Basically, There Is No Such Thing As Judeo-Christian Values

[Phys251]

Can you prove that the majority of Christians believe in the moral directives of the Old Testament?

Didn't think so.

I grew up with it. I know what I'm talking about.

 

[Phys251]

It is mentioned in Romans. Where else?

It's also condemned in Leviticus. You know what the Old Testament law condemns? Eating shrimp, wearing mixed-fabric garments, and having period sex.

And that's the least of the OT's problems. It only gets worse from there.

 

[Luce]

It's also condemned in Leviticus. You know what the Old Testament law condemns? Eating shrimp, wearing mixed-fabric garments, and having period sex.

And that's the least of the OT's problems. It only gets worse from there.

Yeah, but he specifically said the New Testament.

The only place it is mentioned there is in a letter from Paul of Tarsus, a nasty old bigot who jumped on the Christianity train because he sensed the wind change.

 

[Phys251]

Yeah, but he specifically said the New Testament.

The only place it is mentioned there is in a letter from Paul of Tarsus, a nasty old bigot who jumped on the Christianity train because he sensed the wind change.

Yeah, True. Jesus could have come out swinging against LGBTQ people and never did so once.

 

[OrphanSlug]

The only thing consistent about "Judeo Christian values" is the varying motivation to apply them.

The overwhelming evidence supports that no one at the founding of this nation wanted anything to do with church and state being related, and back at the time of this nation's founding less people went to church less often.

But the biggest issue is the asinine assumption that how people practice faith today has any association to how the few practiced faith back then.

 

[Dayton3]

It is mentioned in Romans. Where else?

Why do you need anywhere else?

 

[tshade]

A common rallying cry of the right in America, to justify regressive morality laws, is often to say that "America was founded as a Christian country" with "Judeo-Christian values" while the common response from the left is to declare that the United States was founded as an explicitly secular country with a separation of church and state. Would it surprise you to learn both are wrong?

How America was not founded as 'a Christian country' based on 'Judeo-Christian' values

A common rallying cry of the right in America, to justify regressive morality laws, is often to say that "America was founded as a Christian country" with "Judeo-Christian values" while the common response from the left is to declare that the United States was founded as an explicitly secular...

www.alternet.org

Who cares what the attitude was 200 years ago--------what matters is how we have evolved since---what we have learned....

 

[Questerr]

The treaty of Tripoli was never binding law in America. There is no record that article 11 was actually part of the treaty (it wasn’t included in the Arabic text signed by the Pasha for example)

But that aside, if a treaty declared that helium is an element with 37 protons in the nucleus it would be factually wrong. Just as the article 11 is wrong.

The Treaty of Tripoli was unanimously ratified by the Senate on June 7th, 1797, and signed by the President on June 10th, 1797. As per Article 6 of the Constitution, it then became part of the Supreme Law of the Land.

So yes, it was binding law in America.

 

[Questerr]

In the interests of history. Not for ideological or theological reasons.

So when Christian quote the Old Testament as reasons to oppose gay marriage, they aren’t doing it for theological or ideological reasons?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The Treaty of Tripoli was unanimously ratified by the Senate on June 7th, 1797, and signed by the President on June 10th, 1797. As per Article 6 of the Constitution, it then became part of the Supreme Law of the Land.

So yes, it was binding law in America.

No, it’s not. And never was. Clearly you don’t understand how treaties work.

 

[Questerr]

No, it’s not. And never was. Clearly you don’t understand how treaties work.

You are claiming the Treaty of Tripoli was never ratified? So all I would have to do is link to a source showing it was and that would destroy your credibility, wouldn't it?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You are claiming the Treaty of Tripoli was never ratified? So all I would have to do is link to a source showing it was and that would destroy your credibility, wouldn't it?

It wasn’t properly ratified because the treaty was different to both nations. So actually no common treaty was established, but even then treaties cannot supersede American law and a treaty declaring something that is false does not make the lie true anyway

 

[Questerr]

It wasn’t properly ratified because the treaty was different to both nations. So actually no common treaty was established, but even then treaties cannot supersede American law and a treaty declaring something that is false does not make the lie true anyway

Where does the Constitution say that treaties must be identical in order to be ratified?

Article 6 directly contradicts your claim about American laws. Treaties, the Constitution, and Federal laws are co-equal as part of The Supreme Law of the Land, and judges are required to abide by treaties when making decisions of law that would be affected by them.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Where does the Constitution say that treaties must be identical in order to be ratified?

Article 6 directly contradicts your claim about American laws. Treaties, the Constitution, and Federal laws are co-equal as part of The Supreme Law of the Land, and judges are required to abide by treaties when making decisions of law that would be affected by them.

A treaty does not exist if both parties do not agree to the same terms.

No, that is not true. Treaties cannot supersede US law. Nor do they create domestic law. In addition no part of the treaty of Tripoli was enacted as domestic law through legislation. And in any event that treaty was later superseded by a different treaty.

 

[Risky Thicket]

A treaty does not exist if both parties do not agree to the same terms.

No, that is not true. Treaties cannot supersede US law. Nor do they create domestic law. In addition no part of the treaty of Tripoli was enacted as domestic law through legislation. And in any event that treaty was later superseded by a different treaty.

OK, so **** a bunch of treaties then. It matters little, even if the government was founded on Girl Scout Cookie recipes, what about the U.S. today?

Whether you like it or not the nation has evolved. Most of America is now unchurched. People aren't into organized religion as they once were. We have many, many more Americans today who don't identify as Christian, or evangelical. American demographics are not same same as they were when the nation was founded in the 1700s.

We likely have more Jews in America, though I haven't checked. (I'm fairly certain, however, that some people on DP keep some kind of tally on Jews in America, as sick as that may be. )

We certainly have proportionately more Muslims, more Hindus, more Buddhists, more Sikhs, more Taoists, more Rastafarians, more atheists, more deists than we had when the nation was founded. So what about all these Americans? Do you insist that they should live by laws that you believe represent YOUR religion?

 

[Questerr]

A treaty does not exist if both parties do not agree to the same terms.

No, that is not true. Treaties cannot supersede US law. Nor do they create domestic law. In addition no part of the treaty of Tripoli was enacted as domestic law through legislation. And in any event that treaty was later superseded by a different treaty.

So you believe Article 6 of the Constitution doesn’t exist?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Yeah, but he specifically said the New Testament.

The only place it is mentioned there is in a letter from Paul of Tarsus, a nasty old bigot who jumped on the Christianity train because he sensed the wind change.

You’re incorrect. God selected Paul personally to be an apostle.

 

[Luce]

You’re incorrect. God selected Paul personally to be an apostle.

Really conveniently, too, for Paul. Way out in the desert, nobody saw it, and the condition inflicted on him miraculously disappeared as soon as he got around people.

 

[Luce]

Sounds more like he knew which way the wind was blowing.

 

[Luce]

A treaty does not exist if both parties do not agree to the same terms.

No, that is not true. Treaties cannot supersede US law. Nor do they create domestic law. In addition no part of the treaty of Tripoli was enacted as domestic law through legislation. And in any event that treaty was later superseded by a different treaty.

You clearly have never read the constitution.