There's a reason God is never accepted as a witness in a court trial, well, someone claiming "God told me to ....". It's unprovable either way. A court room examines what can be proven with evidence beyond any doubt. Imagine what would happen if someone claiming the word of God was taken as true.
Judge - "You stand accused of murder, how do you plead?"
Accused - "I did kill but God told me to do it."
Judge - "How can you prove this?"
Accused - "I can't, but it does not make it less true."
Judge - "The court would ask you to contact God and ask him to corroborate your statement."
Accused - "I can't, he doesn't respond when I talk to him, he chose to contact me."
Judge - "So how can we be satisfied that you're telling us the truth?"
Accused - "I don't know, if he didn't chose to tell you what he told me, then he has other plans which are bigger than me."
Judge - "So we only have your word that God told you to kill."
Accused - "That's correct your honour."
Judge - "Did he give you any other instructions?"
Accused - "Yes, to kill those who stand against his messengers."
Judge - "Are you a messenger?"
Accused - "Yes."
Judge - "We are forced to accept this as the truth, all charges are dropped, you are free to go."
Not exactly a long and drawn out, nor dramatic court scene. It was not an exercise in creative writing, but a short truncated example to show my point. If the word of God is taken as "evidence" in a court case, everyone accused of anything will use the God card to avoid any punishment. The result would be anarchy, to the point where there would be no point in having any laws.
Witnesses are supposed to give first hand accounts. Questioning a man or woman about their unprovable contact with God is here-say. They may genuinely believe they've had some contact with God, they may just as easily be a confidence artist who will say anything they believe will further their current goal. You can't call God to give evidence, so it comes down to believing the accused as they try to avoid justice. Either innocent or guilty, they don't want the guilty verdict.
The word of God is not accepted in court because it's unprovable, yet some people feel it should be taken seriously when creating laws we men and women have to live by. Why does it get extra credence in the political / lobbying sphere than it does in the legal sphere? When a politician claims that a policy would be "God's wishes" we are at the same unprovable point as in a courtroom. Politicians who try to create policies based on unprovable assertions are a dangerous breed, and should be treated as such.
What this amounts to, is "God told me something, but he didn't tell you, you'll just have to take my word for it". This is at the heart of the authority of so many institutions. The Monarchy are based on "God put me and my bloodline in charge for all eternity, sorry, there's no evidence I'm telling the truth, you'll have to just take my word for it."
If you liked this post, buy me a coffee
As a supporter of Creative Commons, the contents of this site are licensed under a Creative Commons CC-By-SA 3.0 Unported license. This means you're allowed to copy, distribute, transmit, adapt and make commercial use of the work under certain conditions.
- Attribution - You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
- Share Alike - If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
Comments
Provocative subject -- very
Provocative subject -- very well-written, too. I was wondering, however, if posts like this could be exempted from syndication to the LinuxPlanet aggregator. Maybe restrict the feed used by LinuxPlanet to a certain category -- not sure how your blog system works. It's a bit off-topic and, while I enjoy reading your technical posts, it's nice not having to sort through nontechnical opinion pieces in an already-crowded RSS aggregator.
Technically yes, practically not so clear cut
Thanks for the feedback, I do appreciate your views. The Linux Planet aggregator is for people whose blogs are mostly around Linux and Free Software. I do have a wider range of interests than that and do blog about them as you've seen. It's certainly technically possible to update the Linux Planet feed with say a new tag of "Linux Planet" that I can apply to posts I feel are relevant to by syndicated, however the technical aspect is only one part of it.
For what it's worth I don't like the Gnome Planet for the same reasons you've set out. There seems to be more random family stuff on that Planet than technical or Gnome stuff.
The issue is that very few posts from anyone on any blog or Planet strictly falls into set categories, it's a whole sliding scale of relevance. This makes it hard to accurately tag. I've noticed this with a previous blog that I have long abandoned. The tags got out of control. Without an accurate tag, it's difficult to know what to tag with "Linux Planet" so it will be syndicated.
I am concious of the mix and it's affect on the Planet, I have been since making the decision to ask to be syndicated on Linux Planet rather than any of the other Linux or FOSS centric Planets. It seems like a sensible rule of a blog that's mostly about Linux, Free Software and general techy stuff. I don't blog as much as I'd like, I went for weeks without a post, I was also unlisted from the Linux Planet for over a month because the Drupal RSS feed was spewing errors and the Planet couldn't pick them up.
If the mix veers away from that rule I will email Linc to have it removed, or modified to be a tag only.
To be honest, I'd much prefer
To be honest, I'd much prefer it to be modified (if you feel it's warranted) than removed since, as I said, I do enjoy your technical posts very much. That sentence was atrocious, but I haven't had enough caffeine yet. Thank you for the reply, though, and I appreciate your honest response. Keep up the great work.
Add new comment