Palin's Religious Rights

Where is the proof against her.

Published on September 12, 2008 By jesseledesma In Politics

This morning, a taxi driver took out his towel, set it up in a corner, took his shoes off, and I assume he started praying to his god. He is lucky he is living in a country were he can do that with out being attacked. Mrs. Sarah Palin lives in this country too.

As is the case most of the times, when I write I am ussually inspired by some injustice I have witnessed. Last, night I saw Mr. Charlie Gibson, of ABC news attack Mrs. Palin for her faith. I was reviewing the web news pages for some notes on my video blog when I ran across a link to an ABC ineterview between Gibson and Palin. Mr. Gibson actually had the nerve to demand Mrs. Palin justify her statements that she had previously made in her church. I say demand because even the question is offensive.

The two issues that are bugging me here are "freedom of speech" and "right of religious epxpression". These are rights protected under the American Constitution. No one should be requirred by liberal news people, with no god, or any one else to justify their faith.

Now, the news people want to imply that because Mrs. Palin said that the mission in Iraq is a call from God that she is a religious radical who wants to govern according to her theology. When these wars began, I too sensed some divinity in the American soldier's actions. Any time you stand up to evil in defense of the good you are working for God whether you are a willing participant or not. Saying that life has a plan and everything that happens is a detail of this plan is just expressing your opinion according to your faith. Last, time I checked every one in America has the right to their opinion and their religion.

Futhermore, if the American liberal news wants to paint Mrs. Palin as a religious radical let them present the evidence. I challenge any one to present credible proof that Mrs. Palin has governed according to her theology. Now, I know people have accused Mr.s palin of a lot, but where is real proof, not inuendo and/or suposition.

I can very easily speparate the statements made to a congregation by one of its members as that person expressing her religious beliefs. After all she was at her church. She was not a political event, talking about politics.

The reality is tha people who have never had a personal encounter with Jesus Christ will never undersand people who have had this encounter. However, just because of a lot of knee- jerk- reactionaries cannot stand to hear the name of God does not mean that in America people do not have the right of free speech and religious expression. Furhtermore, a person of the Christain faith is not automatically a religious finatic.

God is a loving God who educated his people on how to be humble and serve with dignity and grace. Outsiders cannot take a person's religious speech and use it as a blanket generalization about a person's personality. Palin is a Christian. She is also a politician. Neither of these two facts interfer with the other. Only in the perverse minds of people who value nothing and believe in less does a person's religious speech equate for a person's complete value system. Again, I challenge any one to show real proof that Mrs. Palin has tried to legislate in a religiously intolerant manner.

Comments (Page 3)

lulapilgrim

on Sep 15, 2008

KINGBEE POSTS:

elected officials who enact policy or legislation predicated on their personal religious beliefs (christian or not) while claiming to represent any community other than their own congregation are not only hypocrites...they're malfeasant, misfeasant, nonfeasant and arrogant violatiors of public trust and, most likely, any oath they've sworn at beginning of their term.

lULA POSTS:

Kingbee, do you think legalized slavery would ever have been overturned if people of faith had chosen to keep their religious convictions private? I don't.

KINGBEE POSTS: #16

it certainly wasn't european non-christians who brought into being the sort of slavery to which you refer. i don't think a smart lady such as youself really wants to get into who was responsible for enslaving those the spanish & portugese "discovered" when they reached the western hemisphere or whose religious precepts provided not only justification but seemingly divine approval for enslaving africans.

not that it was solely a catholic thing, of course. fervent, god-fearing christians of various denominations caught, transported, bought, sold, traded as well as profited from slaves and the slave trade.

while a good many of those responsible for abolishing slavery were generally another sort of christian entirely, they--along with their christian europeans and american brethren--seemingly had no problem whatsoever enslaving most of the non-christian people of the world in return for saving their souls

Kingbee,

Regarding your blaming the Catholic Church and Catholicism for slavery.....

We know that slavery was a legal, accepted and deeply interwoven part of the Roman empire when the Catholic Chruch came into existence in the first century and began her work. The Church labored to better the life of slaves by teaching their equal human dignity and working for their emancipation. The Chruch ordained them as priests and in 225 had a slave as Pope. She urged those owners who were converted to Christianity to release their slaves and within 200 years of Constantine's conversion, her efforts led to practically eradicating the pagan concept of slavery.

