While I don't agree with Josiah's point, I see his logic still.
I was going to give an example about Rastafarians and pot, but I got carried away with that metaphor. Another example occured to me anyway: If I as a Christian walk down the street and see a homeless man lying there and I give him a dollar, the reason why is because my religion causes me to be compassionate to the less fortunate. (actually I don't give money to the homeless, but let's just assume I would) If you walk down the street and give money to a homeless guy, you wouldn't be doing it out of your Christianity, you'd be doing it out of plain compassion or maybe because Buddhism tells you to (I know nothing about Buddhism at all). You're not doing it because of your Christianity, I'm not doing it out of my Buddhism. We're both doing the same thing for different reasons.
Important to add is that later in the day, given our JUSTIFICATION for our actions, you would expect me to do something Christian like go to a church or pray or something, and you would be expected to do something further Buddhist. Wouldn't be terribly unreasonable, I hope.
What Josiah is claiming (even though I'd dispute it) is that America bases our rules on the Christianity of our founders. I DIDN'T SAY THAT - don't get mad at me. Asia, although not being a country, does have some of the same laws as us, presumably because they just believe they're good laws for governing (which is why I'd say the US bans murder) or maybe like in India, the religion popular to the country says that murder is wrong. From that reasoning, is it unreasonable to expect that the US would persue non-repressive legislation based on the Christian moral system? Probably not, IF that were the case (it isn't).
well, firefox just ate four paragraphs of response, so here's the cliff's notes.
The fault here is that any insistence that primordial compromises are based in religion is a fallacy, flying in the face of the nature of social contract. Social contract is the day-one keyword of any sociology class; any large-enough community of persons to encounter difficulties will fall into a natural pattern of necessary compromises.
The most natural of these compromises is the principle of 'I won't kill you if you don't kill me.' The simplified, but not always accurate version is simply 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' That is not a cutesy golden rule for gradeschool kids, it's the foundation of all government.
Nations wholly independent in development from Christianity developed a similar set of prime ethos regarding the behavior and compromises of people of the same social classes. Documented examples go back easily to the 1700's BC, under Hammurabi. Ancient Sumeria wasn't big on the Christian God back then, either.
Social contract rules the basis of murder and theft laws, and in societies that have moved at all beyond de facto subjugation of women, laws against rape come naturally.
if i recall, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is nearly a direct quote of the Bible (Matthew 7:12a NIV "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you")
and I used it as an example; the origin of that worded phrase does not serve to discredit my purpose.
That wording is taught in American elementary schools to children of all cultures as 'the golden rule.' Thus I use it's example as something we can all recognize.
It needs to be understood that 'law,' and furthermore the primitive laws of developing societies, are not by definition some sort of written-down, scribed set of guidelines. The very definition of a social contract implies understood guidelines, taboos, and mores. It was actually Hammurabi's written laws that set such a historical precedent for institutionalized Law.
ultimately, although I didn't study sociology, I agree with what you said. I don't know why I thought you were buddhist, maybe another of Jay's friends is. Or maybe my brain is just bad.
I was going to give an example about Rastafarians and pot, but I got carried away with that metaphor. Another example occured to me anyway: If I as a Christian walk down the street and see a homeless man lying there and I give him a dollar, the reason why is because my religion causes me to be compassionate to the less fortunate. (actually I don't give money to the homeless, but let's just assume I would) If you walk down the street and give money to a homeless guy, you wouldn't be doing it out of your Christianity, you'd be doing it out of plain compassion or maybe because Buddhism tells you to (I know nothing about Buddhism at all). You're not doing it because of your Christianity, I'm not doing it out of my Buddhism. We're both doing the same thing for different reasons.
Important to add is that later in the day, given our JUSTIFICATION for our actions, you would expect me to do something Christian like go to a church or pray or something, and you would be expected to do something further Buddhist. Wouldn't be terribly unreasonable, I hope.
What Josiah is claiming (even though I'd dispute it) is that America bases our rules on the Christianity of our founders. I DIDN'T SAY THAT - don't get mad at me. Asia, although not being a country, does have some of the same laws as us, presumably because they just believe they're good laws for governing (which is why I'd say the US bans murder) or maybe like in India, the religion popular to the country says that murder is wrong. From that reasoning, is it unreasonable to expect that the US would persue non-repressive legislation based on the Christian moral system? Probably not, IF that were the case (it isn't).
Reply
The fault here is that any insistence that primordial compromises are based in religion is a fallacy, flying in the face of the nature of social contract. Social contract is the day-one keyword of any sociology class; any large-enough community of persons to encounter difficulties will fall into a natural pattern of necessary compromises.
The most natural of these compromises is the principle of 'I won't kill you if you don't kill me.' The simplified, but not always accurate version is simply 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' That is not a cutesy golden rule for gradeschool kids, it's the foundation of all government.
Nations wholly independent in development from Christianity developed a similar set of prime ethos regarding the behavior and compromises of people of the same social classes. Documented examples go back easily to the 1700's BC, under Hammurabi. Ancient Sumeria wasn't big on the Christian God back then, either.
Social contract rules the basis of murder and theft laws, and in societies that have moved at all beyond de facto subjugation of women, laws against rape come naturally.
also, I'm not buddhist O_o
Reply
Reply
That wording is taught in American elementary schools to children of all cultures as 'the golden rule.' Thus I use it's example as something we can all recognize.
It needs to be understood that 'law,' and furthermore the primitive laws of developing societies, are not by definition some sort of written-down, scribed set of guidelines. The very definition of a social contract implies understood guidelines, taboos, and mores. It was actually Hammurabi's written laws that set such a historical precedent for institutionalized Law.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment