As the topic title says I'm interested in how the discourse in the US justifies the large amounts of Christian rhetoric that seems to permeate US politics. Not a new thing for me to be wondering about, but I will admit the debate about gay marriage has made me think about it more recently, particularly since Romney stated: 'There is no greater force for good in the nation than Christian conscience in action'.
This isn't supposed to be a thread about the topic of gay marriage but just the general conversation (if any) that occurs in the US about any intersection of Christianity and politics, such as the President's religion, 'In God We Trust' on notes etc and how that doesn't get shot down for being Church in the State's business.
Because the prevailing politics of a nation have little to do with its constitution in reality, which is as it should be.
The founders of the USA were by-and-large secular, but the modern populace (and by extention the people they elect) are overtly religious.
Lux_Lucis wrote:
This isn't supposed to be a thread about the topic of gay marriage but just the general conversation (if any) that occurs in the US about any intersection of Christianity and politics, such as the President's religion, 'In God We Trust' on notes etc and how that doesn't get shot down for being Church in the State's business.
Because those aren't based on laws respecting an establishment of religion, even in the broadest sense; unless you consider "God/god" and establishment of religion (and you shouldn't).
So it's not really a specific religion such as Christianity that is objectionable but a religious institution such as the Catholic Church, or the Anglican Church?
Lux_Lucis wrote:So it's not really a specific religion such as Christianity that is objectionable but a religious institution such as the Catholic Church, or the Anglican Church?
Not really. The gist of it is that any given politician can make a decision based on religious motives, or use religious rhetoric, but he cannot sign into law any form of state religion or, more broadly, prohibit the practice of any particular religion. The latter part sometimes runs into controversy where it is claimed that a general law is religiously discriminatory. The latest example of this is the furor over the mandated carriage of health insurance which covers birth control, with the Catholic Church claiming that said mandate violates their religious freedom (It does, but not in a sense which violates the Constitution.).
Lux_Lucis wrote:So it's not really a specific religion such as Christianity that is objectionable but a religious institution such as the Catholic Church, or the Anglican Church?
Not really. The gist of it is that any given politician can make a decision based on religious motives, or use religious rhetoric, but he cannot sign into law any form of state religion or, more broadly, prohibit the practice of any particular religion. The latter part sometimes runs into controversy where it is claimed that a general law is religiously discriminatory. The latest example of this is the furor over the mandated carriage of health insurance which covers birth control, with the Catholic Church claiming that said mandate violates their religious freedom (It does, but not in a sense which violates the Constitution.).
There was also the example of people trying to put the commandments on courthouse lawns, as well. Even though the commandments are utterly powerless in the court of law and will be ignored.
While I was trying to avoid using gay marriage as an example (so passé), the rhetoric about marriage being between a man and a woman etc is surely religious? And yet it exists as a legal state
the best time for this conversation is around xmas, and the inevitable cries from fox news about the war on xmas.
It is against the constitution to promote any one religion over any others. so putting up a nativity scene on public property is a no-no. putting up prayer banners in a public school and the cross's on public property in California. They're wrong and everyone knows it. But as the US is 83%ish christian they don't see a problem with this because its their religion being promoted.
These are promoting one religion over all others, which the christians with tv shows know, and they want to display their holy symbols anyways. But watch how they backpedal if you suggest putting up a islamic symbol on public property. or teaching the Koran in school.
people are already trying to get rid of "in god we trust" off from our money, and "under god" out of our pledge. Which are promoting religions with some sort of god.
but as bad as all that is, what scares me the most is how every president swears undying loyalty to a foreign nation.
sirlynchmob wrote:the best time for this conversation is around xmas, and the inevitable cries from fox news about the war on xmas.
It is against the constitution to promote any one religion over any others. so putting up a nativity scene on public property is a no-no. putting up prayer banners in a public school and the cross's on public property in California. They're wrong and everyone knows it. But as the US is 83%ish christian they don't see a problem with this because its their religion being promoted.
These are promoting one religion over all others, which the christians with tv shows know, and they want to display their holy symbols anyways. But watch how they backpedal if you suggest putting up a islamic symbol on public property. or teaching the Koran in school.
people are already trying to get rid of "in god we trust" off from our money, and "under god" out of our pledge. Which are promoting religions with some sort of god.
but as bad as all that is, what scares me the most is how every president swears undying loyalty to a foreign nation.
sirlynchmob wrote:the best time for this conversation is around xmas, and the inevitable cries from fox news about the war on xmas.
It is against the constitution to promote any one religion over any others. so putting up a nativity scene on public property is a no-no. putting up prayer banners in a public school and the cross's on public property in California. They're wrong and everyone knows it. But as the US is 83%ish christian they don't see a problem with this because its their religion being promoted.
