Ben Stein

[Gregory Pratt]

You're missing the point... again. The threat of Divine Justice WAS used to enforce laws a loooong time ago. Many of our nation's current laws are based on what is taught in The Bible. There's no denying that. The colonists who later founded our nation were also overwhelmingly Christian. Sounds like you need a history lesson, Scooter.

 

Oh, my giddy English flag:

 

The threat of divine justice was used to enforce laws? Back in the 1600s? I'm sorry, that doesn't count. We weren't a nation back then in any sense of the term. Maybe you don't know your history, Billy, but we didn't become a nation until the late 1700s. If certain states were using "Divine Justice" as a way to enforce laws, that's not the same as saying that this nation used divine justice to enforce laws.

 

Many of our current laws are based on what is taught in the Bible? Name them.

I can count a couple of the Ten Commandments as having made the switch, but that's about it.

Murder, stealing, and lying (albeit stretched to "under oath" and, perhaps, "conspiracy").

 

And the colonists did not found our nation, so you know. They founded a series of states, each different from the other. Years later, men who descended from them took the initiative in creating a nation, and they were deists. The Pilgrims didn't found the United States of America.

 

But even if the founding fathers WERE Christian, that doesn't make us a Christian Nation as in Nation based on Christianity in the way that Israel is Jewish or Saudi Arabia is Islamic. We're a nation comprised of Christians but this is very much a secular government as it was intended to be.

 

The influence of Christianity in our nation also goes beyond law. The most obvious example would be Christmas being a Federal holiday. How many vacation days do the Chinese and Saudis get for Christmas? Obviously, not ALL of our legal system is rooted in Christianity. Even someone like you can figure that out on your own.

 

Re: the bold: you keep talking to me like that you're gonna make my heart go all pitter pat with glee. Are you trying to seduce me?

 

Who said that Christianity didn't have an influence on our society? I'm just saying our Legal System isn't based on Christianity or Christian Law.

The basic tenets of American justice are not religious based. Innocent until proven guilty, etc. etc. Those aren't things someone found in the Bible.

 

No problem with the Jefferson part, but you claiming that me WANTING you to be an atheist is beyond stupid. It's dishonest and childish.

 

You claiming that I wanted Jefferson to be an Atheist is dishonest.

All I did was err and you began making assumptions about what I "wanted" and you assigned a motive to my post. Talk about dishonest.

 

And, I did intend to leave the thread, but I'm not one to be called dishonest and then walk off without making my points in return. So don't start calling me dishonest for that, too, Charlie Brown.

Edited June 21, 2006 by Gregory Pratt

[WCSox]

I am, so you know, done with this thread.

 

Oops, I guess not!

 

Oh, my giddy English flag:

 

The threat of divine justice was used to enforce laws? Back in the 1600s? I'm sorry, that doesn't count. We weren't a nation back then in any sense of the term. Maybe you don't know your history, Billy, but we didn't become a nation until the late 1700s. If certain states were using "Divine Justice" as a way to enforce laws, that's not the same as saying that this nation used divine justice to enforce laws.

 

I was talking about Divine Justice being used to enforce laws in WESTERN SOCIETY - A LONG TIME AGO. Try reading next time, Sherlock.

 

Many of our current laws are based on what is taught in the Bible? Name them.

I can count a couple of the Ten Commandments as having made the switch , but that's about it.

Murder, stealing, and lying (albeit stretched to "under oath" and, perhaps, "conspiracy").

 

You just answered your own question. Nice job.

 

How about only heterosexual marriages being recognized by state laws? Where do you suppose that one comes from?

 

And the colonists did not found our nation, so you know. They founded a series of states, each different from the other. Years later, men who descended from them took the initiative in creating a nation, and they were deists. The Pilgrims didn't found the United States of America.

 

They were ALL colonists before they were Americans, Einstein.

 

But even if the founding fathers WERE Christian, that doesn't make us a Christian Nation as in Nation based on Christianity in the way that Israel is Jewish or Saudi Arabia is Islamic. We're a nation comprised of Christians but this is very much a secular government as it was intended to be.

 

Wow, misrepresesnting my word again. I thought you would've learned your lesson by now.

 

I've argued throughout this thread that our nation is based in large part on Judeo-Christian PHILOSPHY. I never argued that it's a Christian Theocracy.

 

Who said that Christianity didn't have an influence on our society? I'm just saying our Legal System isn't based on Christianity or Christian Law.

 

Our laws are descended from the laws of Western society SEVERAL centuries ago. The historical laws of Western society are rooted in what is taught in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Do you see the connection now?

