean absolutely nothing?

Then we have no further points to discuss.

My job as a teacher and the work I do can be labeled Judeo-Christian then since I read the Bible when I get up in the morning. I also tend to say prayers while I am driving just before I walk in the school's doors that must make it Judeo-Christian.

 

[thacraic]

Now you are twisting my words, something you've become very good at. I never said "eye for an eye" was not a Bible concept, yes it's in the Bible. I'm saying the death penalty existing before the Bible was ever printed. If eye for an eye was used to make US law there would be a lot of theives with missing fingers running around.

No I am not BVS. I just asked you yes or no if it is a biblical concept. I think I asked it. It should have been in form of a question (something I have to remember in a months time! hehe) It was a rhetorical question anyway. My position is that the people who initially enforced the death penalty (The Puritians) in this country did so because of what the Bible said. 100 years after the fact, the death penalty was implemented into individual state's constitution. MANNNNNNNY laws at that time were taken directly from the Bible. The death penalty being only one.

You are coming at it from the position that death penalty has been around longer than eye for an eye. No one is arguing that fact. What is being asked is what was the motivating factor in the lawmakers in our country setting it into action? The Bible or Hammurabi's Code of Law?

If the Quarn was used to make US law there would be lots of people with missing fingers or willies for that matter, depending on the crime. I don't know everything in the Bible that is for certain, but I am fairly certain there is no reference to chopping the hands off of a theif. I could be wayyyyy off on that though.

 

[Dreadsox]

Ben Franklin was a deist. He was not a Christian. Having him call for a prayer, does not necessarily mean that he was calling for a Christian prayer.

 

[thacraic]

So the transcripts of the meetings mean absolutely nothing?

Then we have no further points to discuss.

My job as a teacher and the work I do can be labeled Judeo-Christian then since I read the Bible when I get up in the morning. I also tend to say prayers while I am driving just before I walk in the school's doors that must make it Judeo-Christian.

Of course they mean something dread! I am not discounting that!!

My position is in regards to these peoples philosiphy of law. Their philosiphy of law was that of a Judeo-Christian one. That is the crux of this whole debate.

So you are saying that just because the embraced that philosiphy of making law, they did not use it make law?