These are promoting one religion over all others, which the christians with tv shows know, and they want to display their holy symbols anyways. But watch how they backpedal if you suggest putting up a islamic symbol on public property. or teaching the Koran in school.
people are already trying to get rid of "in god we trust" off from our money, and "under god" out of our pledge. Which are promoting religions with some sort of god.
but as bad as all that is, what scares me the most is how every president swears undying loyalty to a foreign nation.
Care to explain the last bit?
All US presidents have to pledge allegiance to Israel.
sirlynchmob wrote:
It is against the constitution to promote any one religion over any others. so putting up a nativity scene on public property is a no-no.
I know of several cases in which it was deemed Unconstitutional to deny religious groups access to public facilities, so I doubt that the erection of a Nativity scene would be found such. At least insofar as it was not found that the same public facilities were denied to members of other faiths wishing to erect similar displays during their own holy days.
sirlynchmob wrote:
but as bad as all that is, what scares me the most is how every president swears undying loyalty to a foreign nation.
What?
This is the Presidential oath of office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
sirlynchmob wrote:
It is against the constitution to promote any one religion over any others. so putting up a nativity scene on public property is a no-no.
I know of several cases in which it was deemed Unconstitutional to deny religious groups access to public facilities, so I doubt that the erection of a Nativity scene would be found such. At least insofar as it was not found that the same public facilities were denied to members of other faiths wishing to erect similar displays during their own holy days.
sirlynchmob wrote:
but as bad as all that is, what scares me the most is how every president swears undying loyalty to a foreign nation.
What?
This is the Presidential oath of office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Romney: Need for stronger defense of Israel
If we disagree with them [Israelis] like this president has time and time again, we don’t do it in public like he’s done it, we do it in private. And we let the Israeli leadership describe what they believe the right course is going forward. –
"And I believe America must say — and the best way to have peace in the Middle East is not for us to vacillate and to appease, but is to say, we stand with our friend Israel. We are committed to a Jewish state in Israel. We will not have an inch of difference between ourselves and our ally, Israel."
Religious sounding commentary 90% political soundbyte.
Even Stalin who spent most of his leadership career persecuting the church was allowing Moscovites to say things not too dissimilar to 'in God We Trust; in the waning months of 1941 when Guderians army was getting closer and closer.
So how much more will politicians or political bodies in countries with free religion bring out the God card. Quite a lot I say. New Labour said it 'didnt do God' however Brown and Blair was seen in churches at election times just like the rest.
sirlynchmob wrote:
show me any candidate who did not give unwavering support to israel.
There's a difference between pledging support to another nation, and proclaiming undying loyalty to one. We support Israel because they're an important ally in the Middle East, at least for right now. We also support them because its a popular position within the Jewish community, and therefore politically prudent. Of course, Israel isn't our only ally in the region, we also support Saudi Arabia and Jordan, among others, and formerly supported Egypt.
To some extent we still do support Egypt. It's just that we're kinda waiting to see how their political situation turns out when the dust settles (and it still hasn't).
Automatically Appended Next Post: And on the gay marriage issue: yes, it's religion-based. Any and all attempts to defend it with non-religious arguments always fail.
While even conservatives realize that we cannot pass any laws stating "though shall be Christian", they have no problem passing any amount of laws aimed at making you act like they think a Christian should.
The gross misunderstanding, (and often its being misunderstood deliberately to advance whatever agenda of the month), of "Separation of Church and State" and what it means in the United States is both rife and appalling. The founding fathers of the U.S. founded this nation as a Christian nation. That being said they also did not want to have instituted a "State Religion" ie The Church of England. They expected the citizenry to be people of faith and moral values but just what that faith was in was up to the individuals discretion as long as it did not violate the good order and discipline of the communities or the Law. The U.S. also did things with its legal system to not be like old English Law was at the time where you were presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Activist Atheists as well as other people who want to define the rules we live by for their own power and agendas (state-ists) Have for some time now been suing right left and center when ever they have an axe to grind on how this or that religious view point or symbol should not in their minds be displayed or invoked in public or in government situations often saying that they are offended or misstating the separation of church and state clause. There is no right to not be offended. That is your personal choice.
Now on to the topic of Gay Marriage. Personally I have wondered why the LGBT community has not just formed their own Church and gone on their merry way with it rather than arguing with the Catholics, Baptists, Episcopals, Mormons, or what have you. Then saying we have freedom of religion and our religion preforms LGBT marriages that are recognized as such by the church. And let the legal eagles chew on that one in the legislatures. You can be people of faith and be LGBT and live good loving lives with your significant other. God will sort it out I'm sure.