 

All I did was err and you began making assumptions about what I "wanted" and you assigned a motive to my post. Talk about dishonest.

 

No, YOU assigned a motive to MY post about me supposedly "wanting" you to be an Atheist.

 

And, I did intend to leave the thread, but I'm not one to be called dishonest and then walk off without making my points in return. So don't start calling me dishonest for that, too, Charlie Brown.

 

Grow up.

Edited June 21, 2006 by WCSox

[Rex Kickass]

How about only heterosexual marriages being recognized by state laws? Where do you suppose that one comes from?

 

Bigotry.

[Gregory Pratt]

I was talking about Divine Justice being used to enforce laws in WESTERN SOCIETY - A LONG TIME AGO. Try reading next time, Sherlock.

 

Then stick to the subject and argument at hand, Mr. Consistent. We were talking about whether or not American law is based on Christianity. I said that it wasn't, and you did, then brought up Divine Justice. I said that that wasn't a part of American Law, and you said that it was a long time ago, in the Colonies. I said, "Then that doesn't count, because that wasn't American Law. That was a different time, when we weren't a nation, and were controlled by another."

 

Divine Justice is not and never was a tool of American Law, with "America" beginning once the Constitution is ratified.

 

You just answered your own question. Nice job.

 

Oh you're a wily devil. How clever.

I have long been making the argument with you that American Law isn't based on Christian Law or Christianity. You made the point that certain things were in sync with Christianity. I said "Basic, Universal things" were, and that that included such universal things as "Do not kill, do not lie," etc. etc. but then said that aside from the Obvious Commandments, there are no Laws based in Christianity (like "worship false idols" "do not cheat on your wife" "be nice to mom and dad").

 

America. Is not. A nation. With a Bible-based. Or Christian-based. Legal system.

 

How about only heterosexual marriages being recognized by state laws? Where do you suppose that one comes from?

 

That's an entirely different story. While it's true that Christians (Catholics, too) are the likeliest to oppose gay marriages in our society, that has little to do with our legal system fundamentally and it has nothing to do with the way this country was founded. It's a recent development.

 

They were ALL colonists before they were Americans, Einstein.

 

You're playing a game of Semantics.

You very well know that the distinction I was making was between Colonists as in the Pilgrims, the first movers who first came to America and set up the colonies, and the generation that came generations later and revolted.

 

If your point was -- and, let me say, I have trouble distinguishing what you're saying because there's absolutely no coherent thread between any of what you say -- that the first Colonists, the Pilgrims, came over as Christians intent on a Puritan, ultra-Christian nation, and that their laws were Christian-based, that's true, but we weren't a country back then, and when we finally became a country, their ilk had long passed and we no longer used Christianity as our Law.

 

The point on my part is that Christianity was never the Basis of our Law or our Constitution.

 

Wow, misrepresesnting my word again. I thought you would've learned your lesson by now.

 

You have been misrepresenting me throughout this entire thread, and it is what you always do. Perhaps, however, I am giving you too much credit: I suppose it's entirely possible that someone like you just doesn't understand subtlety or nuance.

 

I've argued throughout this thread that our nation is based in large part on Judeo-Christian PHILOSPHY. I never argued that it's a Christian Theocracy.

 

You weren't arguing philosophy. You were arguing Law.

Philosophically, there are a ton of Christian elements in our society, and its influence is heavy. In American Law? Not so much. But we're not arguing over Christian influence in Society, just in Law.

And no, American Law is not based "in large part" on Christian "philosophy." It's based on secular principles (I've listed them numerous times), along with three things htat happen to be in the Ten Commandments but that are universal and basically accepted by all societies.

 

Our laws are descended from the laws of Western society SEVERAL centuries ago. The historical laws of Western society are rooted in what is taught in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Do you see the connection now?

 

Our Laws do descend from Western philosophers and ideals. That's a far different thing to say than "Our laws are rooted in Christianity." That's simply untrue.

I wasn't aware that our legal principles could be traced back to the Bible. I'll bet that's what James Madison was looking at when he penned the Fourth Amendment, and that Federal Laws protecting witnesses, our system of Judicial Review, the Appeals process -- that any of these things are rooted in Christianity.

 

No, YOU assigned a motive to MY post about me supposedly "wanting" you to be an Atheist.

Grow up.

 

Oh go to hell. How's that for grown up?

 

You said I wanted Jefferson to be an atheist. As I conceded, I'd erred, and nothing more. But in saying "You just want Jefferson to be an Atheist LOL BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE LOLOL!" you were assigning a motive to my post.

