|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Is America a Christian Nation? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evangelical Humanists Junior Member (Idle past 4500 days) Posts: 14 Joined: |
There seems to be an inconsistency in your narrative. Your right that was a typo om my part sorry. Edited by Evangelical Humanists, : No reason given. Edited by Evangelical Humanists, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 659 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jzyehoshua writes:
By my standards, freedom of religion doesn't mean the right to pracitce the religion of your choice (or no religion). It means freedom from domination by any religion. By today's standards such a definition of religious freedom, omitting atheists, is inadequate, but at the time it was a huge step forward. In Canada, the dominant religion is Roman Catholicism. Those of us who are not Catholics don't want our government dominated by Catholics or Catholic ideas. (Of course, many Catholics don't want that either.) For that reason, fundamentalists in Canada seem quite happy with separation of church and state.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Well, as far as being a Christian nation, Penn's government: We are discussing your claim that the US is a Christian nation. I agree that Penn included some Christian principles in Pennsylvania's government. But none of the Christian stuff made it into our Constitution. And this lengthy post of yours does nothing to advance your claim. It's just a long list of things in Penn's government. I find discussing things with you somewhat frustrating because you have a problem supporting your propositions with making on point, fact based arguments. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi NoNukes, I agree
I find discussing things with you somewhat frustrating because you have a problem supporting your propositions with making on point, fact based arguments ... ... and that are related to the topic issues. I've had the same problem on the age correlations thread. Perhaps what we are dealing with is strong confirmation bias, a condition that leads one to the impression that some cherry-picked piece of evidence is all that is necessary while ignoring the rest of the picture that doesn't fit the beliefs.
quote: Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Jzyehoshua,
Well, as far as being a Christian nation, Penn's government: ... And yet this is just one of the colonies, so if you are going to look at the colonies you have to look at all of them, not just the one/s that meet your beliefs and opinions. For instance Roger Williams and Providence Plantation (later Rhode Island)
quote: He knew first hand what happens when there is a state religion -- not from england, but from Massachusetts
quote: Note that he was lucky not to be stoned or burned at the stake as other people were in the Plymouth and Salem colonies. Because of the religious freedom that he insisted on, the oldest synagogue in North America is located in Newport RI. And we should also remember that not all the colonies were founded by religious groups looking for religious freedom in the new land, there were also merchant colonies. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 1009 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
quote: That lengthy post was in reply to NoNukes after they questioned whether Pennsylvania was a Christian government. It achieved its purpose of showing that Pennsylvania definitely was a Christian government. As for anything Christian making it into the U.S. Constitution, it did make it into all the state constitutions, which all reference God. God in the State Constitutions - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.netThe Fifty States Reference God in their Constitutions-Truth! - Truth or Fiction? It did make it into the Declaration of Independence. It did make it into Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Just because the U.S. Constitution isn't as explicit as the state constitutions or those other 2 major sources, doesn't negate the fact that American democracy as we know it began with William Penn and a very definitely Christian nation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 1009 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
And yet this is just one of the colonies, so if you are going to look at the colonies you have to look at all of them, not just the one/s that meet your beliefs and opinions. Fair enough. Just show me what other colonies had Congressional governing systems with checks and balances, freedom of religion, fair elections, and trial by jury, and I'll be happy to take a look at them.
For instance Roger Williams and Providence Plantation (later Rhode Island) But by your own acknowledgement wasn't Williams, another early proponent of religious freedom, a Baptist? I appreciate the info, I wasn't aware of Williams, but you didn't really point out how the government he set up was not Christian in nature. Because if it was - as might be expected of a Baptist minister - then wouldn't it just be an additional proof, along with Penn, that America's origins, along with the origins of religious freedom, were Christian in nature? Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Jzyehoshua
Fair enough. Just show me what other colonies had Congressional governing systems with checks and balances, freedom of religion, fair elections, and trial by jury, and I'll be happy to take a look at them. None of which are found in any bible as far as I know. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Not coming from the bible means not from christian sources but other sources, even if then espoused by christian leaders.
