In answer to your question, though, I'd say that there is no way that the fabric of our nation underpinned by Christianity.
Look at the origins of the British in this country. There was a colony founded at Jamestown as an Entrepenureal venture. (Gold)
There was another colony founded by a cult who were trying to escape religious persecution. But what did they do after they got here? They persecuted those who were not part of their religion.
The origins of the country as a State are hardly scriptural. We revolted against unjust taxes. That is hardly scriptural. Didn't St. Paul call on us to pray for kings and all that are in authority? (1 Tim 2:1-2) Didn't Christ, himself, say "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Mark 12:17)
In any example in the Bible, at least those that I'm familiar with, there was but one example of a revolt against a lawful government: that is the example of the Maccabean revolt (See the 1&2 Maccabees). But that revolt happened as a result of the Greeks forbidding Jewish worship and mandating that the Jews bow down before Greek gods. Hardly the same circumstance as that which was the basis for the American revolt.
Then, let us look at Manifest Destiny. Once again, I would like to see a scriptural basis for that. The treatment of the aborigenes could hardly be categorized as "Christian" treatment. The founding of California as an American State could hardly be counted as Christian.
And the beat goes on. Again, a neutral examination of this country's history could hardly result in a characterization of the country being a "Christian" country.
Now don't get me wrong, I am not stating that our society does not have a lot of Christian influence. I am not stating that there is a lot of Christian culture built into many of our laws. I am not stating that there are not a lot of Christians in it. But it's a big jump to go from that to stating that this is a "Christian Country."
The basic rights and human freedoms legally granted are the result of the work of men and women who love the Lord.
In USA the abuse which so many have suffer and continue to suffer (child labor laws, oppression of women to name two) is not legal, whereas in the muslim countries, women are given less protection than cattle.
Criticism and insult to leadership, legal in USA, is punishable by death under a muslim or other religious government.
It is the nature of Christianity that the individual is empowered to think for himself and develop and apply a set of ethical standards personally.
These words of Thomas Jefferson are engraved in stone on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in Washinton DC: (Thomas Jefferson was the third Presisident and primary author of the Declaration of Independence):
God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift ofGod? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.
I would like America to hold to its founding fathers ideals , But we have allowed other nations to come into the fold to the point it will quickly decline into the melting pot of all religous crap.
it is far to late to cry about the global world and how very small it is... we now incorporte the world at large not like in the day of horse and buggy without media and influence of all types.
the founding fathers did not have mass media we have, now the population is educated and mixed.
we are a new country compared to the others Krys.
america has had an open door policy for so long and the world is very small now we interact with other nations on a political and commerce level easily now and have become dependant and such..
this will and has changed how we all think about how we can/will tolerant or not.
take a look at this..www.cabsf.org. there is teaching free to listen to by tom jenkinson, if your not predjudice..
also, i knew someone who was in the prayer group that Congress holds every morning.
sorry, typing with one hand..
This picture I took at Mt. Vernon, in Alexandria,Va.The home of George Washington, he has a family plot in the back of his property, soley for the family. this is a marker for his step son. looks pretty christian to me.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The First Amendment was written because at America's inception, citizens demanded a guarantee of their basic freedoms.
Our blueprint for personal freedom and the hallmark of an open society, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition.
Without the First Amendment, religious minorities could be persecuted, the government might well establish a national religion, protesters could be silenced, the press could not criticize government, and citizens could not mobilize for social change.
When the U.S. Constitution was signed on Sept. 17, 1787, it did not contain the essential freedoms now outlined in the Bill of Rights, because many of the Framers viewed their inclusion as unnecessary. However, after vigorous debate, the Bill of Rights was adopted. The first freedoms guaranteed in this historic document were articulated in the 45 words written by James Madison that we have come to know as the First Amendment.
The Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments to the Constitution — went into effect on Dec. 15, 1791, when the state of Virginia ratified it, giving the bill the majority of ratifying states required to protect citizens from the power of the federal government.
The First Amendment ensures that "if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein," as Justice Robert Jackson wrote in the 1943 case West Virginia v. Barnette.
And as Justice William Brennan wrote in New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, the First Amendment provides that "debate on public issues ... [should be] ... uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."
However, Americans vigorously dispute the application of the First Amendment.