The beginning of these efforts can be seen in St. Paul's letter to Philemon 16:21, about a runaway slave named Onesimus, who had converted to Catholicism. While St.Paul did not condemn slavery explicitly, which he was hardly in a position to do in those days of the early Church, he did, however, urge Philemon to welcome Onesimus back, "no longer as a slave but as a brother in Christ and "to do even more than I say" which implies giving Onesimus his freedom.

In the 4th century, the Chruch was successful in getting the civil power to remove the legal restrictions against the slaves. It was recognized that slaves were also men made in the image and likeness of God and they were no longer branded by hot irons with the stamp of their master. Nor were they any more thrown into gladiatorial contests for the amusement of a pagan populace. Under the influence of the Catholic Chruch, besides slavery, the civil power had made concubinage, adultery, abortion criminal offenses. Slavery was essentially softened into serfdom. So, the individual, high or low, with money or poor, was held equally responsible for the observance of the moral law.

The chastity of slaves was safeguarded by special legislation as was the marriage of slaves and that of a slave to a free woman. The foundation of European civilization was laid in the recognition of the family as a moral body as the primary unit of a civil society.

Three vital consequences resulted from the acceptance by the State of these Christian principles. The life of the family was stabliized, the woman's place as the head of the home was recognized and slavey now softened into serfdom had the promise of final emancipation.

Slavery surfaced again later in history when the inroads of Mohammadism revived slavery for the Moors regarded it as a duty to enslave captive Christians. Even so, religious Orders sprang up dedicated to the ransom of slaves and from 1198 to 1632, the Trinitarians and the Order of Mercy freed over 1, 400,000 slaves. The Chruch's evangelizing and civilizing mission was successful in almost eliminating slavery before it erupted again with the expeditions to the New World by Spain and Portugal in the 15th and 16th centuries. When they entered the American colonies the Popes did their utmost to prevent slavery.

The Popes in these and suceeding centuries, including Eugene IV in 1435, Pius II in 1462, Paul III in 1537, Urban VIII in 1639, Benedict XIV in 1741 all actively condemned slavery. Gregory XVI in 1839 and Leo XIII in 1890 both later fought African slave trade. But it was chiefly being fostered in the AMerican colonies founded from Protestant England and remember that Catholics themselves were not emancipated from penal laws until 1829.

lulapilgrim

on Sep 15, 2008

lula posts:

Obama calls himself a Christian, but by his 100% pro-abortion voting record, he doesn't walk the Christian walk. Same deal with Sen. Joe Biden, he's a Catholic hypocrite.

STEVENDEDALUS POSTS: #15

What makes it hypocritical is that you & ilk force private matters to go public. Separation protects religious rights as well as the right of governance--neither should exercise intolerance.

To me, examining the politician's voting record is a good way to measure their character.

No sir, it wasn't as you say, me and my ilk, who forced private matters into the public.....no sir, I'm tolerant with a live and let live attitude...but that type of tolerance wasn't enough for some ......as I recall the barbaric practice of abortion was a so-called private matter that is until 1973. The US Supreme Court Roe v Wade decision made private matters public....very public indeed.

lulapilgrim

on Sep 15, 2008

Lula posts:

do you think legalized slavery would ever have been overturned if people of faith had chosen to keep their religious convictions private? I don't.

OCK POSTS:

Legalized slavery existed BECAUSE of the religious. They used your bible to rationalize their actions. Kind of just like you do.

OCK,

Please read my response to KINGBEE # 31.

I only touched the surface of how the Catholic Chruch has condemned slavery. She continues to condemn this tragic commerce in human misery today just as she has condemend slavery everywhere for 2,000 years.

kingbee

on Sep 15, 2008

Care to elaborate?

be more than happy to do so, providing you begin by elaborating specifically as to what you feel requires elaboration:

a. my suggestion one of those ten mosaic commandments to which you refer expressly prohibits bearing false witness against others.

b. my dismissal (as crap) of your uninformed opinion that: Our laws are based on the commandments of God as given to Moses.

c. my assertion that a proscription such as 'thou shalt not bear false witness' isn't limited merely to outright baldfaced lies but also covers such things as perpetuating malicious gossip or scurillous innuendo.

kingbee

on Sep 16, 2008

Regarding your blaming the Catholic Church and Catholicism for slavery

although you quoted my disclaimer

not that it was solely a catholic thing, of course

you apparently ignored it.

