'Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal'

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rovex, May 27, 2013.

  1. rovex macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    #1
    The US and UK (US in particular) fight in the name of god. The US dollar even has god written on it, so given 2 of the 10 commandments involve not killing and not stealing, has the US and UK committed a disservice to its own divine morals? Countless warmongering when it comes to oil and political idealogy, is it time to debate this aspect so rarely discussed?
     
  2. JohnLT13 macrumors 6502a

    JohnLT13

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Location:
    Boston (aka Red Sox Nation)
    #2
    Although I am not religious I feel the 10 commandments to be a very good ethical and civil code of conduct to follow. Its a shame so many people who call themselves "religious" do not follow them. But I don't feel government should be run in accordance to any religious text. JMO.
     
  3. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #3
    Wait a sec? Where is this explicitly stated in any military document? Last I checked, the US military fought for the US and it's allies. Anyhow, officially the us law is not explicitly based on any religion whatsoever.

    About the most you get is our politicians making religious statements and pander to religious constituents. Whenever they try and pass laws that are religiously based, they tend to be immediately challenged
     
  4. Shrink macrumors G3

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #4
    Well, aside form the god thing on US money (which gives me a stiff pain in the ass), would you agree that Sunday Blue Laws are an example of religiously based laws?

    There are other examples, but it's late, I'm old, and I can't think of any others at the moment. I'll be back tomorrow with more.:eek:
     
  5. rovex thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    #5
    Except both countries aren't secular in the sense that the 'state' identifies itself with christianity, as opposed to being neutral. I guess you can argue the extent to which religion plays a part in politics (if any) but the point is they both recognise Christianity and god which condemns precisely what they have been undertaking god knows how many years going way back to the Crusades.
     
  6. pdjudd, May 27, 2013
    Last edited: May 27, 2013

    pdjudd macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #6
    Well not totally. The idea behind them is religious, but outside of alcohol and some commerce (which isn't universal) they have largely been shot down. I acknowledged that for the most part. They also stay on the books for other reasons (like convenience or tradition). I have heard that many of the commerce laws are still there because the businesses support them for non-religious reasons.

    But if you want to pick nits, they aren't religious laws per se - they are to enforce religious standards. They are oddbals though so I will give you that. But they aren't meant to establish any official religion.

    The currency thing does bother me too FWIW but that was addressed in the OP. I still don't take it a an explicit religious expression per se. I would rather see it go nonetheless.

    ETA: I do maintain that politicians action is mostly to pander to voters who are religious. Nobody is trying to pass laws that are explicit establishment laws since they tend to get challenged right away.

    I do agree that it is rank hypocrisy to pander to God and support things like wars, but that is not unique to any religion or any county. Its a form of cafeteria religion where they pick the parts that agree with their biases. People have used religion for terrible things for hundreds of years and it isn't limited to one nation. Fact is, very few people care about such things and I don't see it changing any time soon. Whats sad is that it does get talked about all the time and most people refuse to change things that are ingrained into them.
     
  7. Shrink macrumors G3

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #7
    First, i appreciate your thoughtful response.

    Just to note that the Blue Laws in Mass were in effect until relatively recently. It is possible it was longer ago than I want to remember, being an old guy, but e-commerce has pretty much made the issue moot.

    I would disagree, however, about the "In God We Trust" nonsense on US money. I guess I find it more offensive than you do.:)
     
  8. rovex thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    #8
    You've hit the crux of the debate which is why i thought it was an interesting one to be had. You think of islam and how quick representatives are to point out the killings in the name of god as being wholly unacceptable, even according to the koran, yet they themselves cannot be held accountable for wars while they promote god for their own political gains.
     
  9. pdjudd, May 27, 2013
    Last edited: May 27, 2013

    pdjudd macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #9
    Thanks! I like your responses too!

    Well I do agree with you there - it's very hard to make sweeping statements about them which kinda makes it hard to debate things, but I can say that there is no consistency with these laws. They are really weird on how certain laws (like the ones prohibiting housewares being sold on Sunday - I fail to see how that is immoral)

    I would say that it ranks pretty low on my offended scale. I have a bigger problem with creationism pandering, people who use morality to deny gay's rights, and contraception issues that result from religion. Honestly I don't even notice it and as long as my money (as little as I see it) is accepted as valid currency, I am happy. I have never encountered anybody trying to make religious statements about money that would tie in the statement anyhow unless they have mental issues or conspiracy theorists.


    Honestly, though what can we do about it? In the US the freedom of speech is a core tenant and there is no law that forbids hypocrisy when it comes to religion. THe best we can do is call people on it when we see it, but honestly, that doesn't really work. You call them out, they take it as a personal attack and just double down. It happens. I see it all the time here in other PSRI threads (like gay marriage). I would argue that people who are hypocritical about religious beliefs are the last people who are going to re-examine said hypocrisy.
     