Most people believe in the right to free speech, but debate whether it should cover flag-burning, hard-core rap and heavy-metal lyrics, tobacco advertising, hate speech, pornography, nude dancing, solicitation and various forms of symbolic speech. Many would agree to limiting some forms of free expression, as seen in the First Amendment Center's State of the First Amendment survey reports.
Most people, at some level, recognize the necessity of religious liberty and toleration, but some balk when a religious tenet of a minority religion conflicts with a generally applicable law or with their own religious faith. Many Americans see the need to separate the state from the church to some extent, but decry the banning of school-sponsored prayer from public schools and the removal of the Ten Commandments from public buildings.
Further, courts wrestle daily with First Amendment controversies and constitutional clashes, as evidenced by the free-press vs. fair-trial debate and the dilemma of First Amendment liberty principles vs. the equality values of the 14th Amendment.
Such difficulties are the price of freedom of speech and religion in a tolerant, open society.
Further, does anyone have any difficulty recognizing the bias inherent in the writings of bereanpublishers.com ?
The "underpinning" or conceptual (philosophical) foundation of America lies in the writings of John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau.
In terms of HISTORY, the new nation borrowed from the Greek republic/democracy. Had they been thinking in terms of a Christian nation, we'd have seen far more intense and far earlier religious persecution than the right-wing Christian fundementalists are responsible for today. OTOH, my hunch is that there's been plenty of religious persecution in the USA from the beginning. But what is done in contemporary America would be far more brazen and unapologetic than it already is.
Point of interest -- the uproar caused by a Congressman, newly elected last month, wanting to take the oath of office with a copy of the quran, INSTEAD of the bible. That Congressman has already faced tremendous amounts of hate for that single declaration.
John Locke (August 29, 1632 – October 28, 1704) was an influential English philosopher. In epistemology, Locke has often been classified as a British Empiricist, along with David Hume and George Berkeley. He is equally important as a social contract theorist, as he developed an alternative to the Hobbesian state of nature and argued a government could only be legitimate if it received the consent of the governed through a social contract and protected the natural rights of life, liberty, and estate. If such consent was not given, argued Locke, citizens had a right of rebellion. Locke is one of the few major philosophers who became a minister of government.
Locke's ideas had an enormous influence on the development of political philosophy, and he is widely regarded as one of the most influential Enlightenment thinkers and contributors to liberal theory. His writings, along with those of many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, influenced the American revolutionaries as reflected in the American Declaration of Independence.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (June 28, 1712 – July 2, 1778) was a Genevan philosopher of the Enlightenment whose political ideas influenced the French Revolution, the development of socialist theory, and the growth of nationalism.
The Social Contract
Perhaps Rousseau's most important work is The Social Contract, which outlines the basis for a legitimate political order. Published in 1762 it became one of the most influential works of political philosophy in the Western tradition. It developed some of the ideas mentioned in an earlier work, the article Economie Politique, featured in Diderot's Encyclopédie. Rousseau claimed that the state of nature eventually degenerates into a brutish condition without law or morality, at which point the human race must adopt institutions of law or perish. In the degenerate phase of the state of nature, man is prone to be in frequent competition with his fellow men while at the same time becoming increasingly dependent on them. This double pressure threatens both his survival and his freedom. According to Rousseau, by joining together through the social contract and abandoning their claims of natural right, individuals can both preserve themselves and remain free. This is because submission to the authority of the general will of the people as a whole guarantees individuals against being subordinated to the wills of others and also ensures that they obey themselves because they are, collectively, the authors of the law.
While Rousseau argues that sovereignty should be in the hands of the people, he also makes a sharp distinction between sovereign and government. The government is charged with implementing and enforcing the general will and is composed of a smaller group of citizens, known as magistrates. Rousseau was bitterly opposed to the idea that the people should exercise sovereignty via a representative assembly. Rather, they should make the laws directly. It has been argued that this would prevent Rousseau's ideal state being realized in a large society, though in modern times, communication may have advanced to the point where this is no longer the case. Much of the subsequent controversy about Rousseau's work has hinged on disagreements concerning his claims that citizens constrained to obey the general will are thereby rendered free.
Of course, America's economic heritage traces to Adam Smith and his Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
Does ANYone really believe the First Amendment allows for religious persecution to be condoned?
Who was speaking of condoning religious persecution? If anything I would say Christians are being "persecuted" by diversity requirements in a nation that claims to be something like 80% Christian.
Further, does anyone have any difficulty recognizing the bias inherent in the writings of bereanpublishers.com ?