catholics weren't the only christians participating in enslaving the native peoples of the western hemisphere or africa. they were merely among the first to do so, but hardly the last.

there are some major differences between the sort of slavery practiced in the americas from the 15th thru 19th centuries and its other manifestations in various locations, different cultures and earlier histroric periods. while any sort of enslavement negates the core essence of humanity, most previous slaveholding societies provided mechanisms through which individuals might eventually be able to improve their status or that of their children. comparing roman, greek, babylonian, etc slavery to the industry created by so-called enlightened westerners is sorta like making claims that commerical fishing as practiced 200 years ago had a similar impact on the oceans as today's factory fishing vessels with their advanced electronics and expanded range of operations.

When they entered the American colonies the Popes did their utmost to prevent slavery.

The Popes in these and suceeding centuries, including Eugene IV in 1435, Pius II in 1462, Paul III in 1537, Urban VIII in 1639, Benedict XIV in 1741 all actively condemned slavery.

it hardly seems plausible that catholic monarchs who sponsored the conquest of central and south america--including several lauded for their piety--would have ignored or defied papal orders. any pope who could draw a line thru a continent in order to resolve a dispute between two catholic nations musta been powerful enough to have prevented members of religious orders, all of whom were sworn to obey papal authority from brutally forcing native peoples into servitude.

only in the last 100 years or less have governments, organizations or dynastic families--even the most long-lived and despotic--of central and equatorial south america managed to acquire the sort of power and wealth of a chuch that enriched itself by exploiting the poorest of the poor.

Slavery was essentially softened into serfdom.

which is alive and well in southern mexico, honduras, peru and bolivia still laboring under the burden of a cross of gold studded with emeralds

the woman's place as the head of the home was recognized

really? when exactly was this the norm before--or after--the enlightenment? how about any time before or since? in which traditionally catholic nations is this the case?

lulapilgrim

on Sep 16, 2008

Kingbee posts

catholics weren't the only christians participating in enslaving the native peoples of the western hemisphere or africa. they were merely among the first to do so, but hardly the last.

there are some major differences between the sort of slavery practiced in the americas from the 15th thru 19th centuries and its other manifestations in various locations, different cultures and earlier histroric periods. while any sort of enslavement negates the core essence of humanity, most previous slaveholding societies provided mechanisms through which individuals might eventually be able to improve their status or that of their children. comparing roman, greek, babylonian, etc slavery to the industry created by so-called enlightened westerners is sorta like making claims that commerical fishing as practiced 200 years ago had a similar impact on the oceans as today's factory fishing vessels with their advanced electronics and expanded range of operations.

My you sure have gobbled up the anti-Catholics agenda of blaming the Church for all the misdeeds of the world in any way possible. In the case of slavery, the Church's historical record has been distorted by shading the facts.

One more time....

Slavery has existed throughout history and in virtually every part of the world.

Slavery existed in Israel of the Old Testament. Hebraic Judaism was fulfilled in Christianity. The Church was born into a world in which slavery was universally accepted as a social and economic part of society. The attitude of the early CHruch and under the New Testament towards slavery was primarily religious not social. Christ and His Apostles didn't give new legislation to oppose slavery but instead preached principles that would logically lead to its abolition. Christ taught all the children are of the same Father, no essential distinction can remain between free man and slave. The early Chruch nor the later Chruch had no way of intending an immediate change in social institutions....they exhorted the slaves to accept their station recognizing they had a higher life in Christ.

It is here in the eartly Chruch that the foundations were laid for a slow but effective social revolution that everntually caused the abolution of slavery in Christian countries. The Chruch from the beginning, urgently insisted on mutual rights and duties existing between masters and slaves, just as in our times she emphasizes the mutual rights and duties of employers and employees.

God became man and founded His Chruch not in order to usher in a new social, ecomonic or political order, but rather to change hearts so that they would live according to His laws and precepts.

It's history shows that it had 2 distinct forms existing side by side depending upon the virtue of the owners. Strange as it sounds, slavery didn't always have the odious connotation that it has today. For the understanding of the Chruch's attitude to slavery and for balanced judgment, the fact that slavery existed under different forms must be kept in mind.