Lux_Lucis wrote:As the topic title says I'm interested in how the discourse in the US justifies the large amounts of Christian rhetoric that seems to permeate US politics.
We justify Christian rhetoric because the United States is Christian.
(That's basically what the justification boils down to.)
Zakiriel wrote:The gross misunderstanding, (and often its being misunderstood deliberately to advance whatever agenda of the month), of "Separation of Church and State" and what it means in the United States is both rife and appalling. The founding fathers of the U.S. founded this nation as a Christian nation. That being said they also did not want to have instituted a "State Religion" ie The Church of England. They expected the citizenry to be people of faith and moral values but just what that faith was in was up to the individuals discretion as long as it did not violate the good order and discipline of the communities or the Law. The U.S. also did things with its legal system to not be like old English Law was at the time where you were presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Activist Atheists as well as other people who want to define the rules we live by for their own power and agendas (state-ists) Have for some time now been suing right left and center when ever they have an axe to grind on how this or that religious view point or symbol should not in their minds be displayed or invoked in public or in government situations often saying that they are offended or misstating the separation of church and state clause. There is no right to not be offended. That is your personal choice.
Now on to the topic of Gay Marriage. Personally I have wondered why the LGBT community has not just formed their own Church and gone on their merry way with it rather than arguing with the Catholics, Baptists, Episcopals, Mormons, or what have you. Then saying we have freedom of religion and our religion preforms LGBT marriages that are recognized as such by the church. And let the legal eagles chew on that one in the legislatures. You can be people of faith and be LGBT and live good loving lives with your significant other. God will sort it out I'm sure.
see, here's one who believes his own propaganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli November 4, 1796
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
note the first line. 20 years after our independence here we are proclaiming we are not, nor ever have been a christian nation.
Zakiriel wrote:The founding fathers of the U.S. founded this nation as a Christian nation.
Eh, sort of. The Founders established the government called the United States of America, nationhood (as in the collective identity of a group of people) came about well after that fact. Was it Christian? Sure. Does it matter what it was, or even is? Not really. Nations change over time, just look at religious trends in Europe.
Zakiriel wrote:
Activist Atheists as well as other people who want to define the rules we live by for their own power and agendas...
So, basically everyone then.
Zakiriel wrote:
Personally I have wondered why the LGBT community has not just formed their own Church and gone on their merry way with it rather than arguing with the Catholics, Baptists, Episcopals, Mormons, or what have you.
Simple, those are all political groups and if the LGBT community wants same-sex marriage, the elements of those political groups that oppose state recognition of such are going to be opponents.
sirlynchmob wrote:
note the first line. 20 years after our independence here we are proclaiming we are not, nor ever have been a christian nation.
There's a difference between a nation and a government or state. Hence the term nation-state.
There's a large Jewish lobby though and I assume an increasing Muslim presence in politics as well, how is that fitting into the Christian rhetoric? Or is it still overwhelmingly Christian?
Lux_Lucis wrote:There's a large Jewish lobby though and I assume an increasing Muslim presence in politics as well, how is that fitting into the Christian rhetoric? Or is it still overwhelmingly Christian?
Lux_Lucis wrote:As the topic title says I'm interested in how the discourse in the US justifies the large amounts of Christian rhetoric that seems to permeate US politics. Not a new thing for me to be wondering about, but I will admit the debate about gay marriage has made me think about it more recently, particularly since Romney stated: 'There is no greater force for good in the nation than Christian conscience in action'.
This isn't supposed to be a thread about the topic of gay marriage but just the general conversation (if any) that occurs in the US about any intersection of Christianity and politics, such as the President's religion, 'In God We Trust' on notes etc and how that doesn't get shot down for being Church in the State's business.
Probably the first part of the issue is that the separation between church and state is a popular turn of phrase but not an explicit concept of the constitution. Laying aside for the moment the Bill of Rights. The constitution says, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." This basically means that the religion of an office holder should neither qualify or disqualify them for office, it does not preclude them from practicing or espousing their religion while in office. I normally point at Sir Thomas More for an example of why this particular article exists. Now adding the establishment clause of the First Amendment; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" precludes congress from establishing a religion but ALSO from prohibiting it's free exercise. Meaning that should a candidate or indeed a President choose to base his decision making process on Christian rhetoric he is permitted to do so. When or if the day comes that a Muslim president was elected I would expect the same freedom of religion to apply.
I would opine that the separation between church and state does not create a secular nation but a nation in which the prevailing majority is represented in government.
Joey wrote:Because the prevailing politics of a nation have little to do with its constitution in reality, which is as it should be.
The founders of the USA were by-and-large secular, but the modern populace (and by extention the people they elect) are overtly religious.
