Thursday, August 28, 2003
Just curious
As we are reminded ad nauseam by the snake handlers, unreconstructed seccessionists and other yahoos wrapping themselves in the flag down in Montgomery, AL, they claim the 10 Commandments form the basis of all our laws.
Really?
Sure, we have nos. 6 and 8, against killing and stealing, but so did the Code of Hammurabi as well as every other religion on earth. It's rather self-evident where we'd all be without laws against each (though perhaps fans of pre-emptive war and capital punishment do need reminding). As for the others, well, I suppose the admonition against false witness covers the law of slander, but like Nos. 9 and 10 against coveting, strict enforcement of these would put a severe crimp in the Wingnut Way of Life. So they can't seriously mean those. And the one against adultery is clearly only intended to apply to Democrats.
The rest--a hodgepodge of injunctions mostly proving that if nothing else, the Christian God is indeed a jealous mofo--hardly begin to cover any political issues more complex than Blue Laws and public profanity. So we've potentially addressed about 0.001% of our public laws. What about, say, trade issues? Labor laws? Hell, what about speeding? Can someone please explain to me how the most elemental political issues can be derived from this overhyped melange of the obvious and the psychotic?
Extra points for doing so without violating the fundamentalist no-no of "interpretation".
Really?
Sure, we have nos. 6 and 8, against killing and stealing, but so did the Code of Hammurabi as well as every other religion on earth. It's rather self-evident where we'd all be without laws against each (though perhaps fans of pre-emptive war and capital punishment do need reminding). As for the others, well, I suppose the admonition against false witness covers the law of slander, but like Nos. 9 and 10 against coveting, strict enforcement of these would put a severe crimp in the Wingnut Way of Life. So they can't seriously mean those. And the one against adultery is clearly only intended to apply to Democrats.
The rest--a hodgepodge of injunctions mostly proving that if nothing else, the Christian God is indeed a jealous mofo--hardly begin to cover any political issues more complex than Blue Laws and public profanity. So we've potentially addressed about 0.001% of our public laws. What about, say, trade issues? Labor laws? Hell, what about speeding? Can someone please explain to me how the most elemental political issues can be derived from this overhyped melange of the obvious and the psychotic?
Extra points for doing so without violating the fundamentalist no-no of "interpretation".