In "symbiotic" slavery, master and slave worked together for their mutual good as human beings. The master showed kindness, respect, and even true charity (love) and friendship. The slave showed fidelity, devotedness and willing service, all in keeping with true human dignity, was made part of the household and was treated as such until he died. The second historical form of slavery is parasitic and it's the form where the owner exploited the labor fo the slave for his own private advantage and pleasure. In this form there was inhumanity, brutality, and vice in both master and slave. SLAVERY IN THIS FORM WAS OBVIOUSLY DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY AND AS SUCH HAS ALWAYS BEEEN CONDEMNED BY THE CC.

The first form of slavery the Chruch never opposed directly but rather sought to transfrom it from within. The idea of one human being belonging to another as a piece of property was always repugnant to the Christian concept of human dignity. over the centuries by changing the minds of men, masters, slaves and civil authorities, the Chruch contributed then, although indirectly, as she does now to the eradication of slavery.

lulapilgrim

on Sep 16, 2008

Lula posts:

KINGBEE POSTS:
it hardly seems plausible that catholic monarchs who sponsored the conquest of central and south america--including several lauded for their piety--would have ignored or defied papal orders. any pope who could draw a line thru a continent in order to resolve a dispute between two catholic nations musta been powerful enough to have prevented members of religious orders, all of whom were sworn to obey papal authority from brutally forcing native peoples into servitude.

only in the last 100 years or less have governments, organizations or dynastic families--even the most long-lived and despotic--of central and equatorial south america managed to acquire the sort of power and wealth of a chuch that enriched itself by exploiting the poorest of the poor.

I am well aware that the slavery became more acute after the discoveries made by SPain and Portugal in the 15th and 16th centuries. Informatin travelelled slowly back then and it took some time to get back to the Chruch, but when it did the Chruch unreservedly condemned colonial slavery and every type of slave trade as inhuman and immoral. Again, numerous documents attest to this fact. In January, 1435, once Pope Eugene IV learned that some Catholics were indeed subjecting some of the islanders to slavery, he issued a severe rebuke that if they didn't repent of their sin, give freedom to their captives and restore their goods, they incurred the sentence of excommunication.

Real history has it that the Church condemned all forms of colonial slave trade and worked unceasingly over the course of centuries to get rid of the slave trade. Catholic missionaries, theologians never ceased to strive for the abolition of slave trade. Today, the Chruch still spares no effort to save others from the crypto-slavery of the modern world.

As best as she can, the Chruch is actively fighting slavery and continues to condemn tragic commerce in human misery. In a Feb. 2006, issue of Catholic News report, Barbara Kralis writes that slavery is found in the farms of India, in the brick making kilns of Pakistan, and the cocoa plantations of Cote d'Ivoire and in the charcoal making camps of Brazil? Slavery thrives in Nepal, in the sex slavery brothels of Manila, Thailand, Jappan, and even in the US. There is child prostitution in South America and across the Mideast. Migrant trafficing exists for sexual labor in the US and Canadian borders. What about the sweatshops in the garment manufacturing industry in New York and Los Angeles? It goes on and on ....

On page 34 the Chruch stated, "No government in the world today officially endorses slavery, yet banned worldwide, slavery thrives in every nation of the face of the earth becasue of organized crime, corruption of law enforcement officials, and insatibalbe greed."

lulapilgrim

on Sep 16, 2008

Up until the time of Christianity and its social principles concerning marriage and family came into play, women and children particularly pagan ones, were treated as not much more than slaves themselves. Christ's teachings raised the status of women and children.

chadwbaker

on Sep 16, 2008

lulapilgrim

comment 38

the woman's place as the head of the home was recognized really? when exactly was this the norm before--or after--the enlightenment? how about any time before or since? in which traditionally catholic nations is this the case? Up until the time of Christianity and its social principles concerning marriage and family came into play, women and children particularly pagan ones, were treated as not much more than slaves themselves. Christ's teachings raised the status of women and children.

Depends on the pagans your talking about really. Irish women had more rights in the pagan days then many Christians ones else where did. Any peoples who's women were expected to insctruct their children in martial ways were more equal to their men.

I d say the bible was a double edged sword on slavery. It was the cause or excuse of slavery in the beginning and through out its modern heyday. Christians did make slaves of pagans in the name of converting them. But it also was instrumental in its demise as well, when larger groups started to interpret the bible that way.

Slaveryas a whole was a practice of mankind though. I doubt there was one ancient people that did not engage in it in some form. In fact the people that the bible is about went from slaves to slave owners.