This is a popular but unfounded belief. The founding fathers of America were by and large religious and a minority of them were secular. Even the name of the building in which our government is housed has religious meaning. The building itself was used for chruch services every Sunday from its first cornerstone being laid until after the Civil War. Notably Jefferson attended services at the Capitol two days AFTER he wrote the commonly quoted letter outlining the separation of church and state. Madison, also a proponent of the separation of church and state attended services regularly at the Capitol as well. Both issued religious proclamations drafted and voted by congress, Jefferson actually refused to issue a few as well. The founders of this nation were indeed religious men, they simply thought that both government and religion were better off without the others dabbling.
Lux_Lucis wrote:There's a large Jewish lobby though and I assume an increasing Muslim presence in politics as well, how is that fitting into the Christian rhetoric? Or is it still overwhelmingly Christian?
We frequently discuss the US as a Christian nation in the Jewish Studies department. Those who say it is not tend to be...well Christians. Much but not all of the moral conscience of Christian rhetoric fits with Jewish morality and to a certain extent I'm sure Muslim as well, but the prevailing discourse will likely continue to be Christian by tradition, education, and majority beliefs.
Lux_Lucis wrote:As the topic title says I'm interested in how the discourse in the US justifies the large amounts of Christian rhetoric that seems to permeate US politics. Not a new thing for me to be wondering about, but I will admit the debate about gay marriage has made me think about it more recently, particularly since Romney stated: 'There is no greater force for good in the nation than Christian conscience in action'.
This isn't supposed to be a thread about the topic of gay marriage but just the general conversation (if any) that occurs in the US about any intersection of Christianity and politics, such as the President's religion, 'In God We Trust' on notes etc and how that doesn't get shot down for being Church in the State's business.
Probably the first part of the issue is that the separation between church and state is a popular turn of phrase but not an explicit concept of the constitution. Laying aside for the moment the Bill of Rights. The constitution says, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." This basically means that the religion of an office holder should neither qualify or disqualify them for office, it does not preclude them from practicing or espousing their religion while in office. I normally point at Sir Thomas More for an example of why this particular article exists. Now adding the establishment clause of the First Amendment; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" precludes congress from establishing a religion but ALSO from prohibiting it's free exercise. Meaning that should a candidate or indeed a President choose to base his decision making process on Christian rhetoric he is permitted to do so. When or if the day comes that a Muslim president was elected I would expect the same freedom of religion to apply.
I would opine that the separation between church and state does not create a secular nation but a nation in which the prevailing majority is represented in government.
Joey wrote:Because the prevailing politics of a nation have little to do with its constitution in reality, which is as it should be.
The founders of the USA were by-and-large secular, but the modern populace (and by extention the people they elect) are overtly religious.
This is a popular but unfounded belief. The founding fathers of America were by and large religious and a minority of them were secular. Even the name of the building in which our government is housed has religious meaning. The building itself was used for chruch services every Sunday from its first cornerstone being laid until after the Civil War. Notably Jefferson attended services at the Capitol two days AFTER he wrote the commonly quoted letter outlining the separation of church and state. Madison, also a proponent of the separation of church and state attended services regularly at the Capitol as well. Both issued religious proclamations drafted and voted by congress, Jefferson actually refused to issue a few as well. The founders of this nation were indeed religious men, they simply thought that both government and religion were better off without the others dabbling.
Lux_Lucis wrote:There's a large Jewish lobby though and I assume an increasing Muslim presence in politics as well, how is that fitting into the Christian rhetoric? Or is it still overwhelmingly Christian?
We frequently discuss the US as a Christian nation in the Jewish Studies department. Those who say it is not tend to be...well Christians. Much but not all of the moral conscience of Christian rhetoric fits with Jewish morality and to a certain extent I'm sure Muslim as well, but the prevailing discourse will likely continue to be Christian by tradition, education, and majority beliefs.
That answers it quite nicely for me I think, certainly it seems to be the most fulsome explanation I've read. Especially the first bit.
Obviously this is a personal opinion but I'd prefer it, if I lived there, if:
1) That was articulated better,
2) That wasn't the case and that religious rhetoric was removed from the public sphere (and yes, I am aware of the problems with doing that).
The founding fathers of the U.S. founded this nation as a Christian nation.
Most of them were deists, not Christians.
The US is a nation of secular laws, which has a lot of Christians in it. Saying it's a "Christian nation" makes it sound like the US is a theocracy. Sure, social conservatives would love for that to happen (as long as it was THEIR brand of Christianity that got put in power, I bet they'd be pretty pissed if, for example, the St. John's MCC or something similar was thrust in to power; they'd instantly legalize gay marriage), but it's not likely to happen any time soon.