That was one side of the coin, so of course they are holding to that side. I would guess everyone here understands that. I did say there was the other side ... I haven't really taken a side ...
Point of interest -- the uproar caused by a Congressman, newly elected last month, wanting to take the oath of office with a copy of the quran, INSTEAD of the bible. That Congressman has already faced tremendous amounts of hate for that single declaration.
That is interesting, though I'm not sure how you are measuring "hate".
A bit more background into the actual content of the Articles of Confederation (which were self-consciously Christian), the complex reasons for its failure, and the framing of the Constitution and its adoption (it was self-consciously non-religious) is instructive. I agree with Rocky on the background to the Constitution on all counts.
That said, it's impossible to understand the arguments that swirled around both the Articles and the points of the Constitution without understanding the Bible.
You have to grant that the overwhelming majority of early Americans called themselves Christian.
On that basis you could call the US of today Christian, just as you could call Turkey of today Muslim. Both adopted self-consciously secular governance for strongly religious countries.
To this day, the US is still the most strongly religious of all developed western nations
Further, does anyone have any difficulty recognizing the bias inherent in the writings of bereanpublishers.com ?
So? Are you forbidding rhino from referencing their site? I'm sorry but there's not a neatly packaged AP release available that presents the Rocky-approved facts™. Can't people cite their own sources when making an argument? I'll decide if the presentation is credible or not, thankyouverymuch.
So? Are you forbidding rhino from referencing their site?
I'm sorry but there's not a neatly packaged AP release available that presents the Rocky-approved facts™. Can't people cite their own sources when making an argument? I'll decide if the presentation is credible or not, thankyouverymuch.
Am I forbidding... I have, on several occassions/posts, specifically addressed this same question. The answer is the same today as it was before. NO. I'm not even thinking in those terms. Indeed you will decided if the presentation is credible. All I did, and all I DO when I point out something like that is just that --- call attention to it. I did not even suggest he should have left that source out of the post.
How many times will I have to address this same question? I guess as many times as someone infers (wrongly, btw) that I am suggesting a source should be excluded and comments on it.
Now, as to why I saw bias (berean's not rhino's in this case) is because I understand that the Founding Fathers were NOT so emphatically Christian. Indeed, as rhino pointed out, some considered themselves deist.
Worry not, Evan, I'm EMPHATICALLY NOT calling for ANYone to exclude sources. However, I might take your comment as suggesting that I not call attention to the bias. I do NOT take it that way, because even if I did, I don't see myself being shy about commenting on a source.
First off, I am impressed by Mark Os post. Very instructive and revealing. Well done. :) And Yet Another Example of how different and distinct the biblical concepts and the concepts that founded this country are from one another.
Another thing that I find amusing (and bemusing) is the desperate attempts by many people in trying to 'prove' that America was founded on 'Christian principles', because a good number of the founding fathers either were Christian, or have mentioned God in their writings. Such is an irrelevant point, for as Evan pointed out, their purpose was to set up a secular-based government, particularly after the 'self-consciously Christian' Articles of the Confederation failed.
That said, it's impossible to understand the arguments that swirled around both the Articles and the points of the Constitution without understanding the Bible.
Actually, it is impossible to understand the premise upon which those points of the Constitution is based, without understanding the Enlightenment period, and the concepts that came to light during that period; the Constitution being but an embodiment of one of those concepts.
And it was a conceptual period that brought into more and more governments the concept of separation of church and state. And as a result, one that the church (both Catholic and Protestant) often were opposed to.
In this case, your endorsement is the last one I'd want..... ;)
The point I'm trying to get at is that, while the words could arguably be called Christian and while a good number of the people in the country were undoubtedly Christian, the actions taken by the country could hardly be called Christian...throughout the country's history.
And, yes, I understand your deist vs Christian argument and don't really want to go there.
But the way I see it is that many people (and no I am NOT pointing my finger in any one direction or at any poster(s) in particular) who call this country a "Christian Country" do so, rather than in an expression of Christian ideals, but as a justificaiton to be allowed to do as they would. A sense of arrogance trying to place this country above all others. That's what aggrevates me to no end. How DARE such a person claim that God would honor THIS country above another country with Christians in it?
I would really like somebody to justify, using the Bible, the American revolution. I cited a number of verses in my earlier post to show that a revolution, particularly for the reasons of that revolt, could hardly be justified based on scripture.
