How should govt determine right and wrong?

[Reverend Blair]

He didn't really have a question...what he offered was a justification as to why his beliefs should be a guide to Canadian law. I responded to that.

If he cares to ask a direct question without giving the only answer he is willing to accept in the next sentence, then I will answer it.

I have nothing against MPs being religious. My MP is Bill Blaikie. He's an ordained minister. I support him because I agree with the things he promotes and like the way he stands up for our rights. Bill does not suggest that we base Canadian law on the Bible of his religion though.

[August1991]

Religious belief has no place in politics. Right and wrong should be based on what is best for the community at large and individual rights in general

Amazing how many people toss up this garbage statement. Let me put it in plain language for you. What it means is: “My religious beliefs have a place in politics, but nobody else’s are acceptable.”

I'm on DAC's side here. And I disagree with the Rev. Religious belief has an integral place in politics. It goes by the name of moral values. Politicians must decide contantly and the better ones try to have some coherent way to decide.

So how do you choose? That’s simple. Christianity comes with a built in, visible, public test. Jesus Christ walked this earth in historical times... Further, he gave us a concrete test. He told us that the ultimate sign of who he was lay in that fact the third day after his death he would rise again - & then he did it.

Sorry DAC, you've lost me completely there.

I thought we were discussing a coherent system of values that should guide politicians and you're suddenly talking about Lazarus.

Please don't get me wrong, DAC. IMV, you are welcome to have faith. But I don't see Christianity offering any kind of conherent morality for making collective decisions, and certainly not one that would meet with universal agreement.

I argued earlier that one moral code would be "to avoid wasting". I think we can all agree that if a house burns down, that's a loss and a "bad" thing. This simple precept leads to many conclusions solving many collective problems. But it can't solve the following dilemma (but it provides an idea):

My wife would dearly love to “squander” my computer, because she thinks (with some justification, I confess) that it interferes with our spending time together.  The problem in this discussion is that unless you have an absolute reference point, there is no basis for assigning value to anything.

In a conflict between two people fighting for the same thing, no one can truly say who is more deserving (although we have created a complex legal system that pretends to do exactly that).

In the competition for your time, who should win? Your wife or the computer? I don't know. But I think we can all agree that it is "good" if the dispute is resolved quickly, and whoever does win, it is "good" if your time is well used.

[DAC]

That's not even getting into the contradictions in your Bible. Do we turn the other cheek and let criminals run wild or do we start poking out their eyes? Actually turning the other cheek can also be interpreted as an act of defiance towards authority. Does that mean if I don't believe in a law I am entitled to openly challenge the police? To what extent? Which laws can I break?

I get so tired of people telling me about the “contradictions” of the Bible. Usually they have not read the Bible very much if at all, but grab on to catchwords that float around our society. If they have read the Bible they have certainly not studied enough to have even a superficial understanding of how it fits together.

Please note that it does fit together. The complete Bible has been studied for almost 2,000 years by hosts of people who found no contradictions in it. Until very recently those were mainly people who had studied logic very carefully, and were committed to the concept that contradictions meant error. The claim today by people who have little understanding of logic that they have found huge contradictions in the Bible (usually without reading it seriously if at all) is suspect from the beginning.

But let me (again) look at the common objection cited in the above quote. If you read the Bible, Reverend Blair, you would find that Jesus’ instruction to turn the other cheek was addressed to individuals. It follows the pattern of Proverbs which tells us that “a gentle answer turns away anger”. It is designed to guide individuals to build peace in their relationships, not war. On the other hand, the direction, “an eye for an eye” is addressed to judges. In their judicial work, they are commanded to give justice. They are directed by God to punish a violent crime with a penalty whose severity is as exactly as possible equivalent to the crime. There is no contradiction between the two. They do not encourage a person to seek vengeance when attacked. They do not encourage defiance of authority. They both work together towards a safe, pleasant, peaceful society.

The real contradiction is in people who say that government leaders should abandon all their principles before trying to decide what is good for our country.

[August1991]

They are directed by God to punish a violent crime with a penalty whose severity is as exactly as possible equivalent to the crime.

WTF? A judge goes into her chambers and phones God who gives her direction?

I've got a better question. Why would God (or anyone else for that matter) direct a judge in such a matter?

Better yet, is that a "good" direction at all? "Exactly as possible equivalent to the crime"? Who cooked that one up?

[DAC]

I thought we were discussing a coherent system of values that should guide politicians and you're suddenly talking about Lazarus.