 

And, so you know, I never said you wanted me to be an Atheist. Perhaps your English Comprehension skills are off?

 

I said I felt that the implication was, in saying I wanted Jefferson to be an Atheist, that I was an Atheist who therefore wanted Jefferson to be an Atheist due to some awkward agenda. If that wasn't what you were implying, then by all means, I accept that, and I won't call you dishonest over it. But don't give me this nonsense about how you didn't assign any motive to my post, as you clearly did.

 

This time, I'm done with your posts as I can only spin around you in circles for so long.

You have fun calling me a Liar, claiming I used a "smear tactic" before editing that out as it was a comment wholly withut merit, and hanging on to the idea that Christianity is the basis for American Law. We're done here, and you're not going to goad me back.

 

Have a nice night.

[WCSox]

Then stick to the subject and argument at hand, Mr. Consistent. We were talking about whether or not American law is based on Christianity. I said that it wasn't, and you did, then brought up Divine Justice. I said that that wasn't a part of American Law, and you said that it was a long time ago, in the Colonies. I said, "Then that doesn't count, because that wasn't American Law. That was a different time, when we weren't a nation, and were controlled by another."

 

I'm sorry that you can't make the concept of Divine Justice forming the part of the basis for law in Western society 2,000 years ago. Maybe you need to go back to school and have a Western Civ teacher explain it to you.

 

Divine Justice is not and never was a tool of American Law, with "America" beginning once the Constitution is ratified.

 

I never argued that it was.

 

Oh you're a wily devil. How clever.

 

Unfortunatley, I can't say the same for you.

 

I have long been making the argument with you that American Law isn't based on Christian Law or Christianity. You made the point that certain things were in sync with Christianity. I said "Basic, Universal things" were, and that that included such universal things as "Do not kill, do not lie," etc. etc. but then said that aside from the Obvious Commandments , there are no Laws based in Christianity (like "worship false idols" "do not cheat on your wife" "be nice to mom and dad").

 

If you don't think that some of our nation's laws are derived from the Ten Commandments, you have no idea what the f*** you're talking about.

 

America. Is not. A nation. With a Bible-based. Or Christian-based. Legal system.

 

Some. Of America's laws. Were derived. From some. Of the fundamental. Christian teachings. Get. Over. It.

 

That's an entirely different story. While it's true that Christians (Catholics, too) are the likeliest to oppose gay marriages in our society, that has little to do with our legal system fundamentally and it has nothing to do with the way this country was founded. It's a recent development.

 

Recent, my ass. Some in Congress are trying to introduce a freaking Ammendment regarding gay marriage, and you say that it has "little to do with our legal system." Bulls***. And it's not a "recent development." Anti-homosexual legislature has been around forever (anti-sodomy laws being another example) and the Scripture (unfortunately) has always been used to justify it. The Christian influence in these laws is glaring and if you can't see it, you're f***ing blind.

 

You very well know that the distinction I was making was between Colonists as in the Pilgrims, the first movers who first came to America and set up the colonies, and the generation that came generations later and revolted.

 

Then you also know that I wasn't referring to the freaking Pilgrims when I used the word "colonists."

 

If your point was -- and, let me say, I have trouble distinguishing what you're saying because there's absolutely no coherent thread between any of what you say -- that the first Colonists, the Pilgrims, came over as Christians intent on a Puritan, ultra-Christian nation, and that their laws were Christian-based, that's true, but we weren't a country back then, and when we finally became a country, their ilk had long passed and we no longer used Christianity as our Law.

 

Yes, and those Puritans begat the colonists who eventually broke off from Britain and established America. The fact that America wasn't a theocracy after the ratification of the Constitution doesn't mean that there wasn't Christian influence in our laws. How many of our nation's elected representatives since then have been Christian? Hell, our current President has stated that his faith plays a large part in his formulation of policy.

 

You weren't arguing philosophy. You were arguing Law.

 

Law is derived from philosophy. And you're going to contradict yourself three quotes from now...

 

Philosophically, there are a ton of Christian elements in our society, and its influence is heavy. In American Law? Not so much. But we're not arguing over Christian influence in Society, just in Law.

 

And I supplied you with plenty examples.

 

And no, American Law is not based "in large part" on Christian "philosophy." It's based on secular principles

 

Like anti-gay marriage and anti-sodomy laws? What is the "secular" basis for those?

 

Our Laws do descend from Western philosophers and ideals. That's a far different thing to say than "Our laws are rooted in Christianity." That's simply untrue.

 

But you just implied earlier that law and philosophy are two different things. Way to shoot yourself in the foot, Scooter!

