quote:

original:Cagey18
I fail to see why you think that just because someone grew up in a society with lots of Christians, doesn't mean that same person can't look at a legal issue independent of that background. Especially when the Constitution specifically leaves out Christianity.

quote:

Because in the 1970s we decided that divorce should be allowed the way it is today.

You are aware that our divorce laws are in direct conflict with the teachings of many, if not most, of the major Christian churches? Such as, for instance, the Catholic Church?

And you are aware that in truly Christian nations - that is, countries that allow direct influence from the Church on politics - divorce (and your earlier example, abortion) is still illegal? Ireland, for instance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b


I fail to see why people are having a difficult time with the distinction I am drawing. 

quote:

Not at all.  It's more akin to discussing planetary motion without discussing where the chalk came from that you're drawing orbits with, or the manufacturer of the chalkboard.

In other words, not necessary to the discussion.

quote:

I fail to see why you think that just because someone grew up in a society with lots of Christians, doesn't mean that same person can't look at a legal issue independent of that background.  Especially when the Constitution specifically leaves out Christianity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Not at all.  It's more akin to discussing planetary motion without discussing where the chalk came from that you're drawing orbits with, or the manufacturer of the chalkboard.

In other words, not necessary to the discussion.

Absurd.  You are looking at this from a strictly legal point of view.  I am looking at this from more of an anthropological point of view.

quote:


How can you possibly discuss legal/Constitutional issues

quote:

ORIGINAL: breatheasone

~~FR~~

There were PLENTY of civilizations and societies, before Christ that did not condone public nudity. i'm not saying they were opposed to nudity over all but as you stated public.  And please tell me you are not suggesting that no cultures were kind to each other, or  even strangers before Christ? So then...wouldn't it be interesting to find out where they got their sense of right and wrong? Seeing how they wouldn't have had Christ's influence. nor the influence of His followers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

The topic may have started out about the separation of church and state (something I am completely in favor of by the way) but conversations (and what are the message boards but a slow motion conversation?) tend to meander as I’m sure you are aware of.

quote:


If you are going to quote me, please do so accurately.  Pulling apart my quotes and presenting only half of them – out of context! – is deceptive.  What I actually said was:

"How can you possibly discuss legal/Constitutional issues without discussing the cultural heritage [emphasis mine] such things arise from?"

quote:

Not in this case, however.  These legal issues have been the topic for the entirety of our exchanges, as proven by your own words.  Trying to pretend otherwise is called "backpedaling".

quote:

Uh, no, not "out of context" when your words are the entire context.

I only quoted the first half, since the second half is irrelevant.  By quoting the first half, I'm showing how we were in fact discussing legal/Constitutional issues [emphasis mine], and not anthropological ones as you are trying to pretend. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Not in this case, however.  These legal issues have been the topic for the entirety of our exchanges, as proven by your own words.  Trying to pretend otherwise is called "backpedaling".

Yes in this case.  Perhaps they have been the topic for the entirety of our exchanges for you but not for me.  My whole point is that the legal issues do not exist in a vacuum all by themselves - that there is a whole cultural/religious heritage influencing them.  A point you seem entirely unable to grasp. 

quote:

quote:

Uh, no, not "out of context" when your words are the entire context.

I only quoted the first half, since the second half is irrelevant.  By quoting the first half, I'm showing how we were in fact discussing legal/Constitutional issues [emphasis mine], and not anthropological ones as you are trying to pretend. 

The second half of my statement may be irrelevant to you but not to me.  It is – once again! – the whole point I am trying to make.  Anthropology concerns the study of cultures so I am not pretending anything.  If you want to limit your mind, by all means do so.  I prefer a more expansive view of things.

quote:

You're funny!  Actually it's a point that you keep valiantly trying to hammer home, and yet no one here is buying it.

quote:

That's not failure to grasp, it's deliberate ignoring (or refutation) of nonsense.

quote:

Like I said, "expanding" discussion of planetary orbits to included the context of the chalk and the manufacturer of the chalkboard is irrelevant.

quote:

"Expanding" legal discussions of the Constitution (which is explicitly non-Christian) to include Christian influences is likewise irrelevant.