Please don't get me wrong, DAC. IMV, you are welcome to have faith. But I don't see Christianity offering any kind of conherent morality for making collective decisions, and certainly not one that would meet with universal agreement.

I confess! I got off topic. But Reverend Blair’s question was “How can you choose?”, and that’s an almost irresistible lure.

It’s more than a little obvious that Christian beliefs do not meet with universal agreement, but I think it’s quite clear that the ten commandments do offer a coherent basis for making collective decisions in the political realm. You can take into account some of the other teachings that expand upon and apply the commandments, but they aren’t widely known today, so I’ll stick to the roots.

The first three and the last commandments deal with people’s hearts, which government has neither ability nor authority to control. So does the core of the fourth commandment, “Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy”. But the expansion of that, in Deuteronomy 5:14, is an expression of concern for the weak. A day of rest is established so “that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.” A lot of people today say, “Too bad for them; I want to shop on Sunday, so let them work”, but I think this is a value our government should be concerned to protect. In our pluralistic society the governmental reason for choosing Sunday would be that it is the holy day of the largest group who are concerned about such days in our land. But the motivation which should appeal to all is concern for clerks in stores.

The fifth commandment speaks of due respect for authority - it’s application by government should be fairly limited. The sixth through ninth: “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.” They are all values we should support. Many today hesitate about “You shall not commit adultery”, but given that almost all formal marriages begin with a contract (not necessarily written) to be faithful, it would seem that government has some reason to be involved in this.

In the competition for your time, who should win? Your wife or the computer? I don't know. But I think we can all agree that it is "good" if the dispute is resolved quickly, and whoever does win, it is "good" if your time is well used.

Well, I’ll agree that it is not good if my computer interferes with my time with my wife (& it sometimes does, I know). And yes, it’s definitely good that we find a resolution to that problem, quickly! Though my wife would say it’s already far too late to use the word “quickly” about it.

[DAC]

A judge goes into her chambers and phones God who gives her direction?

Come on, August1991! You usually do better than that.

What I said, in other words, was that God tells judges to be just. That means matching the penalty to the crime. That’s why we talk about justice. He doesn’t tell them “ET, phone home and get an answer”. He tells them to determine what is just in dealing with the offence, what balances, what matches the offender’s pain to the pain of the victim.

Why would God give a judge such directions? Look around at what is happening in our justice system. Judges toss out whatever happens to suit their fancy. Recently a man here who invaded a senior’s home and attacked them brutally was sentenced to house arrest. On the other hand, someone who pickets a Morgentaler clinic within the bubble zone gets a jail term. Judges need to be told to give justice.

The words you quoted, by the way, “Exactly as possible equivalent to the crime", were my attempt to express the sense of a just sentence.

[Reverend Blair]

Okay, DAC, let's just have a look at the ten commandments.

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Oh? Why not? What about all those who do not come from a Judeo/Christian Background

2.Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image....

I'll make images of whatever I please, thanks.

3. Thou shalt not not take the name of the Lord in Vain

Oh yes I will.

4. Remember the Sabbath

Which sabbath? Different religions, and even sects of Christianity, have different sabbaths

5. Honour they father and mother

I have no problem with that because my parents earned that honour. I know plenty of people with parents who earned nothing but derision though

6. Thou shalt not kill

Common to every culture and most cultures make exceptions for their own purposes

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

In the culture at the time that was written it applied only to women and meant unmarried sex, not extra-marital sex. While the meaning of adultery has changed, the Bible has not so which meaning do we use?

8. Thou shalt not steal.

Again, common to every culture and most cultures make exceptions for their own purposes.

9. Thou shalt not bear false withness against thy neighbour.

This is commonly interpreted as not lying, but it is really only an admonishment against libel and slander. Most cultures have prohibitions similar to this, it is not exclusive to Christianity

10. Thou Shalt not covet....

What does covet mean? To lust after, basically. Our society is based on coveting. The advertising industry is fully dependent on it. I, personally, think our covetousness is a bad thing, but there really are no laws against it.

So you think that a list where only 30% of the entries can be applied in our secular society is a good thing to base our laws on? And that 30% is common to almost every other culture on earth as well, no matter where their laws came from.

We need to make laws based on the good of the greater community, not any peculiar religious code and not against any peculiar religious code.

If we want to base our laws on something, why not the preamble to the Declaration of the UN? It embraces human rights, not religious beliefs.

