Observations on the world today.

Saturday, September 24, 2005

And I Want to Make This Absolutely Clear... 

Several months ago, I published this challenge:
I have a free gmail account to award to the first person who can give me one Christian principal upon which this nation or it's government is founded. The rules are simple. The principal must be biblical. It must be uniquely Christian. And it must be actually encoded in US law.
Recently, I posted the same challenge on a message board I frequent, and somebody posted the following response which he found here but which originated here:
That is why blasphemy** was a crime under common law when it was codified. A law which US law-makers recognised...

“Following the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, the First Amendment and most state constitutions prohibited the establishment of an official religion. Nevertheless, states still occasionally prosecuted persons for blasphemy against Christianity!

In a typical 19th-century blasphemy case, a man called Ruggles made highly insulting remarks about Jesus Christ and his mother, Mary. The state of New York tried and convicted Ruggles and sentenced him to jail for three months plus a $500 fine. Appealing his case, Ruggles' attorney argued that his client could not be prosecuted for blasphemy since there was no state law against it.

In 1811, New York's highest appeals court unanimously rejected Ruggles' arguments. The court said that New York did not need a blasphemy statute. Ruggles' words violated the common law inherited from England, which made blasphemy against Christianity the law of the land. Based on this interpretation of the law, the New York court stated that reviling Jesus was a crime since it “tends to corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order.”

The court seemingly ignored that New York's state constitution prohibited the establishment of any government-sponsored religion. Nevertheless, most other states adopted this legal opinion. Although very few persons were prosecuted, blasphemy remained a crime in several states well into the 20th century.”
Now, the first problem with this is that blasphemy as a crime exists in Jewish law as well as Muslim and Christian law, so it fails to meet the "uniquely Christian" requirement of the challenge. However, since it can be argued that in practice this law was only ever meant to be applied to those who blaspheme against the Christian God, it must be acknowledged that this was only meant to be applied as a state sponsored defense of Christianity, and therefore is a Christian law codified. The argument is valid so far as it goes. It doesn't specifically meet the challenge, but it does demonstrate a state sponsored defense of Christianity over other religions.

Which leads me to this question. Throwing otherwise law abiding citizens in jail for having an unpopular opinion of the majority's diety: is this really what the right-wing advocates of the idea that this is a Christian nation mean when they argue that this land was founded on "Christian principles?"

The whole thing reminds me of a scene from Life of Brian:
Matthias: Look, I don't think it should be a sin, just for saying "Jehovah".
[Everyone gasps]
Jewish Official: You're only making it worse for yourself!
Matthias: Making it worse? How can it be worse? Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!
Jewish Official: I'm warning you! If you say "Jehovah" one more time (gets hit with rock) RIGHT! Who did that? Come on, who did it?
Stoners: She did! She did! (suddenly speaking as men) He! He did! He!
Jewish Official: Was it you?
Stoner: Yes.
Jewish Official: Right...
Stoner: Well you did say "Jehovah. "
[Crowd throws rocks at the stoner]
Jewish Official: STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT RIGHT NOW! STOP IT! All right, no one is to stone _anyone_ until I blow this whistle. Even... and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say, "Jehovah. "
[Crowd stones the Jewish Official to death]

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Queer Eye For The Straight God 

This is the funniest thing I have read in a long time.
Issue of 2005-09-26
Posted 2005-09-19

Day No. 1:

And the Lord God said, “Let there be light,” and lo, there was light. But then the Lord God said, “Wait, what if I make it a sort of rosy, sunset-at-the-beach, filtered half-light, so that everything else I design will look younger?”

“I’m loving that,” said Buddha. “It’s new.”

“You should design a restaurant,” added Allah.

Day No. 2:

“Today,” the Lord God said, “let’s do land.” And lo, there was land.

“Well, it’s really not just land,” noted Vishnu. “You’ve got mountains and valleys and—is that lava?”

“It’s not a single statement,” said the Lord God. “I want it to say, ‘Yes, this is land, but it’s not afraid to ooze.’ ”

“It’s really a backdrop, a sort of blank canvas,” put in Apollo. “It’s, like, minimalism, only with scale.”

“But—brown?” Buddha asked.

“Brown with infinite variations,” said the Lord God. “Taupe, ochre, burnt umber—they’re called earth tones.”

“I wasn’t criticizing,” said Buddha. “I was just noticing.”
The whole thing can be read at The New Yorker. My only quibble, and it is a minor one, is that the writer makes Allah and the Lord God of biblical creation two seperate dieties. It perpetuates the fundy idea that Allah is not the same God they worship. Not that it matters. I mean, it's all fairy tales anyway.

Fairy tales; get it?

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?