  10. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #10
    The presence of "God" on the US dollar, as well as the Pledge of Allegiance, is nothing but a meaningless relic of our government's Cold War propaganda.
     
  11. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #11
    Could have sworn that the currency thing predated the Cold War, but I am happy to admit being wrong. I do know that the pledge was changed as sort of a counter to Russia during the Cold War. Some part of me remembers that a communist would never take a pledge to God or something like that. Could be wrong about that too though! :D
     
  12. the8thark macrumors 68040

    the8thark

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    #12
    On a similar subjet, if a middle eastern person kills a white person it's called a terrorist act. But if a white person kills a middle eastern person it's called removing the threat or some good thing.

    Has the world become so bad that race determines if it's murder? People seem to forget that all races of people are people and killing any one of them by any other (doesn't matter what race) is murder.
     
  13. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #13
    Shouldn't you do a better job of convincing us that the US "fights in the name of God"? Your connection with whats written on the US dollar isn't that strong.
     
  14. AppleScruff1 macrumors G3

    AppleScruff1

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    #14
    In God We Trust appeared on coins in 1864, long before the Cold War. It appeared on paper currency in 1957. The Pledge of Allegiance also predates the Cold War, but the under God line was added in the 1950's.
     
  15. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #15
    Correct... It was earlier conflict that sparked its addition to our coinage: the Civil War. (Though arguably the reasoning was the same.)

    I wasn't saying that the PoA itself was created for the Cold War. I appologize for any confusion I might have caused.
     
  16. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #16
    That's not saying much. Most people would probably just call him a murderer. People like to toss around terrorism, but again, they tend to do that as a form or rhetoric to give the media a soundbite. Terrorism has a much more specific meaning and isn't race related. Heck i think the word gets overused.

    I haven't heard that ever unless it was in reference to an actual enemy combatant or it was uttered by somebody who had serious race issues. Certainly not a mainstream idea.

    I argue that outside of the crazies, nobody is actually suggesting that. They are willing to call such people murderers unless they have a motive consistent with terrorism. Just plain killing people doesn't qualify.
     
  17. rovex thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    #17
    Well the queen is head of state and head of army. The president is head of state and commander and chief.

    I don't think the US fights in the name of God per se, but religion forms part of the state which means there is a link.
     
  18. ejb190 macrumors 65816

    ejb190

    #18
    The Hebrew words לא תרצח (lo tirtzach) which is translated as "Thou shall not kill" implies a sense of hostility, anger, or malicious intent in the action. Therefore, most Hebrew scholars prefer the translation "Thou shall not murder", as it is found in the NIV and most other modern translations.

    Is death in war murder? I guess that's going to depend on who you ask.
     
  19. the8thark macrumors 68040

    the8thark

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    #19
  20. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #20
    Ehhh...not really. While you can assume that most members of the US government are at least nominally Christian, and that probably does color some of their decision making, you can't say their being such constitutes the US as being a Christian state.

    Just because George W. told the country God wanted him to invade Iraq doesn't necessarily mean that was the major reason behind launching that particular war. To me, it was more a thinly veiled attempt at rallying the troops so his Haliburton friends could get first dibs on that delicious crude.
     
  21. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #21
    I read the update - it seems that the attack wasn't a simple murder and it seems that the person's occupation as a soldier in Afghanistan makes it more complicated. However the article was more of a broad "what is terrorism, not saying that a murder by someone middle eastern is by default terrorism.


    I agree. Just pandering to the religious for whatever reason isn't enough to say that the US is a Christian State especially since we have the establishment clause that outright allows it.
     
  22. rovex thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    #22
    The US is neither neutral however. France is a neutral country, the constitution recognises no religion. The US recognises christianity as the state religion.

    I think it's more a matter of symbolic importance, not so much practical relevance as decision making is not influenced by religion.
     
  23. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #23
    Can you cite where they do that? Officially? I ask this since this would be impossible under the establishment clause of the constitution. And some idiot claiming the US is a Christian nation doesn't cut it.
     
  24. rovex thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    #24
    But you don't hear the french president ever pronounce the word god let alone reserve an Easter prayer in the presence of a priest at the white house, even if as you say it's media friendly and works well with the american public
     
  25. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #25
    Depends on the pandering, really. There are some subtle ways the government could get around the 1st amendment. Indirect involvement through certain types of grants. Preferences for Christian judges and cabinet members, as opposed to Jewish and Muslim ones. It could be done.

    Though from what I've seen, it's not. We do see the occasional scuffle here and there, along with a few political entities like the Moral Majority, but otherwise the US has done at least a decent job of staying neutral.
     

Share This Page