[Elder]

Ah, but what if the religious institution has a good idea about how things could be done. Take for instance, DAC made an excellent point about the whole keeping the Sabbath day holy commandment (which once again you did not respond too), and how that could be implemented in a safe, non-exclusionary way. I wouldn't mind seeing that. Oh, and as far as I'm concerned, that post before hand which I was refering too did not address any of his points either.

At any rate, religion can definitely bring some good ideas to the table, and they shouldn't be disregarded just because they came from religion.

[Reverend Blair]

I addressed his point about the sabbath quite directly.

Which sabbath? Different religions, and even sects of Christianity, have different sabbaths

Our labour laws address that already, requiring over-time (a penalty against the employer) if an employee is required to work without having a day off. I would prefer laws that insist on two consecutive days off and give us more vacation time and statuatory holidays, but the code in the Bible does not address that.

[DAC]

  I addressed his point about the sabbath quite directly.

Which sabbath? Different religions, and even sects of Christianity, have different sabbaths

Actually, you did not address my point about the Sabbath, Reverend Blair. All you did was cast again your aspersion against the application of a commandment with which not everyone agreed. My point was explicit in indicating why certain of the commandments and some part of the Sabbath law should not be applied by the government, and in why in our country it is appropriate to choose Sunday as a government applied rest day.

Our labour laws address that already, requiring over-time (a penalty against the employer) if an employee is required to work without having a day off. I would prefer laws that insist on two consecutive days off and give us more vacation time and statuatory holidays, but the code in the Bible does not address that..

The claim that overtime laws give adequate protection sounds good to the person with a full time job that is not affected, and who does not face schedule differences with others in his or her family. But for the retail clerk, the most affected person, who is probably earning minimum wage or not so much more, longer open hours probably mean being moved to part-time status, so the employer can have more people to cover more open hours for the same amount of business, without having costs go up too much.

Alternatively, it just means less people working at any given time, with tasks not directly related to customers not reduced, so there is more work for the same pay.

Further it means more extended shift work, with the expectation that your husband may be off work Sunday this week, but you are off on Wednesday.

As a further problem, remember that it is considered virtually impossible for Christians to have their rights infringed upon in our society. After all, it’s basically a Christian society, people think. That means that when a Christian goes to the human rights commission complaining that she was fired because she refused to work on her holy day, they laugh at her. If a Muslim or Jew goes with the same complaint, there is at least a chance it will be taken seriously, but not for a Christian.

[Reverend Blair]

I cast no aspersions at all, just stated fact. Your sabbath is no holier than mine, and I don't happen to have one. You want a day off? Hey, so do I. I want two in a row, guaranteed by law. Do you want one to be Sunday? Good, but do not even dream of imposing that on me.

I was working as tech support for a retail business when they opened up on Sundays here. I was the only tech. It meant I was on call seven days a week instead of six. 9-9 weekdays, 9-6 Saturdays, and 11-6 Sundays. Did I think that was a good idea? Nope. I did it though because I would not grovel and claim to believe in something I did not believe in.

You will never get me to agree to Sunday openings on the basis of religion though. Two consectutive days off? No problem. Family consideration? I can buy that. Religious and/or racial celebration? Sure. Want to keep the stores, bars, and restaurants closed because you belive in a god? Sorry, I will not back you up on that.

[DAC]

You will never get me to agree to Sunday openings on the basis of religion though. Two consectutive days off? No problem. Family consideration? I can buy that. Religious and/or racial celebration? Sure. Want to keep the stores, bars, and restaurants closed because you belive in a god? Sorry, I will not back you up on that.

That’s why when I’m talking with you and the many like you, Rev B, I don’t focus on my primary reasons. They are not reasons at all for you and others, other than at the level of choosing which day is a fixed closing day, and there the reason I put forward is simply that in our society, Sunday is important to more people than any other “holy” day. But the principle of a closing day (as distinct from a holy day, which is matter of the heart) is protection of the weak, “that your slave may rest too”.

If you look at my previous post, I put forward a Christian basis for government of a pluralistic society (we’re not secular, but pluralistic). It included nothing which enforced or promoted the heart convictions of Christians. It does not propose to try to legislate the gospel. It is a government based on honest convictions which deals with outward issues in a Christian way. As someone responded to a similar statement of mine, that involves principles which receive broad support. But one advantage of coming from a Christian base is that it includes a distinct pressure to be honest, even if it means you don’t win. I think from other things you’ve said that you’d agree that such honesty is a refreshing breeze in our present political swamp.