I would really like somebody to justify, using the Bible, the discrimination that one supposedly Christian sect gave to other, supposedly Christian sects. Be they Catholic, Baptist, Quaker, or Anabaptist.
I would really like somebody to justify, using the Bible, the treatment of the aboriginal peoples of this country throughout our history.
I would really like somebody to justify the slave labor condoned by the country for decades. And no I'm not talking about the import of slaves. I'm talking about the treatment of immigrant labor.
I would really like somebody to justify, using the Bible, American imperialism, particularly since the Spanish-American war.
Of course, I don't even want to go with the current, post-modern trends that characterize our current society.
Actions speak louder than words. And those actions, at least as far as my limited knowledge of the Bible are concerned, can't be justified as Christian. But those actions were what formed us as a country.
There is far too much evidence proving America was founded as a Christian nation that allowed everyone to worship freely in peace. Obviously, the founders found no threat to foreign religions, perhaps believing that our influence would cause converts to Christianity. We most likely should have done what God commanded Israel to accept only converts to Judeaism or one God, the God of Israel. Sounds horrible to some but not to me at all. Everytime Israel entertained foreign gods they went downhill from there. It would have been fine to let anyone in but apparently we have invited those in who find our beliefs reprehensible or insulting and try to outlaw or eliminate our culture to replace it with their own or just create havoc and disintegration from within.
As far as the issue of diversity, and having a degree in business and hearing the philosophy it is based on, I can give my opinion on that, too. Diversity is a new way to promote even more discrimination in the work place and put less value on experience, education, knowledge, or prior job training. In an effort to be more "diverse," they will be looking at more than one race or two as minorities but everything that is not white. The affirmative action programs for African-Americans will be diluted causing more unemployment for them and replaced with Hispanic, Oriental, or Arab persons. Traditional Christian holidays will be diluted to just being a "holiday" in the work-place, and in my place of employment, the "holiday giving tree" was established in December so as not to offend one or two people out of twenty five hundered. This was a traditional program where gifts were given to underprivileged kids, and because Christ was taken out, this enraged several hundred employees who decided they would give their money to some other charity. The program took a nose dive in donations this year.
Funny thing was, those two employees had no problem with seeing the word "Christ" and "Christmas". The company just decided, through their diversity program, that they did.
CompPsych is the contracted company that promotes this methodology among corporations. Perhaps what they teach gets misinterpreted at corporate level, but I doubt it.
Holiday tree. Good Lord. Guess I should put one up on Presidents day. That's a holiday. Maybe the Fourth of July. That's a holiday. We maybe should have Memorial Day trees, too, and if we stretch it far enough, an April Fools tree or Halloween Tree.
Whatever, some can say the tree came from pagan symbology or whatever, but only Christmas was the major religion doing this in December.
We have to call a lot of people on the carpet in this country. Ask them what their personal problem with Christians really might be.
The country is getting worse, and when corporate human resources personnel let these controversial organizations into our workplace, they promote what they are fighting against, a hostile working environment.
But the way I see it is that many people (and no I am NOT pointing my finger in any one direction or at any poster(s) in particular) who call this country a "Christian Country" do so, rather than in an expression of Christian ideals, but as a justificaiton to be allowed to do as they would. A sense of arrogance trying to place this country above all others. That's what aggrevates me to no end. How DARE such a person claim that God would honor THIS country above another country with Christians in it?
Amen and Amen!
I would really like somebody to justify, using the Bible, the American revolution. I cited a number of verses in my earlier post to show that a revolution, particularly for the reasons of that revolt, could hardly be justified based on scripture.
I would really like somebody to justify, using the Bible, the discrimination that one supposedly Christian sect gave to other, supposedly Christian sects. Be they Catholic, Baptist, Quaker, or Anabaptist.
I would really like somebody to justify, using the Bible, the treatment of the aboriginal peoples of this country throughout our history.
I would really like somebody to justify, [using the Bible] the slave labor condoned by the country for decades. And no I'm not talking about the import of slaves. I'm talking about the treatment of immigrant labor.
I would really like somebody to justify, using the Bible, American imperialism, particularly since the Spanish-American war.
Actions speak louder than words. And those actions, at least as far as my limited knowledge of the Bible are concerned, can't be justified as Christian. But those actions were what formed us as a country.