 

Did it ever occur to you that many Western philosophers were also Christian? And perhaps their faith had an impact on their philosophy? Does the name Rene Descartes ring a bell? How about Blaise Pascal?

 

You said I wanted Jefferson to be an atheist. As I conceded, I'd erred, and nothing more. But in saying "You just want Jefferson to be an Atheist LOL BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE LOLOL!" you were assigning a motive to my post.

 

The only motive that you had was to try to win the argument with a false statement. And you failed miserably.

 

And, so you know, I never said you wanted me to be an Atheist. Perhaps your English Comprehension skills are off?

 

Wrong again! You said that you thought that's what I was trying to do, despite the fact that you don't have ESP.

 

This time, I'm done with your posts as I can only spin around you in circles for so long.

You have fun calling me a Liar, claiming I used a "smear tactic" before editing that out as it was a comment wholly withut merit, and hanging on to the idea that Christianity is the basis for American Law. We're done here, and you're not going to goad me back.

 

Oh, are you REALLY done this time, Mr. Last Word??? Or are you going to come back with more illogical bulls*** and slander to try to patch up the holes I've blown through your stupid arguments? I'll believe it when I see it.

Edited June 21, 2006 by WCSox

[Gregory Pratt]

You know, I just can't lay off, but I'll try to make this brief, and I won't be making any promises I can't keep. It's hard to refuse response when someone is babbling in your general direction.

 

I'm sorry that you can't make the concept of Divine Justice forming the part of the basis for law in Western society 2,000 years ago. Maybe you need to go back to school and have a Western Civ teacher explain it to you.

 

Oh, two thousand years ago, Divine Justice was the basis of law in Western Society?

Great.

But, my dear boy, we were arguing over whether it had ever formed the basis of Law in American Society, and it never did.

 

If you don't think that some of our nation's laws are derived from the Ten Commandments, you have no idea what the f*** you're talking about.

 

You stupid bastard -- did you even read my post?

I explicitly said that some of our nation's laws were, but nowhere near enough to be considered a "Christian Legal System" and that, besides that, the Commandments that our system follows happen to be the most common sense and universal ones.

 

Some. Of America's laws. Were derived. From some. Of the fundamental. Christian teachings. Get. Over. It.

 

Holy s***, son, I've been saying that all thread long but also disputing the notion that we've got a Christian-based legal system. There's some minor Christian influence, if you want to look for it, but not that much.

And whatever happened to you going from,

 

Given that even Deists believed in the basic moral values taught by Christianity, it's very fair to say that the our nation's system of laws were founded on basic Christian principles.

 

To only "some". I guess you misstyped, and have now switched your position to mine.

Thanks for that.

 

Recent, my ass. Some in Congress are trying to introduce a freaking Ammendment regarding gay marriage, and you say that it has "little to do with our legal system." Bulls***. And it's not a "recent development." Anti-homosexual legislature has been around forever (anti-sodomy laws being another example) and the Scripture (unfortunately) has always been used to justify it. The Christian influence in these laws is glaring and if you can't see it, you're f***ing blind.

 

Have we gone from being arrogantly rude, with cute little pet names for one another, to "f***ing"s being in every sentence?

s***, there's no f***ing need for that!

 

I never said there's no Christian influence in the public scene.

I was saying that, fundamentally, our Legal System is a Secular One and not a Christian-based one.

 

Gay marriage opponents are doing it because they think it's moral, to be sure, but that doesn't mean that this entire Legal System -- or that a significant portion of it -- is religion-based.

 

It seems that you can't understand such a simple bit of nuance.

 

Then you also know that I wasn't referring to the freaking Pilgrims when I used the word "colonists."

 

Thanks for telling me what I know and don't know. Perhaps you should focus on getting your own arguments together instead of probing my mind.

 

The fact that America wasn't a theocracy after the ratification of the Constitution doesn't mean that there wasn't Christian influence in our laws. How many of our nation's elected representatives since then have been Christian? Hell, our current President has stated that his faith plays a large part in his formulation of policy.

 

Oh, my God, son, you don't understand simple nuance.

Because men hold office are Christian,

Because men who have held office were Christian,

Because the President has said he thinks of Christ when he makes his policy,

 

This doesn't make a Christian System of Law.

And the legal realm -- the fundamental legal realm -- is a different entity than the established political realm. Which is to say, for instance, that while legislators in Texas can pass an anti-sodomy law aimed at prosecuting gays due to a Conservative religious opposition to homosexuality, the Supreme Court can strike down those laws due to the Equal Protection Clause.

