alliancesjr: (Felix)
Kevin ([personal profile] alliancesjr) wrote2006-03-06 12:00 pm

Thesis Infodumps

This entry, as well as the previous one, is here for my reference. I am creating a Thesis for debate purposes.

Feel free to comment on any part of any of it. Anything and everything is helpful to me.

Thank you.



Taken from Deo:

First Amendment to the Constitution - included when the Constitution was signed:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Source

Thomas Jefferson, one of the authors of the Constitution, discussing the First Amendment:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Source


The US Was Founded on Christian Values

Wrong! In fact, except for a couple of basic laws found in every moral structure (killing is bad, stealing is bad, lying is bad), the US either fails to enforce or violates most of the Ten Commandments.

Let's take it point by point.

I
V2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
V3 Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.


This would be broken by the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" By definition, it is legal to have other gods before YHWH in the United States.

II
V4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
V5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me;
V6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me, and keep My commandments.


None of this is illegal. It is not a requirement to not have idols (see First Amendment), nor is it required to follow the ten commandments (see this discussion).

III
V7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.


Not illegal! In fact, it's even acceptable to curse using references to YHWH on television, a medium regulated by the Government.

IV
V8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
V9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
V10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
V11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


People work on all sorts of Sabbaths, so this would ne not illegal.

V
V12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.


Not illegal! In fact, contemporary society has rather strong restraints put upon parental treatment of children, forbaying extreme violence or abuse. No such restraints are put upon children.

VI
V13 Thou shalt not murder.


Finally, we hit something that's illegal! Killing in times or war and in defense of property are considered just, so not murder, and a jury of ones peers will decide if a death is killing or murder. This is a very, very, very common law in most religious and moral structures.

VII
V14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.


Not illegal! People can commit adultery all they want, and while it may impact their divorce proceedings, neither a civil nor a criminal trial can be brought against them for adultery. Nor can people be prosecuted for sex outside of the bonds of marriage.

VIII
V15 Thou shalt not steal.


Another illegal one! Again, this is common to all moral structures that recognize the ownership of property.

IX
V16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.


Not illegal! Perjury is illegal in a criminal or civil trial, of course, and there are some libel laws on the books, but overall we can lie about people as much as we want as long as we're citizens acting in an unofficial capacity.

X
V17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.


Coveting is a basic building block of a capitalistic society. Advertising is an expression of this; people are shown using the product in question and enjoying themselves; consumers see this and wish to own the object as well. This is coveting. Once the consumer has coveted, he or she will either purchase the product (either financed or with saved money) and have it. The purchasing of products leads people to work harder and try to make more money so they can purchase more things that they want. Without coveting, a capitalistic society would not work. Obviously, the United States goes completely counter to the final Commandment.




Treaty of Tripoli

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

In 1930, it was discovered that the existent original Arabic version of Article was gibberish and that the original Article 11 was not an article at all, but a letter from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. Nevertheless, Joel Barlow's English "translation" of Article 11, as recorded in the certified copy of January 4, 1797, is contained in the version of the treaty that was approved by President John Adams and Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and ratified by the Senate.

There exists an additional certified copy of the original Arabic Treaty made by James Cathcart. This copy confirms that Article 11 was not a part of the Arabic original, but was for some reason revised in the English translation that was ultimately ratified.

The Treaty was broken in 1801 by the Pasha of Tripoli and renegotiated in 1805 after the First Barbary War, at which time Article 11 was removed.

The significance of this article that is often overlooked or ignored is that it stated categorically that the United States of America is not founded upon the Christian religion, and that this treaty, with that statement intact, was read before and passed unanimously by the United States Senate, and was signed by the President of the United States without a hint of controversy or discord, and remains the earliest and most definitive statement from the United States Senate and the President of the United States, on the secular nature of American government.

Source




"Under God" in the Pledge

In 1954, after a campaign initiated by the Roman Catholic Knights of Columbus, Senator Homer Ferguson of Michigan sponsored a bill to amend the pledge to include the words under God, to distinguish the U.S. from the officially atheist Soviet Union, and to remove the appearance of flag and nation worship. The phrase "nation, under God" previously appeared in Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. On June 8, 1954, Congress adopted this change.

Source




United States Constitution, Article 6

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Source




"In God We Trust"

"In God We Trust" is the current national motto of the United States of America. It was so designated by an act of Congress in 1956 and officially supersedes "E Pluribus Unum" (From Many, One) according to US Code, Title 36. President Eisenhower signed the resolution into law on 30 July 1956[1].

The final stanza of "The Star-Spangled Banner," written in 1814 by Francis Scott Key (and later adopted as the U.S. National Anthem), contains one of the earliest references to a variation of the phrase: "...And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."

The most common place where the motto is observed in daily life is on the money of the United States. The first United States coin to bear this national motto was the 1864 two-cent piece. It did not appear on paper money until the 1950s.