Brilliant rhetorical device! Eloquently stated. And besides that, though someone might be able to find isolated verses here or there to so justify, from the perspective of what it appears God (and the writers) intended to convey, I don't believe it can be done.
There is far too much evidence proving America was founded as a Christian nation...
Please sir, would you kindly provide some of the evidence of which you write?
Obviously, the founders found no threat to foreign religions, perhaps believing that our influence would cause converts to Christianity.
Do tell? ... Ummm, could you show us where you got this information please? I mean, that which can be documented, that is. :unsure:
... Well, I daresay that you ain't gonna find it, cause it ain't there. There is no place in recorded history that shows that the people that started this country and set up the freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights did so for the express purpose of using those freedoms as tools of conversion to Christianity. THAT line is a load of bull, particularly when you read up on what the founding fathers (even the Christian ones) believed in regards to religion, and its place in relation to government.
Don't get me wrong. I wish that America was an authentically Christian country that truly espoused authentic Christian values. I wish that we would have been in the past. I do not propose that we pay reparations for the sins of our fathers. But I don't think we can arrogantly assert our Christianity as if it were a divine right.
I think being a "Christian Country" is a huge obligation on those of us who are Christians. An obligation to live the gospel in our private lives and to inspire (not coerce) those around us to adopt those values in their lives, as well.
Can anyone point to a current county that does have an official religion and say that is a place I would like to live?
Hasn't history taught that letting a government mandate a religion is a recipe for disaster? Wasn't a large part of the initial population immigrating to this country fleeing countries that mandated a particular religion?
And which particular flavor of Christianity would one choose to be the official religion? Southern Baptist? Mormonism? The Way International?
Can you imagine giving The Way International a military and control of the laws?
The point I'm trying to get at is that, while the words could arguably be called Christian and while a good number of the people in the country were undoubtedly Christian, the actions taken by the country could hardly be called Christian...throughout the country's history.
....
Actions speak louder than words. And those actions, at least as far as my limited knowledge of the Bible are concerned, can't be justified as Christian. But those actions were what formed us as a country.
I suppose the heart of the country would have to include the actions it takes ... from the "power corrupts" theory, I guess man's nature is given opportunity through the power of a nation he controls.
But I wasn't thinking of the politicians when I thought of the fabric of the nation ... today they may be the worst we have in the way of corruption. Even in 1776, the signers were no doubt able to write more highly than they were able to live. Still it seems they came up with some pretty good documents. I don't really know what their background was, but it seems now we are trading off some ideals for the sake of political correctness and/or convenience.
I'm not sure of a specific description of it ... just a general erosion of ethical standards perhaps.
I wonder what the Christian Right would do if it really got what it wanted. What would they do with the unbelievers? Put us in camps? Take our kids away to a Christian school( like they did those unChristian Native Americans ?) Special neighborhoods? Close the doors to higher education, politics, the military to non Christians?
Shudder. I say, bring on diversity.
And I don't mind the Nativity sets in the city parks--what is there to dislike about Father Time, The Great Mother and the Return of the Sun God?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
12
6
12
Popular Days
Dec 18
27
Dec 17
24
Dec 19
15
Dec 21
2
Top Posters In This Topic
TheEvan 9 posts
Rocky 12 posts
GarthP2000 6 posts
rhino 12 posts
Popular Days
Dec 18 2006
27 posts
Dec 17 2006
24 posts
Dec 19 2006
15 posts
Dec 21 2006
2 posts
Posted Images
markomalley
Now you've gone and done it, Rhino!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
In answer to your question, though, I'd say that there is no way that the fabric of our nation underpinned by Christianity.
Look at the origins of the British in this country. There was a colony founded at Jamestown as an Entrepenureal venture. (Gold)
There was another colony founded by a cult who were trying to escape religious persecution. But what did they do after they got here? They persecuted those who were not part of their religion.
The origins of the country as a State are hardly scriptural. We revolted against unjust taxes. That is hardly scriptural. Didn't St. Paul call on us to pray for kings and all that are in authority? (1 Tim 2:1-2) Didn't Christ, himself, say "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Mark 12:17)
In any example in the Bible, at least those that I'm familiar with, there was but one example of a revolt against a lawful government: that is the example of the Maccabean revolt (See the 1&2 Maccabees). But that revolt happened as a result of the Greeks forbidding Jewish worship and mandating that the Jews bow down before Greek gods. Hardly the same circumstance as that which was the basis for the American revolt.