A point you seem entirely unable to grasp.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

You're funny!  Actually it's a point that you keep valiantly trying to hammer home, and yet no one here is buying it.

Doesn’t make them right.

quote:

quote:

That's not failure to grasp, it's deliberate ignoring (or refutation) of nonsense.

The influence of the culture in which a legal system arises is nonsense?  How obtuse can you be?

quote:

quote:

Like I said, "expanding" discussion of planetary orbits to included the context of the chalk and the manufacturer of the chalkboard is irrelevant.

But, as I said before, considering the influence of gravity on planetary orbits is not.

quote:

quote:

"Expanding" legal discussions of the Constitution (which is explicitly non-Christian) to include Christian influences is likewise irrelevant.

A point you seem entirely unable to grasp.

Because it is not irrelevant.  If you believe otherwise then you are, quite simply, wrong.  The Constitution didn’t spring out of nothingness.  It arose out of a culture that had been forming for thousands of years and whether you like it or not Christianity has been a part of that culture – helping to mold and shape it (for better or worse).  You sound as if the Constitution could have been just as easily written by Eskimos.

quote:

We're not talking about how legal systems arise.  How obtuse can you be?

quote:

And as I said before, your argument is more akin to chalk origins than gravity.

quote:

Again, we're not talking about the origin of the Constitution. That's not the topic at all.

quote:

If you want to keep attempting to move the goalposts away, feel free, but then you'll really be alone, preaching to yourself and agreeing with yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Nor you, for that matter.  But it certainly puts the odds of "rightness" in our favor.  Strange that not one person agrees with you, isn't it?
Since when are numbers an indication of rightness?  For thousands of years millions of people believed that the sun orbited the earth.  Were they right?    
We are no longer in medieval times.  I correctly pointed out the odds, and the fact that no one is agreeing with you.

quote:

We're not talking about how legal systems arise.  How obtuse can you be?

This is bullshit.  Every time I make a point you simply say “we’re not talking about that.”  Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.  I will not allow you dictate the terms of the discussion.  Not "dictating the terms", but rather pointing out reality.  If you bring up ancient Egyptian customs, and I point out that's not the topic, is that "dictating the terms" in your world? 

That it an old rhetorical dodge (one that demonstrates that you are unable to refute me Actually I've already done so several times) and I will not fall for it.

quote:

And as I said before, your argument is more akin to chalk origins than gravity.

Just another example of what I just said.  You didn’t like my argument so you declared it to be out of bounds. Has nothing to do with "liking", but rather making a more accurate analogy than the one you were making.

quote:

Again, we're not talking about the origin of the Constitution. That's not the topic at all.

And yet again.  You don’t like what I am saying so you declare it out of bounds. See above re "liking", and further above re reality.

quote:

If you want to keep attempting to move the goalposts away, feel free, but then you'll really be alone, preaching to yourself and agreeing with yourself.

Yeah, well, sometimes that’s the only way I can have a serious intellectual discussion. What an incredibly amusing image.

You know, I could use your technique against you just as easily.  Your first response to me on this thread was in response to a statement I had made (to Musicmystery) in which I asked the question:

“How can you possibly discuss legal/Constitutional issues without discussing the cultural heritage such things arise from?”

You responded with:

“Pretty easily, actually.  The Supreme Court does it all the time.”

But we’re not talking about the Supreme Court are we? Actually we were--where were you?  Do I really have you so "exasperated"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18


Strange that not one person agrees with you, isn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18


Strange that not one person agrees with you, isn't it?

Wrong. I agree with him, and he is totally correct about your dishonest debating "techniques". If anyone with the reading comprehension of a 7th grader bothers with this thread tomorrow there will be plenty more that agree with him.