Effectively, pandering to christian ideals gets them more votes. politicians would murder baby seals if it got them elected. Christian ideals are also used where possible to attack their enemy. Any since anyone can say something on TV and someone will believe it, they do it.
juraigamer wrote:Effectively, pandering to christian ideals gets them more votes. politicians would murder baby seals if it got them elected. Christian ideals are also used where possible to attack their enemy. Any since anyone can say something on TV and someone will believe it, they do it.
I get why, it was more how they get away with it, so to speak. AustonT seemed to explain it nicely, unless anyone can shoot that down
You can get away with anything if you're not caught. I can say I'm a hardcore Christian, or a Mormon, or whatever, and I could use excuses for why I don't do X, but I can always say I did X in the past and people will believe me.
Now if someone want's to say otherwise, there are two common results: The claim wasn't 100% right or I was lying. I can then say that their information is from a bias source or that it's wrong, and then simply call them out for attacking me as a (whatever religion here)
It tends to be lose lose for the 2nd player in the argument.
purplefood wrote:What would actively atheist entail?
Someone who does not claim any affiliation to religion in order to get elected and openly states their atheism when asked, rather than, say, pretending to be a church going type even if you don't actually believe.
purplefood wrote:What would actively atheist entail?
Someone who does not claim any affiliation to religion in order to get elected and openly states their atheism when asked, rather than, say, pretending to be a church going type even if you don't actually believe.
Yeah but wouldn't that be passive atheism?
Active atheism would imply some form of... well activity on the part of the atheist in question...
purplefood wrote:Yeah but wouldn't that be passive atheism?
Active atheism would imply some form of... well activity on the part of the atheist in question...
Which is why I put "actively" in quotation marks. I am sure there is more than one person in high office in the USA who is nominally [insert religion here] who is actually as close to makes no odds a non-believer, or even non-believers who only claim a religion because it makes things easier for them.
I think "openly" might have been a better choice of word.
purplefood wrote:Yeah but wouldn't that be passive atheism?
Active atheism would imply some form of... well activity on the part of the atheist in question...
Which is why I put "actively" in quotation marks. I am sure there is more than one person in high office in the USA who is nominally [insert religion here] who is actually as close to makes no odds a non-believer, or even non-believers who only claim a religion because it makes things easier for them.
I think "openly" might have been a better choice of word.
It would speak highly of the US if a openly atheist person could be elected president. But before that happens, I think the order will go something like:
obama 2012
republican white woman 2016 & 2020
democrat full black 2024,2028
republican hispanic or native american 2032,2036
democrat jew 2040
then some time later an atheist. 2044ish or later.
purplefood wrote:Yeah but wouldn't that be passive atheism?
Active atheism would imply some form of... well activity on the part of the atheist in question...
Which is why I put "actively" in quotation marks. I am sure there is more than one person in high office in the USA who is nominally [insert religion here] who is actually as close to makes no odds a non-believer, or even non-believers who only claim a religion because it makes things easier for them.
I think "openly" might have been a better choice of word.
purplefood wrote:Yeah but wouldn't that be passive atheism?
Active atheism would imply some form of... well activity on the part of the atheist in question...
Which is why I put "actively" in quotation marks. I am sure there is more than one person in high office in the USA who is nominally [insert religion here] who is actually as close to makes no odds a non-believer, or even non-believers who only claim a religion because it makes things easier for them.
I think "openly" might have been a better choice of word.
It would speak highly of the US if a openly atheist person could be elected president. But before that happens, I think the order will go something like:
obama 2012
republican white woman 2016 & 2020
democrat full black 2024,2028
republican hispanic or native american 2032,2036
democrat jew 2040
then some time later an atheist. 2044ish or later.
What about a Republican Asian and a pagan of some kind? I think you might need to push the date back
purplefood wrote:Yeah but wouldn't that be passive atheism?
Active atheism would imply some form of... well activity on the part of the atheist in question...
Which is why I put "actively" in quotation marks. I am sure there is more than one person in high office in the USA who is nominally [insert religion here] who is actually as close to makes no odds a non-believer, or even non-believers who only claim a religion because it makes things easier for them.
I think "openly" might have been a better choice of word.
It would speak highly of the US if a openly atheist person could be elected president. But before that happens, I think the order will go something like:
obama 2012
republican white woman 2016 & 2020
democrat full black 2024,2028
republican hispanic or native american 2032,2036
democrat jew 2040
then some time later an atheist. 2044ish or later.
You are more likely to see the Republicans elect a black male than a white female; also "full black" is pretty racist of you. There are a number of strong Hispanic politicians in the national arena right now. I fully expect a Hispanic president sooner rather than later; you are likely right that it will be a Republican: his name may be Bush...