 

Like anti-gay marriage and anti-sodomy laws? What is the "secular" basis for those?

 

First: there is no anti-sodomy law anymore. THe Supreme Court killed those.

But you don't understand the nuance between the Fundamental System we have and the political system there exists. I explained it a bit earlier.

 

You're flipping arguments from "I'm arguing that our Legal System is a Christian-one" to "George Bush and the Republicans and some Democrats hate gays and so that makes this legal system a Christian-based one because some people use their faith in making laws."

 

You have fun switching, Senator Kerry.

 

But you just implied earlier that law and philosophy are two different things. Way to shoot yourself in the foot, Scooter!

 

I did not shoot myself in the foot.

 

Law is derived from philosophy.

Our Laws do descend from Western philosophers and ideals.

 

Yours is first. Mine is second. Here's what I said that prompted you to say I "implied" that law and philosophy are different:

 

You weren't arguing philosophy. You were arguing Law.

 

First: law is NOT the same thing as philosophy. Law is derived from philosophy, as you said and I concurred.

They're similar, but not the same.

 

Did it ever occur to you that many Western philosophers were also Christian? And perhaps their faith had an impact on their philosophy? Does the name Rene Descartes ring a bell? How about Blaise Pascal?

 

You mean...some Western philosphers...were Christian? I'm stunned! Thank you for enlightening me!

 

The only motive that you had was to try to win the argument with a false statement. And you failed miserably.

 

Oh, you're in my head again, assigning motive to me! I shall call you Sir Ass[igner]!

 

Wrong again! You said that you thought that's what I was trying to do, despite the fact that you don't have ESP.

 

Can I borrow your ESP, Sir Ass[igner]?

 

Oh, are you REALLY done this time, Mr. Last Word??? Or are you going to come back with more illogical bulls*** and slander to try to patch up the holes I've blown through your stupid arguments? I'll believe it when I see it.

 

Poll no one -- you hold a candle to the sun!

Edited June 22, 2006 by Gregory Pratt

[Rex Kickass]

Hey, I appreciate the actual discussion that's going on behind the insults... so if you wanna keep debating without insulting each other - great. If not, stop so I don't have to lock the thread. Thanks.

[shoota]

Ben Stein is so f***ing cheap. His now-cancelled Comedy Central gameshow Win Ben Stein's Money had a prize of like $5,000 and that was rarely given out because of the way the game was constructed. Stein should have either payed out a much larger prize amount or constructed the game to allow for many more winners.

 

Not a fan of Ben Stein.

[southsider2k5]

Ben Stein is so f***ing cheap. His now-cancelled Comedy Central gameshow Win Ben Stein's Money had a prize of like $5,000 and that was rarely given out because of the way the game was constructed. Stein should have either payed out a much larger prize amount or constructed the game to allow for many more winners.

 

Not a fan of Ben Stein.

 

So how much money have you given away? Yeah you must really hate yourself.

[WCSox]

You know, I just can't lay off, but I'll try to make this brief, and I won't be making any promises I can't keep.

 

LOL! I KNEW you'd respond. You're so freaking predictable, it's funny.

 

You stupid bastard

Sir Ass[igner]

 

Wow, ad hominem attacks. I'm surprised it took this long. :headshake

 

Hey, I appreciate the actual discussion that's going on behind the insults... so if you wanna keep debating without insulting each other - great. If not, stop so I don't have to lock the thread. Thanks.

 

Unfortunately, Mr. Immaturity will have to find another debating partner.

[Gregory Pratt]

LOL! I KNEW you'd respond. You're so freaking predictable, it's funny.

 

There aren't a lot of people who don't respond when told they don't know what they're talking about by someone they feel the same should be said for.

 

Wow, ad hominem attacks. I'm surprised it took this long. :headshake

 

I think you're being rather sanctimonious. You're accusing me of being ad hominem for responding harshly to having the f word flung in my direction? Don't do something so dishonest as to try and take the high road when you provoked every obscenity I unleashed by misrepresenting what I'd said and then saying, "YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE f*** YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LOLOLOLZ!!" afterward.

 

Unfortunately, Mr. Immaturity will have to find another debating partner.

 

I can't say I'll miss debating with you, because, well, I think I've stated that I think there's a logic gap between your ears, and you feel the same of me (inferred from the manner in which you've said I don't have any logic).

 

I'm sure I'll find one.

[WCSox]

Come August third, I'll be seventeen.

 

[Gregory Pratt]

 

And you're the one calling me Mr. Immaturity?

[Rex Kickass]

Congratulations, this thread is closed!