Then, let us look at Manifest Destiny. Once again, I would like to see a scriptural basis for that. The treatment of the aborigenes could hardly be categorized as "Christian" treatment. The founding of California as an American State could hardly be counted as Christian.
And the beat goes on. Again, a neutral examination of this country's history could hardly result in a characterization of the country being a "Christian" country.
Now don't get me wrong, I am not stating that our society does not have a lot of Christian influence. I am not stating that there is a lot of Christian culture built into many of our laws. I am not stating that there are not a lot of Christians in it. But it's a big jump to go from that to stating that this is a "Christian Country."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
I, of course, say yes this is a Christian nation.
The basic rights and human freedoms legally granted are the result of the work of men and women who love the Lord.
In USA the abuse which so many have suffer and continue to suffer (child labor laws, oppression of women to name two) is not legal, whereas in the muslim countries, women are given less protection than cattle.
Criticism and insult to leadership, legal in USA, is punishable by death under a muslim or other religious government.
It is the nature of Christianity that the individual is empowered to think for himself and develop and apply a set of ethical standards personally.
These words of Thomas Jefferson are engraved in stone on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in Washinton DC: (Thomas Jefferson was the third Presisident and primary author of the Declaration of Independence):
More about the Christian foundation and heritage of our country may be found on the Presidential Prayer Team pageLink to comment
Share on other sites
pond
America is a new nation, just a newborn baby .
I would like America to hold to its founding fathers ideals , But we have allowed other nations to come into the fold to the point it will quickly decline into the melting pot of all religous crap.
it is far to late to cry about the global world and how very small it is... we now incorporte the world at large not like in the day of horse and buggy without media and influence of all types.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
That comment didn't make any sense Pond. What were you thinking about?
Edited by krysilisLink to comment
Share on other sites
pond
the founding fathers did not have mass media we have, now the population is educated and mixed.
we are a new country compared to the others Krys.
america has had an open door policy for so long and the world is very small now we interact with other nations on a political and commerce level easily now and have become dependant and such..
this will and has changed how we all think about how we can/will tolerant or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
take a look at this..www.cabsf.org. there is teaching free to listen to by tom jenkinson, if your not predjudice..
also, i knew someone who was in the prayer group that Congress holds every morning.
sorry, typing with one hand..
This picture I took at Mt. Vernon, in Alexandria,Va.The home of George Washington, he has a family plot in the back of his property, soley for the family. this is a marker for his step son. looks pretty christian to me.
Edited by likeaneagleLink to comment
Share on other sites
pond
I think times and politcal correctness and laws has quelled alot of what the founding fathers aspired America to be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Absolutely NOT!
Indeed, the Founding Fathers believed in GOD.
However, knowing the evils of religious persecution, they specifically established a SECULAR nation.
And when the need for a Bill of Rights was recognized and acted upon, what is the FIRST thing that Bill of Rights declared?
Does ANYone really believe the First Amendment allows for religious persecution to be condoned?
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about....=about_firstamd
Further, does anyone have any difficulty recognizing the bias inherent in the writings of bereanpublishers.com ?
The "underpinning" or conceptual (philosophical) foundation of America lies in the writings of John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau.
In terms of HISTORY, the new nation borrowed from the Greek republic/democracy. Had they been thinking in terms of a Christian nation, we'd have seen far more intense and far earlier religious persecution than the right-wing Christian fundementalists are responsible for today. OTOH, my hunch is that there's been plenty of religious persecution in the USA from the beginning. But what is done in contemporary America would be far more brazen and unapologetic than it already is.
Point of interest -- the uproar caused by a Congressman, newly elected last month, wanting to take the oath of office with a copy of the quran, INSTEAD of the bible. That Congressman has already faced tremendous amounts of hate for that single declaration.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RousseauOf course, America's economic heritage traces to Adam Smith and his Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
A bit more background into the actual content of the Articles of Confederation (which were self-consciously Christian), the complex reasons for its failure, and the framing of the Constitution and its adoption (it was self-consciously non-religious) is instructive. I agree with Rocky on the background to the Constitution on all counts.
That said, it's impossible to understand the arguments that swirled around both the Articles and the points of the Constitution without understanding the Bible.
You have to grant that the overwhelming majority of early Americans called themselves Christian.
On that basis you could call the US of today Christian, just as you could call Turkey of today Muslim. Both adopted self-consciously secular governance for strongly religious countries.