I doubt you'll see a Jewish or Athiest president in my lifetime (I'm not terribly old either). Mostly because Jews aren't exactly plentiful and few have aspired to the presidency, and because Atheists would have a great deal of difficulty mobilizing the American base.
Last was my first reaction based on your origin flag but I remembered you might have mentioned being an American; so directed at Canadians anyways: you first. You beat us to women, we beat you to black let's race to atheist or Jew.
purplefood wrote:Yeah but wouldn't that be passive atheism?
Active atheism would imply some form of... well activity on the part of the atheist in question...
Which is why I put "actively" in quotation marks. I am sure there is more than one person in high office in the USA who is nominally [insert religion here] who is actually as close to makes no odds a non-believer, or even non-believers who only claim a religion because it makes things easier for them.
I think "openly" might have been a better choice of word.
It would speak highly of the US if a openly atheist person could be elected president. But before that happens, I think the order will go something like:
obama 2012
republican white woman 2016 & 2020
democrat full black 2024,2028
republican hispanic or native american 2032,2036
democrat jew 2040
then some time later an atheist. 2044ish or later.
You are more likely to see the Republicans elect a black male than a white female; also "full black" is pretty racist of you. There are a number of strong Hispanic politicians in the national arena right now. I fully expect a Hispanic president sooner rather than later; you are likely right that it will be a Republican: his name may be Bush...
I doubt you'll see a Jewish or Athiest president in my lifetime (I'm not terribly old either). Mostly because Jews aren't exactly plentiful and few have aspired to the presidency, and because Atheists would have a great deal of difficulty mobilizing the American base.
Last was my first reaction based on your origin flag but I remembered you might have mentioned being an American; so directed at Canadians anyways: you first. You beat us to women, we beat you to black let's race to atheist or Jew.
full black wasn't meant to be racist, it was to point out, like most in the US are fond to do, that Obama is only 1/2 black. While he will always be publicly known as the first black president, but the day a full black (what is the pc term?) president comes along it will be brought up all over again and there will be many a pointless debate on who should really get credit for it. My time line is very skewed that's for sure, that was more of a my best guess on the order of minority presidents, but every white man getting in pushes the whole time scale back.
I'm really not sure what to think about an Asian president, of all the minorities that seem likely to get in, it's quite the toss up on who would win between an asian or an atheist. I would never vote for anyone based on their nationality, or religious beliefs, I look at the candidates and see what they have voted for and what their track record is. Ron Paul looks good on the surface even though he's a young earth creationist, but I could never vote for him because of his positions on topics. That's why lately I voted 3rd party, I can agree with their positions while at the same time voting no to the two party dictatorship we seem to be stuck with. People only seem to be aware of the 2 parties and will often state "I'm voting for the lesser of two evils" while totally ignoring the fact we don't have to put up with either party.
If I could change my flag I'd probably just remove it, Lately I feel like a man without a home and I claim allegiance to any nation. But I was born in a spot of land claimed by the US, so in that regard I'm an american. This will be the first presidential election I won't be voting in, so I'm still way to interested in what is going on down there. I'm sure it will pass with time
The separation of church and state means there is to be no "Church of America". They wanted to avoid the religious issues national churches and religions brought up. Like the religious civil wars that wracked Europe. It does not mean religion cant be a part of public life. Anyone who thinks the Founding Fathers weren't Christian, or didn't set up the country based on those principles, didn't want Christian leaders, simply hasn't read any of their writings.
40kFSU wrote:The separation of church and state means there is to be no "Church of America". They wanted to avoid the religious issues national churches and religions brought up. Like the religious civil wars that wracked Europe. It does not mean religion cant be a part of public life. Anyone who thinks the Founding Fathers weren't Christian, or didn't set up the country based on those principles, didn't want Christian leaders, simply hasn't read any of their writings.
Like the treaty of tripoli where president john adams wrote "Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" lets see john adams, where did I see that name before? Oh ya the declaration of independence. The man who helped form the US, who also said " Christianity had originally been revelatory, but was being misinterpreted and misused in the service of superstition, fraud, and unscrupulous power."
Very few of the founding fathers were christian, but it doesn't matter what religions the people who started this country belonged to, they realized that religions had no place in government. It is also why the word god or creator does not appear anywhere in the constitution.
The John Adams remarks in the treaty of tripoli have been referenced a few times in this thread but one must remember that John Adams was well know to be Obnoxious and Disliked and a Lawyer....
40kFSU wrote:The separation of church and state means there is to be no "Church of America". They wanted to avoid the religious issues national churches and religions brought up. Like the religious civil wars that wracked Europe. It does not mean religion cant be a part of public life. Anyone who thinks the Founding Fathers weren't Christian, or didn't set up the country based on those principles, didn't want Christian leaders, simply hasn't read any of their writings.