Paladin77

on Sep 16, 2008

a. my suggestion one of those ten mosaic commandments to which you refer expressly prohibits bearing false witness against others.

What was the false witness that I supposedly made?

“You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.”

This is why in a court of law you are asked to swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God. It has later been amended to swear of affirm because it is against the Christian belief to swear anything to God. Your word should be your bond rather than God.

“Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy

For six days you shall labor and do all your work.

But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.”

The US government allows you to take one day off for your religious beliefs. This is why Saturday and Sunday are days off to accommodate the majority of the people of this country. Since the majority of the founding fathers were Christian Sunday is the day that extra money is paid if you work that day. If you are a Muslim Friday is your Sabbath and the Government makes allowances for that but no monetary compensation.

“You shall not murder.”

I don’t know of any states or cities that this is allowed.

“You shall not commit adultery.”

Up until the 60’s it was the only cause for divorce.

“You shall not steal.”

I don’t know any city or state that permits this either.

“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”

This is punishable if you are in court or interfering with law enforcement by telling a lie or misleading.

So to say that the basis of our laws and government regulations are based on the commandments of the Bible, Torah, and to some minor extent the Quran is not a lie. The laws of God are the same in each religion because they are the same God. The Quran states that the God of Abraham is the same God called Allah. There are minor differences attributed to culture rather than law that through time have become dogma.

lulapilgrim

on Sep 16, 2008

Paladin 77 POsts:

What was the false witness that I supposedly made?

Paladin,

KINGBEE may have been referring to my comment in post #5....

Lula posts: #5

Even though in an interview last week with George Stephonolpous, Obama slipped and referred to "my "Muslim faith" , Obama calls himself a Christian, but by his 100% pro-abortion voting record, he doesn't walk the Christian walk. Same deal with Sen. Joe Biden, he's a Catholic hypocrite.

Interestingly, of Obama's faith you said...

To sit back and point a finger at Senator Obama for his Muslim faith is just as wrong as doing the same to Governor Palin for her faith.

To which Kingbee responded....

may be worse if one is deliberately and intentionally attempting to deceive others through implication, rumor-mongering or outright prevarication about the senator's religious beliefs.

i'm pretty sure that kinda crap violates one of those commandments you mistakenly cite as the basis of our legal system.

I wasn't being deceitful, just repeating Obama's own words....he claims to have belonged to a Christian church for 20 plus years...why the slip?....his saying "My Muslim faith" seems very odd.

So to say that the basis of our laws and government regulations are based on the commandments of the Bible, Torah, and to some minor extent the Quran is not a lie.

Yes, of course, the moral precepts of the Ten Commandments are most suitably used in terms of providing guidance for public policy. It's applying them to the new morality where the trouble begins. Homer, so long ago, sang "Hateful to me as the gates of Hell is the man who has one thing on his lips and another in his heart." He gave a pretty good definition of a lie. Anyway, as justice is the basis of business relations between individuals, so truthfulness is the basis of social intercourse, which rests on the confidence one feels in the words of our fellow man. Lying is anti-social and even where lies apparently have little or no immediate harm, they have a tendency to sap our trust in others and make us suspicious of everything we hear. That's how I feel about Obama's comment.....very suspicious.

Paladin77

on Sep 16, 2008

I wasn't being deceitful, just repeating Obama's own words....he claims to have belonged to a Christian church for 20 plus years...why the slip?....his saying "My Muslim faith" seems very odd.

When a democrat has a slip of the tongue it is a simple mistake when a republican has a slip of the tongue it is his true heart sneaking past his lying lips. When using the same logic on a democrat we are lying, misleading, and deceitful mean spirited.

Remember Senator Packwood, he kissed a woman and she complained that it was an unwanted advance. He was likened to a rapist and forced to resign. When President Clinton groped a woman in his office the same feminists cried out that it was a private matter and none of our business. The woman making the complaint was an undercover republican setting up the president.

Senator Obama can’t have his faith challenged because it is his own private matter between him and God. But Governor Palin is an extremist that wants to force her faith on the nation. Senator Obama’s religious beliefs are being forced upon the nation but that is okay only because the people complaining about religion are of the same faith so it is normal for them and Christianity is abnormal to them so they scream and complain.

kingbee

on Sep 16, 2008

[quote]What was the false witness that I supposedly made?[/quote

apparently lula hadda clue.

may have been referring to my comment in post #5....