quote: ... then wouldn't it just be an additional proof, along with Penn, that America's origins, along with the origins of religious freedom, were Christian in nature? No, because his views were in conflict with the religious views regarding the running of government. You just had a lot of Christians but they also had concepts from other sources than Christianity (a Christian doing math does not make math Christian in origin does it?), and they were mixed with other people, and in Roger Williams view, especially with the Native Indians. Benjamin Franklin also so profound value in Native Indian government and its procedures and processes. The Iroquois in particular are known to have influenced many founding fathers on their way of governments. Complete Book: "FORGOTTEN FOUNDERS, Benjamin Franklin, the Iroquois and the Rationale for the American Revolution," By Bruce E. Johansen
quote: I suggest you read the whole thing if you are truly interested in the source of concepts used in the Constitution and the founding of America - the "great experiment" - in ways that differed from European Christians, kings, etc. These concepts are basic to the fabric of America, and they did not come from any type of Christianity I know of, nor from any European source I know of. Roger Williams lived with the local Native Americans here before founding his colony, and only got the colony charter for political reasons, not because he felt it gave him any additional authority. Interesting person (and not all a saint either, but none of the founding fathers were eh?). Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I wasn't aware of Williams, but you didn't really point out how the government he set up was not Christian in nature. When Williams and his associates applied for a Royal Charter, they asked the King to grant full freedom of conscience, which he did:
Have therefore thought fit, and do hereby publish, grant, ordain and declare, that our royal will and pleasure is, that no person within the said colony, at any time hereafter shall be any wise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any differences in opinion in matters of religion, and do not actually disturb the civil peace of our said colony; but that all and every person and persons may, from time to time, and at all times hereafter, freely and fully have and enjoy his and their own judgments and consciences, in matters of religious concernments, throughout the tract of land hereafter mentioned (Oddly, the people of Rhode Island retained the charter as the legal foundation of their state until 1843, well after the War of Independence, and didn't establish an actual Constitution until that date.) Rhode Island as a consequence became a haven not just for Christian minorities, but for Jews, and has the oldest synagogue in the United States.
This exchange of letters between the Jews of Newport and George Washington is rather touching.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 1009 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
I agree with you completely about Rhode Island being an ideal example of religious freedom, better even than William Penn's, since it granted freedom also to Jews.
I guess the reason I see this all being at issue is that it seems like social progressives (I'm personally progressive on economics) want to deny our founding fathers were Christian or guided by Christian ideals when proposing freedom of religion. The way social conservatives at least have been seeing it, they want to remove all mention of God from the Pledge of Allegiance, courtrooms, and state constitutions in the name of religious freedom and Constitutionality - even in cases where the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution put those mentions of God there in the first place. There was a huge controversy in recent years over whether the Ten Commandments could be displayed on courthouse grounds, for example - the ACLU fought vigorously and prevailed in removing the Ten Commandments. You've got cases where Christian groups can't be led in public schools, or prayer allowed on sports teams, even when all members would support it. And any bill that can be accused of having a Christian motivation, even something as simple as a sticker on evolution textbooks saying that evolution is a theory, is accused of breaking the law on separation of church and state. Or those who say marriage should remain between a man and a woman unless solid evidence can be shown that homosexuality has a genetic basis, and that marriage shouldn't be expanded to where it becomes meaningless under the belief absolute morality doesn't exist and shouldn't be instituted in government, are likewise accused of violating separation of church and state. Separation of church and state seems to have become about infringing on religious freedom of Christians so that, because of their moral, religious views, they can't have a voice on how government should be run, and only atheists should be able to direct our country. This is why I argue about what the founding fathers were like, and whether or not they were Christians; as well as what separation of church and state and religious freedom were really meant to accomplish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Any law must, let me repeat, must primarily have a secular purpose.
As a Christian I fully support keeping the Ten Commandments, references to God, prayers in schools restricted and removing "Under God" from the Pledge and "In God We Trust" from all currency. This is not an atheist Christian issue, it is an issue of keeping Church and Government separated.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I guess the reason I see this all being at issue is that it seems like social progressives (I'm personally progressive on economics) want to deny our founding fathers were Christian or guided by Christian ideals when proposing freedom of religion. I don't see anyone denying that most of them were Christian (some, I believe, were more deist in their inclinations). As for "Christian ideals", Christians have no monopoly on the desire to separate church and state.