To this day, the US is still the most strongly religious of all developed western nations
So? Are you forbidding rhino from referencing their site? I'm sorry but there's not a neatly packaged AP release available that presents the Rocky-approved facts™. Can't people cite their own sources when making an argument? I'll decide if the presentation is credible or not, thankyouverymuch.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Am I forbidding... I have, on several occassions/posts, specifically addressed this same question. The answer is the same today as it was before. NO. I'm not even thinking in those terms. Indeed you will decided if the presentation is credible. All I did, and all I DO when I point out something like that is just that --- call attention to it. I did not even suggest he should have left that source out of the post.
How many times will I have to address this same question? I guess as many times as someone infers (wrongly, btw) that I am suggesting a source should be excluded and comments on it.
Now, as to why I saw bias (berean's not rhino's in this case) is because I understand that the Founding Fathers were NOT so emphatically Christian. Indeed, as rhino pointed out, some considered themselves deist.
Worry not, Evan, I'm EMPHATICALLY NOT calling for ANYone to exclude sources. However, I might take your comment as suggesting that I not call attention to the bias. I do NOT take it that way, because even if I did, I don't see myself being shy about commenting on a source.
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
(((rubbing my hands together in wicked glee)))
First off, I am impressed by Mark Os post. Very instructive and revealing. Well done. :) And Yet Another Example of how different and distinct the biblical concepts and the concepts that founded this country are from one another.
Another thing that I find amusing (and bemusing) is the desperate attempts by many people in trying to 'prove' that America was founded on 'Christian principles', because a good number of the founding fathers either were Christian, or have mentioned God in their writings. Such is an irrelevant point, for as Evan pointed out, their purpose was to set up a secular-based government, particularly after the 'self-consciously Christian' Articles of the Confederation failed.
Actually, it is impossible to understand the premise upon which those points of the Constitution is based, without understanding the Enlightenment period, and the concepts that came to light during that period; the Constitution being but an embodiment of one of those concepts.
And it was a conceptual period that brought into more and more governments the concept of separation of church and state. And as a result, one that the church (both Catholic and Protestant) often were opposed to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Garth,
In this case, your endorsement is the last one I'd want..... ;)
The point I'm trying to get at is that, while the words could arguably be called Christian and while a good number of the people in the country were undoubtedly Christian, the actions taken by the country could hardly be called Christian...throughout the country's history.
And, yes, I understand your deist vs Christian argument and don't really want to go there.
But the way I see it is that many people (and no I am NOT pointing my finger in any one direction or at any poster(s) in particular) who call this country a "Christian Country" do so, rather than in an expression of Christian ideals, but as a justificaiton to be allowed to do as they would. A sense of arrogance trying to place this country above all others. That's what aggrevates me to no end. How DARE such a person claim that God would honor THIS country above another country with Christians in it?
I would really like somebody to justify, using the Bible, the American revolution. I cited a number of verses in my earlier post to show that a revolution, particularly for the reasons of that revolt, could hardly be justified based on scripture.
I would really like somebody to justify, using the Bible, the discrimination that one supposedly Christian sect gave to other, supposedly Christian sects. Be they Catholic, Baptist, Quaker, or Anabaptist.
I would really like somebody to justify, using the Bible, the treatment of the aboriginal peoples of this country throughout our history.
I would really like somebody to justify the slave labor condoned by the country for decades. And no I'm not talking about the import of slaves. I'm talking about the treatment of immigrant labor.
I would really like somebody to justify, using the Bible, American imperialism, particularly since the Spanish-American war.
Of course, I don't even want to go with the current, post-modern trends that characterize our current society.
Actions speak louder than words. And those actions, at least as far as my limited knowledge of the Bible are concerned, can't be justified as Christian. But those actions were what formed us as a country.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
And I wuv you too, Mark. Have a beer on me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
There is far too much evidence proving America was founded as a Christian nation that allowed everyone to worship freely in peace. Obviously, the founders found no threat to foreign religions, perhaps believing that our influence would cause converts to Christianity. We most likely should have done what God commanded Israel to accept only converts to Judeaism or one God, the God of Israel. Sounds horrible to some but not to me at all. Everytime Israel entertained foreign gods they went downhill from there. It would have been fine to let anyone in but apparently we have invited those in who find our beliefs reprehensible or insulting and try to outlaw or eliminate our culture to replace it with their own or just create havoc and disintegration from within.