I think it's safe to say Thomas Jefferson would probably go into fits if he saw how the "christian" churches here interact with the government. I'll copy/paste someone's summary of Jefferson's beliefs here:
First, that the Christianity of the churches was unreasonable, therefore unbelievable, but that stripped of priestly mystery, ritual, and dogma, reinterpreted in the light of historical evidence and human experience, and substituting the Newtonian cosmology for the discredited Biblical one, Christianity could be conformed to reason. Second, morality required no divine sanction or inspiration, no appeal beyond reason and nature, perhaps not even the hope of heaven or the fear of hell; and so the whole edifice of Christian revelation came tumbling to the ground.
George Washington's religious beliefs are an apparently hotly debated subject. He rarely attended church (except to accompany his wife) and was a Freemason, back when they were a group dedicated to enlightment, science and learning.
Even Benjamin Franklin wasn't in line with modern "christians". While he did introduce a resolution to require daily prayer in the consitutional congress (a resolution met with such distaste that it never even went to vote), he also doubted the divinity of jesus christ:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble....
That note in a letter one month beore his death. He's also behind the famous beer quote.
So to say that the founding fathers were a religious group is not untrue in the slightest. To say that they were "christian", especially when trying to compare them to modern religious groups, is a complete fabrication.
Ok, I understand the points made. It is probably not entirely accurate to say all Founding Fathers were dyed in the wool christians as we know them today. What I mean is a government run by free people must have a moral compass. I believe they saw faith as the compass. The documents which structured the government do not establish or endorse a religion because they did not want to alienate or persecute anyone. Not endorsing a religion does not mean no religion. You have to read the other documents of the day to understand the entire founding of America. Federalist Papers are good. Courts even site them.
We have amendments and language that sounds obvious or silly by todays standards. In the 1780's, it was revolutionary thinking. For instance, not allowing soldiers to stay in private a private residence or even cruel and unusual punishments and speedy trials.
On a more current note, when free peoples have no moral compass and are ignorant of current affairs (and I don't mean dumb I mean they don't know and understand) you get the crap that has been going on in my beloved America for the past 20 years or so. I am a conservative republican and I am not afraid to say the GOP is as much to blame as anyone else.
SilverMK2 wrote:I'd love for an "actively" atheist person to be president just to see how that would play out
Well our current Prime Minister is an atheist. I was surprised that there wasn't a really big deal made out of it. From what I've read in this thread it seems like it's political suicide in the US to show anything but Christian beliefs.
40kFSU wrote:Ok, I understand the points made. It is probably not entirely accurate to say all Founding Fathers were dyed in the wool christians as we know them today. What I mean is a government run by free people must have a moral compass. I believe they saw faith as the compass. The documents which structured the government do not establish or endorse a religion because they did not want to alienate or persecute anyone. Not endorsing a religion does not mean no religion. You have to read the other documents of the day to understand the entire founding of America. Federalist Papers are good. Courts even site them.
We have amendments and language that sounds obvious or silly by todays standards. In the 1780's, it was revolutionary thinking. For instance, not allowing soldiers to stay in private a private residence or even cruel and unusual punishments and speedy trials.
On a more current note, when free peoples have no moral compass and are ignorant of current affairs (and I don't mean dumb I mean they don't know and understand) you get the crap that has been going on in my beloved America for the past 20 years or so. I am a conservative republican and I am not afraid to say the GOP is as much to blame as anyone else.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "must have a moral compass". I'll agree that an immoral society probably won't last all that long, but if you're saying that they drew their morality from christianity, I'll point you back at Jefferson's biographer for Jefferson's thoughts:
Second, morality required no divine sanction or inspiration, no appeal beyond reason and nature, perhaps not even the hope of heaven or the fear of hell;
I'm saying that it would be nigh impossible to reconcile christianity of today, with the "christianity" known to our founding fathers. I'm decently aware of the circumstances and languages used in our founding documents. I understand why clauses like "not housing soldiers" and such were included. My whole point is that every christian group that cites "This country was founded as a Christian country!" is blatantly wrong, or at the very least misguided. Even if we were founded as a "christian country" (we weren't), the christianity we would have been founded under has next to nothing to do with the "christianity" practiced by modern groups and churches. You don't have to go much farther than the founding fathers themselves to see this.