[Digby]

But of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil ,thou shalt not eat of it :for in the day that thou eatest thereoff thou shalt surely Die .

The one Thing the God of the bible did not want man doing was decideing Good from Evil , He wanted to be the one we looked too for law making , If we looked to him for our laws we would greatly prosper .

If we looked elsewhere we would be headed the path to distruction .

I am covenced he knew we would eat of that tree , He knew we wanted to see what it tasted like . For all of eternity we would of wanted to know what that tree tasted like. So God being a wise God never stopped us from eating off that tree ,instead he put it right in front of us , and also put a lieing whispering enchanter here with us knowing this creature could outsmart little old mankind .

Thank God , We can look forward to a day when God will lock up that old hissing Enchanter , and will stop us from eating of that tree of the knowledge of good and evil .

Seems For us to Beleave in God (Agreeing with his Wisdom) God was wise enough to know it would take governing ourselfs to incredible messes first before we would beleave in thy Kingdom Come ,when it will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

We have only one hope , The day when God will keep this tree of the knowledge of good and evil from us and give us the tree of life instead , His Son . Who always respected his fathers wisdom .

Thy Kingdom Come ! Is our hope

And the seventh Angel sounded : and there were great voices in heaven ,saying ,The kingdoms of this world are become the Kingdoms of Our Lord and of his Christ ,and he shall reign for ever and ever .

Some day we will know not to eat of that tree , as some day its going to be easy to Beleave in God when he is on a throne as king of Planet Earth .

Won't be a democracy in them days , bad news for all you who want to remain as fruit pickers . I Think God does Exist .

[Digby]

One more thing i want to comment on , Which Sabbath?

Which one Did God Make Holy ? The Seventh Day ? The First Day ?

I think it was the Seventh , Maybe some man somewhere made the first day holy , maybe that mans hands was dirty .

Sunday keeping is a Satanic Trick to keep sincere people from really obeying God on all points .

Many places in New testament prove Saturday Sabbath is still expected .

1) Hebrews 4 verses 9-10 , take the word rest in verse 9 to Greek , then ask yourself how God rested from his?

2) Mathew 24; 20 why would Christ say this talking about just before the end if the Sabbath was done away like sunday keepers claim .

3) COL 2;16 ,17 ........YOU GOT TO THINK ABOUT THIS ONE, the real church knew the real sabbaths and holy days they wasn't just picking just any old day ,Paul knew they was keeping the right days , this wasn't the point .

but think about next verse Which are a shadow of things to come , so holy days and sabbaths (real ones) shadow Gods plan or have a hidden meaning .

1st day could not shadow the future it would shadow the days of Noah ,or rebellion .

6 days you work , one day you rest = 6000 years God allows man to govern this earth or prove our knowledge then comes the day you rest or the 1000 years Christ rules this earth with a rod of Iron .

So the seventh days hidden meaning is a shadow of the kingdom of God or the 1000 year perriod this world gets rest from our works of distroying it .

while in col 2 make sure you read verses 21-23 , does anybody really beleave this , THAT ALL ARE TO PARISH with the useing after the commandments and doctrines of men ? So what if Sunday keeping is nothing but a commandment or doctrine of man?

Could the majority be wrong? Was they in Noahs Day? or the first day of the weeK ?

I don't even consider a Sunday keeping church as being God lead ! Sincere they could be though .

[Reverend Blair]

Sunday is important to more people than any other “holy” day. But the principle of a closing day (as distinct from a holy day, which is matter of the heart) is protection of the weak, “that your slave may rest too”.

The problem with using Sunday as a day of rest is that it interferes with getting people two consecutive days off. One of the days is limited to either Saturday or Monday. I am old enough to remember when stores closed on Monday to give the workers a full weekend. Now they are open 7 days a week and Sunday is one of the busiest days. A lot of retail workers can take two days off in the middle of the week instead of one on Sunday and one on Thursday.

It wasn't that long ago that bars and off-sales were closed on Sundays here in Manitoba. I know a couple of waitresses who love working Sundays because the people are better behaved. They tend to take their time off at the beginning of the week.

Having a standardised sabbath is increasingly a non-workable idea. People want to shop on Sundays, people want to go for a drink. Some people enjoy working on Sundays because it offers them options during the week. Others take advantage of time off of their regular job to work part-time or persue other interests.