Source





Other sources:

The Establishment Clause


EDIT: DV has advised me to use this set of Commandments instead.

[identity profile] singmidnight.livejournal.com 2006-03-07 03:04 pm (UTC)(link)
Oh, are you writing a paper against religion in our government? I;d be interested to read that. :o

Also, VII
V14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Not illegal! People can commit adultery all they want, and while it may impact their divorce proceedings, neither a civil nor a criminal trial can be brought against them for adultery. Nor can people be prosecuted for sex outside of the bonds of marriage.


Now, technically, a marriage license is a legal document, and it previously signified man's right to acquire women, but we'll ignore that for a moment. If someone commits adultery, it's not illegal, but it is defying a legal document and I believe is grounds for an annulment (therefore nullifying a legal document). That's just getting picky, though.

By the way, I friend'd you from the c_s community. :]

[identity profile] alliancesjr.livejournal.com 2006-03-07 03:31 pm (UTC)(link)
Oh, hi!

This is basically me writing a thesis - an infodump, if you will - for use on a rather large debate forum that I frequent. A few of my friends have some religion theses in circulation, but I'm much better at legalities.


Thank you for friending me, too. I can't imagine why, but I'm certainly not complaining. Hi!

[identity profile] darksumomo.livejournal.com 2006-04-09 05:20 pm (UTC)(link)
Would that debate forum be Internet Infidels?

[identity profile] darksumomo.livejournal.com 2006-04-10 12:57 am (UTC)(link)
Darn, that's something that would be right up their alley. Are you familiar with the forum?

[identity profile] alliancesjr.livejournal.com 2006-04-10 12:27 pm (UTC)(link)
Admittedly, I am not. Do you have a link handy?

[identity profile] darksumomo.livejournal.com 2006-04-11 03:59 am (UTC)(link)
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php

You'll have to sign up for an account and get it approved by a moderator. That step took me less than a day.

[identity profile] gendou.livejournal.com 2006-03-08 09:26 am (UTC)(link)
A decent thesis, overall. The area I would take exception to would be your lengthy 'illegal / not illegal' bit on the ten commandments. Would you like me to pick it apart here, or in a private message?

[identity profile] alliancesjr.livejournal.com 2006-03-08 01:26 pm (UTC)(link)
Here would be good. That bit I grabbed from Deo; this page is mainly just my sources. I'm going to compile it in the one below this.

[identity profile] ladydyani.livejournal.com 2006-03-30 02:39 pm (UTC)(link)
This is [livejournal.com profile] victoriae77. I've recently changed my username, so please friend the new one, and take the old one off. Thanks!

[identity profile] ladydyani.livejournal.com 2006-03-30 03:28 pm (UTC)(link)
Thanks! That was fast!

[identity profile] volandum.livejournal.com 2006-06-03 12:08 am (UTC)(link)
Friended, for some reason.

Could you please explain your commentary to commandment V?

[identity profile] alliancesjr.livejournal.com 2006-06-03 12:43 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm not the one who wrote it - this is an infodump for something I'm working on - but sure. What did you want me to explain?

[identity profile] volandum.livejournal.com 2006-06-03 12:53 pm (UTC)(link)
V
V12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Not illegal! In fact, contemporary society has rather strong restraints put upon parental treatment of children, forbaying extreme violence or abuse. No such restraints are put upon children.


I think children are considered responsible, as far as minors are, for extreme violence at least. I can look for references if applicable.

[identity profile] alliancesjr.livejournal.com 2006-06-03 03:13 pm (UTC)(link)
Extreme violence, yes, though that's pretty much something that everyone is responsible for. And in all but the most brutal cases, the parents are still responsible.

The person who wrote this commentary was mistaken in that last sentence, though, yes. Something that I've been meaning to go over and pick apart.

(Gendou, I'm still waiting for yours.)

[identity profile] volandum.livejournal.com 2006-06-03 03:33 pm (UTC)(link)
What's meant by "responsible" in the first sentence?

Could you please tell me when you have the update, then?

[identity profile] alliancesjr.livejournal.com 2006-06-04 05:37 pm (UTC)(link)
Legally, everyone is responsible for extreme violence and damages that they cause themselves.


Sure thing, but it'll probably be a while. I've committed myself to too many things. XD

[identity profile] volandum.livejournal.com 2006-06-04 05:39 pm (UTC)(link)
Acknowledged. You said that the parents are still responsible; how is that so?

Okay, no problem.

[identity profile] alliancesjr.livejournal.com 2006-06-04 10:50 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, aside from most of the big stuff, the parents - in American society, at least; I don't know how it's handled elsewhere - are responsible for their children legally. If the police have cause to raid a house, and find drugs or illegal weapons in the kid's possession, the parents are legally at fault, even if they didn't even know about it. Any property damage that the child causes is defaulted to the parents (if they decide to pass it along, that's a private discussion). Things along those lines, and below.