American Law/Legal System - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-19-2005, 04:02 AM   #46
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:31 AM
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.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 05:09 AM   #47
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 07:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by thacraic



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?
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-20-2005, 07:00 AM   #48
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 08:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


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 is offline  
Old 01-20-2005, 07:06 AM   #49
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 08:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.

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 is offline  
Old 01-20-2005, 07:13 AM   #50
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 08:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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.
__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 01-20-2005, 07:16 AM   #51
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:31 AM
Puritainism was GONE at the time of the writing of the constitution.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-20-2005, 07:19 AM   #52
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:31 AM
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?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-20-2005, 07:31 AM   #53
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 07:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by thacraic


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.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-20-2005, 09:07 AM   #54
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 08:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
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?
__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 01-20-2005, 09:09 AM   #55
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:31 AM
The death penalty existed in Rome......long before Christianity.

How does that make it a Judeo-Christian Concept?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-20-2005, 09:13 AM   #56
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 08:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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?
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.
__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 01-20-2005, 09:19 AM   #57
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:31 AM
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.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-20-2005, 09:25 AM   #58
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 08:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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.
__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 01-20-2005, 09:25 AM   #59
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:31 AM
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.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-20-2005, 09:32 AM   #60
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 08:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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?
__________________

__________________
thacraic is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com