As far as the issue of diversity, and having a degree in business and hearing the philosophy it is based on, I can give my opinion on that, too. Diversity is a new way to promote even more discrimination in the work place and put less value on experience, education, knowledge, or prior job training. In an effort to be more "diverse," they will be looking at more than one race or two as minorities but everything that is not white. The affirmative action programs for African-Americans will be diluted causing more unemployment for them and replaced with Hispanic, Oriental, or Arab persons. Traditional Christian holidays will be diluted to just being a "holiday" in the work-place, and in my place of employment, the "holiday giving tree" was established in December so as not to offend one or two people out of twenty five hundered. This was a traditional program where gifts were given to underprivileged kids, and because Christ was taken out, this enraged several hundred employees who decided they would give their money to some other charity. The program took a nose dive in donations this year.
Funny thing was, those two employees had no problem with seeing the word "Christ" and "Christmas". The company just decided, through their diversity program, that they did.
CompPsych is the contracted company that promotes this methodology among corporations. Perhaps what they teach gets misinterpreted at corporate level, but I doubt it.
Holiday tree. Good Lord. Guess I should put one up on Presidents day. That's a holiday. Maybe the Fourth of July. That's a holiday. We maybe should have Memorial Day trees, too, and if we stretch it far enough, an April Fools tree or Halloween Tree.
Whatever, some can say the tree came from pagan symbology or whatever, but only Christmas was the major religion doing this in December.
We have to call a lot of people on the carpet in this country. Ask them what their personal problem with Christians really might be.
The country is getting worse, and when corporate human resources personnel let these controversial organizations into our workplace, they promote what they are fighting against, a hostile working environment.
Edited by EagleLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Amen and Amen!
Brilliant rhetorical device! Eloquently stated. And besides that, though someone might be able to find isolated verses here or there to so justify, from the perspective of what it appears God (and the writers) intended to convey, I don't believe it can be done.
Please sir, would you kindly provide some of the evidence of which you write?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Do tell? ... Ummm, could you show us where you got this information please? I mean, that which can be documented, that is. :unsure:
... Well, I daresay that you ain't gonna find it, cause it ain't there. There is no place in recorded history that shows that the people that started this country and set up the freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights did so for the express purpose of using those freedoms as tools of conversion to Christianity. THAT line is a load of bull, particularly when you read up on what the founding fathers (even the Christian ones) believed in regards to religion, and its place in relation to government.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Don't get me wrong. I wish that America was an authentically Christian country that truly espoused authentic Christian values. I wish that we would have been in the past. I do not propose that we pay reparations for the sins of our fathers. But I don't think we can arrogantly assert our Christianity as if it were a divine right.
I think being a "Christian Country" is a huge obligation on those of us who are Christians. An obligation to live the gospel in our private lives and to inspire (not coerce) those around us to adopt those values in their lives, as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
Nice thread.
Can anyone point to a current county that does have an official religion and say that is a place I would like to live?
Hasn't history taught that letting a government mandate a religion is a recipe for disaster? Wasn't a large part of the initial population immigrating to this country fleeing countries that mandated a particular religion?
And which particular flavor of Christianity would one choose to be the official religion? Southern Baptist? Mormonism? The Way International?
Can you imagine giving The Way International a military and control of the laws?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I suppose the heart of the country would have to include the actions it takes ... from the "power corrupts" theory, I guess man's nature is given opportunity through the power of a nation he controls.
But I wasn't thinking of the politicians when I thought of the fabric of the nation ... today they may be the worst we have in the way of corruption. Even in 1776, the signers were no doubt able to write more highly than they were able to live. Still it seems they came up with some pretty good documents. I don't really know what their background was, but it seems now we are trading off some ideals for the sake of political correctness and/or convenience.
I'm not sure of a specific description of it ... just a general erosion of ethical standards perhaps.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I wonder what the Christian Right would do if it really got what it wanted. What would they do with the unbelievers? Put us in camps? Take our kids away to a Christian school( like they did those unChristian Native Americans ?) Special neighborhoods? Close the doors to higher education, politics, the military to non Christians?
Shudder. I say, bring on diversity.
And I don't mind the Nativity sets in the city parks--what is there to dislike about Father Time, The Great Mother and the Return of the Sun God?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
You sound hysterical, Bramble. Where has the so-called Christian right said they want these things? Oh, I get it, you made that part up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.