[The Terrible Sweal]

At any rate, religion can definitely bring some good ideas to the table, and they shouldn't be disregarded just because they came from religion.

From whatever cultural influence it may come, any 'good idea' should certainly be welcomed by any society. Of course, society must evaluate the idea for its own merits, and neither credit it with invalid authority, nor discredit it simply for its source.

Indeed, I believe that is what has happened to bring about our liberal society today. We retain, for example, Jesus's basis point that each individual is an end in themselves; we discard the empty totems of superstition such as witch trials.

[CanadianPatriot]

Your sabbath is no holier than mine, and I don't happen to have one.

Well Blair, if you have no Sabbath and I do, than obviously mine must be holier than yours

You will never get me to agree to Sunday openings on the basis of religion though. Two consectutive days off? No problem. Family consideration? I can buy that. Religious and/or racial celebration? Sure. Want to keep the stores, bars, and restaurants closed because you belive in a god? Sorry, I will not back you up on that.

WHy are you opposed to the idea of closing stores based on religious values? How does it harm you in any way if we ask the government to close everything down for one day a week? You´re happy because you get a day off to rest and the religious folks are happy because they are fulfilling their commitments to God. Would you really dig your heels in the ground and deny Christians and Jews their Sabbath for the sole reason that you do not believe in God? Do you have some personal reason for not supporting it?

[Digby]

To me Sunday is nothing but a work day , Saturday is the day i figgure God wants Kept Holy .

So I hope they drop all the sunday closing laws . makes it alot easier to obey God .

[Alliance Fanatic]

QUOTE 

Well, yes, I do think that installing democracy is preferable to murdering those who disagree with you.

Of course. The end justifies the means, even if millions more die while installing that democracy.

I would much rather die a man fighting for his freedom, then a man dying being oppressed.

[Black Dog]

To me Sunday is nothing but a work day , Saturday is the day i figgure God wants Kept Holy .

So I hope they drop all the sunday closing laws . makes it alot easier to obey God .

I think they should play it safe and close everything on Fridays too. I'd appreciate the three-day weekend (provided, of course, the bars stay open: after all, I find it a lot easier to keep the Sababth holy with a couple of cold ones in hand.)

[Digby]

Which day Did Jesus Christ Keep?

ever read 1st peter 2;21

[The Terrible Sweal]

It is not the government's function to 'decide what is right or wrong', and the government has no business concerning itself with 'morality'. Government must only concern itself with what is effective in acheiving the goals of the society. As with individuals in all walks of life, people in government should personally behave ethically, including in their working-life decisions. But government as an institution has no means separate from the will of individuals and society an it would therefor be presumptuous and wrongheaded for it to purport to establish some morality.

And come to think of it, what the hell is 'morality'. As far as I can figure out, to the extent 'morality' differs from 'ethics' it becomes utterly devoid of content and ends up simply being about aesthetics, and therefore basically absurd.

[Protest]

Why are we letting the government make these types of dicisions, we are the people who will be effected, we should be the ones who make the decision.

[Tawasakm]

Why are we letting the government make these types of dicisions, we are the people who will be effected, we should be the ones who make the decision.

Arguably we are making the decision - with our vote. Thats a part of the basis of democracy - of the people and for the people.

If our vote does not empower us to have a direct impact on what the government determines to be right or wrong then that could well be considered to be a failure of democracy.

Should the goverment use the majority rule as it's indicator however? I think there should be a balance. People in goverment have greater access to information and (hopefully) more education and experience in these areas and so should have a large part in determining such things. That said government decisions need to be counterbalanced against the wishes of the people (at least in a democracy). Perhaps it is best to say that I believe government needs to steer the boat but it needs the input of the rest of the crew when plotting a course.

Please note also that I feel there is quite a difference between majority rules and mob rules.

[JWayne625]

Someone on the first page of this forum said that the weakest individual should have to agree with any changes in rules or laws, but that is what we have right now with the inception of the Charter. We now have minorities dictating rules and lifestyles that the rest of us are just supposed to accept. Unelected and unaccountable judges are making law in this country instead of just interpreting it, as was the intentions when Canada came together at Confederation. That is what we elect MP's and MLA's and MNA's for. If we are going to change all that and now allow unelected and unaccountable judges to perform that function then maybe we should be taking a look at abolishing Parliament and our Provincial Legislatures and just electing judges to office, at least then they would be accountable for the decisions they are making.