The way social conservatives at least have been seeing it, they want to remove all mention of God from the Pledge of Allegiance, courtrooms, and state constitutions in the name of religious freedom and Constitutionality - even in cases where the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution put those mentions of God there in the first place. I am absolutely certain that the Founding Fathers didn't put any mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Nor did the guy who actually wrote it.
Separation of church and state seems to have become about infringing on religious freedom of Christians so that, because of their moral, religious views, they can't have a voice on how government should be run, and only atheists should be able to direct our country. Obviously they can have a voice. They can also vote according to what they think God wants them to do. What they can't do is institutionalize Christianity. Yes, that includes employees of the state telling children when to pray and how to pray and who to pray to and what to pray for. Yes, that includes using public money and public land to display icons of one sectarian group of one religion. Yes, that involves using any public funds to push the agenda of creationist sects. When Madison wrote "total separation" he didn't add "unless you really want to".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 1009 days) Posts: 153 Joined:
|
Any law must, let me repeat, must primarily have a secular purpose. As a Christian I fully support keeping the Ten Commandments, references to God, prayers in schools restricted and removing "Under God" from the Pledge and "In God We Trust" from all currency. This is not an atheist Christian issue, it is an issue of keeping Church and Government separated. But how can freedoms exist without acknowledging God? The Declaration of Independence states a Creator gives us our inalienable rights. Ultimately, how do we define what freedoms and laws are? Where does our concept of morality come from? And how is it determined? Without respect of a Creator, what keeps one person from infringing on the rights of another person? Their rights to freedom of religion, speech, property, or life? Furthermore, on what basis can we determine ultimate right and wrong? We take it as granted what the Ten Commandments state, that it is wrong to kill or steal. But how do we know this? For this wrong to exist absolutely it must be legislated as such by a higher power, and therefore, laws and morality are not devised by human beings, but implanted by a Creator on our universe, and within the hearts and souls of all creations. If people do not acknowledge a Creator, they will become gradually more wicked in always seeking to condone their own wickedness, arguing their actions should not be considered wrong so that gradually nothing gets considered wrong - even when it infringes on the rights of their fellow human beings to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We do need to keep church and government separated. We also need to keep science and government separated. And political parties and government separated. Any institution, whether religious, scientific, or political will seek to usurp the reins of government for its own selfish and prejudicial ends, harming those it disagrees with. Institutions and organizations must not be allowed to silence opposing points of view. However, we cannot keep faith and government separated, as faith or religious belief is like any other belief that should be allowed free expression according to the 1st amendment, so long as it does not seek to silence the expression of other opposing views. Otherwise, this would be prejudice contrary to religious freedom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Freedoms exist based on societal consensus. Notice that the Declaration of Independence starts "We hold..."
It is a matter of a group expressing a belief statement. There is no such thing as ultimate right or wrong. Again, those things evolve through consensus. No creator has EVER kept one person from infringing on the rights of another person. Morality too evolves through building a consensus within a State, society or culture. And we must keep faith and the Government separated.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 1009 days) Posts: 153 Joined:
|
Obviously they can have a voice. They can also vote according to what they think God wants them to do. What they can't do is institutionalize Christianity. Yes, that includes employees of the state telling children when to pray and how to pray and who to pray to and what to pray for. Yes, that includes using public money and public land to display icons of one sectarian group of one religion. Yes, that involves using any public funds to push the agenda of creationist sects. When Madison wrote "total separation" he didn't add "unless you really want to". I agree about not institutionalizing Christianity. But I guess the question is, what's the difference between what you mentioned, and having taught as undeniable fact to impressionable young minds the theory of Evolution or the Big Bang, both of which are frankly opinions, and using tax dollars to do so? What is the difference between teaching children about homosexual role models as the gay rights movement is having done in states across the U.S.? What is the difference between forcing millions of Pro-Life Americans to fund Planned Parenthood through the new healthcare law? What is the difference between having a Stimulus give millions of dollars in earmarks to Pro-Evolution organizations and scientists, and not to Creationist ones? 4/14/11: California Senate mandates homosexual role models for schoolchildren - SaveCalifornia.com How are these opinions forced on Americans who don't support them a different case?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024