Lula posts: #5

Even though in an interview last week with George Stephonolpous, Obama slipped and referred to "my "Muslim faith" ,

no i wasn't referring to your comment--at the time anyway. at least you didn't go all ingenuous or go into dat ol innocently naive routine better left to four-time convicted felons, former aides to the current vice-president and other much more adept masters of the genre.

but since you seem determined to deliberately misconstrue this whole 'my muslim faith' nonsense while he feighns ignorance (okay...perhaps i'm expecting more from your associate than he's capable of delivering; throughout his ju career, he's never shrunk from any opportunity to spotlight his incredlble, near total lack of comprehension skills, not to mention common sense with such determination i shoulda realized acting dumb has nothing to do in his case with any sorta acting) let's fill everyone in on exactly who shot john.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You mention your Christian faith. Yesterday you took off after the Republicans for suggesting you have Muslim connections. Just a few minutes ago, Rick Davis, John McCain's campaign manager, said they've never done that. This is a false and cynical attempt to play victim.

OBAMA: You know what? I mean, these guys love to throw a rock and hide their hand. The...

STEPHANOPOULOS: The McCain campaign has never suggested you have Muslim connections.

OBAMA: No, no, no. But the -- I don't think that when you look at what is being promulgated on Fox News, let's say, and Republican commentators who are closely allied to these folks--

STEPHANOPOULOS: But John McCain said that's wrong.

OBAMA: Now, well, look. Listen. You and I both know that the minute that Governor Palin was forced to talk about her daughter, I immediately said that's off limits. And--

STEPHANOPOULOS: But John McCain said the same thing about questioning your faith.

OBAMA: And what was the first thing the McCain?s campaign went out and did? They said, look, these liberal blogs that support Obama are out there attacking Governor Palin.

Let's not play games. What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you're absolutely right that that has not come--

STEPHANOPOULOS: Christian faith.

OBAMA: -- my Christian faith. Well, what I'm saying is that he hasn't suggested--

STEPHANOPOULOS: Has connections, right.

OBAMA: -- that I'm a Muslim. And I think that his campaign's upper echelons have not, either.

What I think is fair to say is that, coming out of the Republican camp, there have been efforts to suggest that perhaps I'm not who I say I am when it comes to my faith -- something which I find deeply offensive, and that has been going on for a pretty long time.

i don't claim to be too be a mindreader or have special powers of cognition, but it's not too difficult--even reading the transcript; words on paper, as most of us know far too well, are rarely able to convey the sense of what's actually been said--to appreciate obama was attempting point out the fact that he's been under constant attack by good christian people such as yourselves who apparently are devoid of scruples and moral values when it comes to perpetuating falsehoods to further your own agenda and those attacks have been tacitly, if not overtly, approved by the gop.

for nearly a year, i've been a very infrequent visitor to ju. on the few occasions i've been able to drop by, i've been shocked by numerous baseless claims (such as those you've posted here), references to obama as 'hussein' and ridiculous assertions about his secret muslim existence.

yall are just as bad--if not worse, cuz you've managed to help fool a fair number of people into believing barak is, in fact, muslim--as those in the mid-south who spent the entire eight months i was there this year doing their best to scare everyone in earshot about obama's secret plan to fill the whitehouse with blacks, set up a stewpot in the oval office and begin to serving the good white folks of america...for dinner

kingbee

on Sep 17, 2008

So to say that the basis of our laws and government regulations are based on the commandments of the Bible, Torah, and to some minor extent the Quran is not a lie.

if not a deliberate attempt at deception, it's merely a matter of ignorance.

america's laws and legal system is, for the most part, both on the federal and state level (with several exceptions, most notably louisiana), grounded in english common law. english common law is primarily derived from roman law.

if you have any doubts whatsoever, please consult the works of blackstone and holmes.

one final observation: long before moses was tossed into de nile, several sets of laws very similar to those presented by moses (minus monotheism aspects but otherwise dealin with murder, theft, lying, etc) had already been codified. amazingly, societies far from the ancient near east or even roman influence--china & japan come to mind immediately--somehow managed to come up with both laws and moral codes despite having never heard of the ten commandments, much less seein the movie.

ParaTed2k

on Sep 17, 2008

Don't worry too much about that. The only thing Charlie Gibson accomplished in that interview was making a fool of himself.

He puts the "incompetent" back in Incompetent Press.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!