40kFSU wrote:Ok, I understand the points made. It is probably not entirely accurate to say all Founding Fathers were dyed in the wool christians as we know them today. What I mean is a government run by free people must have a moral compass. I believe they saw faith as the compass. The documents which structured the government do not establish or endorse a religion because they did not want to alienate or persecute anyone. Not endorsing a religion does not mean no religion. You have to read the other documents of the day to understand the entire founding of America. Federalist Papers are good. Courts even site them.
you don't need any sort of faith for a moral compass. Morals are learned. pagans, polythiests, atheists, pretty much everyone on the planet has morals. That does not in any way mean they are divinely inspired. Its a simple matter of eon's of evolution at work and humans being a herd animal. Religions seem to be able to inspire people to ignore their own morals and allow for some horrendous events.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Jefferson may have said what he said but it doesn't nullify everything else. By moral compass I mean a common source of morality. Christianity has always been the source. If it wasn't, liberals wouldn't be he'll bent on tearing down all the Christian foundations or the country.
40kFSU wrote:I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Jefferson may have said what he said but it doesn't nullify everything else. By moral compass I mean a common source of morality. Christianity has always been the source. If it wasn't, liberals wouldn't be he'll bent on tearing down all the Christian foundations or the country.
Look at our laws, what are they based on?
So your argument is this:
I love Jesus and I don't like liberals, therefore Liberals don't like Jesus?
40kFSU wrote:I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Jefferson may have said what he said but it doesn't nullify everything else. By moral compass I mean a common source of morality. Christianity has always been the source. If it wasn't, liberals wouldn't be he'll bent on tearing down all the Christian foundations or the country.
Look at our laws, what are they based on?
It wasn't just Jefferson. Franklin, Washington, Adams... their views on christianity differ greatly from the views espoused today. None of them would have told me to accept "jesus as my personal lord and saviour" or whatnot. (I'm fully aware not all christian sects preach jesus as a personal saviour; it's merely one example.)
As to the source of morals, are you really saying that socities before the rise of Christianity had no morals at all? Or that non christian nations were all immoral? Surely not? There were laws against murder and theft long before Moses supposedly came down with the 10 commandments you know. I'm also hoping I misunderstand your last sentence... are you seriously saying that liberals want to destroy all morals in the US?
Liberal groups have led the charge against prayers in school, nativity scenes, and really any public displays of Christianity by any government body. That's why I said what I said. And they do not take similar actions with, say, Islam. This is not an attack or endorsement, just a statement. And I do think liberals want less morality. But that is another topic I suppose.
And I made no statement about any other civilization or their morals. I am talking about America. You have to read more than one document or one web site to understand the full context of the founding.
Anyway, I am not a big off topic forum guy and I have enjoyed our discussion, steamdragon. But I don't want to get in some back and forth with others dropping in mindless comments like d-usa's. Take care out there.
40kFSU wrote:I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Jefferson may have said what he said but it doesn't nullify everything else. By moral compass I mean a common source of morality. Christianity has always been the source. If it wasn't, liberals wouldn't be he'll bent on tearing down all the Christian foundations or the country.
Look at our laws, what are they based on?
I think you're new here. Here's the deal.
Dakka OT has approximately one Christian bashing thread every 4.75 days. If you ignore them and let the bashers circle jerk, er I mean discuss it with each other in a positive up-lifting fashion- and instead just post in other threads, then your time here will be much better.
Arguing with them is like being a conservative on a CHE blog. Its just not going to go well.
40kFSU wrote:
Liberal groups have led the charge against prayers in school, nativity scenes, and really any public displays of Christianity by any government body. That's why I said what I said. And they do not take similar actions with, say, Islam. This is not an attack or endorsement, just a statement. And I do think liberals want less morality. But that is another topic I suppose.
And I made no statement about any other civilization or their morals. I am talking about America. You have to read more than one document or one web site to understand the full context of the founding.
Anyway, I am not a big off topic forum guy and I have enjoyed our discussion, steamdragon. But I don't want to get in some back and forth with others dropping in mindless comments like d-usa's. Take care out there.
Not allowing prayer in public schools, or nativity scenes on public property is not an attack against christians, it's reenforcing the idea of separation between church and state. And that includes all religions, if you want your bible taught in school, then they should teach the Koran as well. so the way separation is applied today it prevents both. Keep your religious stuff to your church and your house, and off from public property. Otherwise your fight to get your religion promoted on public property will pave the way for Islam to be promoted as well, along with the flying spaghetti monster.
Our founding fathers had seen what having a state church did and how it persecuted most people to brave a 3 month trip they'd likely die on to try for a new life. They took the laws of all of Europe that worked and dumped the parts that didn't. Its an amalgamation of all the laws of Europe. Nothing god given, just a good dose of common sense and realizing that the laws should be equal for everyone. Even though getting the laws to apply to everyone took a while.
Christianity is the worst source for morality, and it could not always been the source as its only been around 2 thousand years now.
40kFSU wrote:
Liberal groups have led the charge against prayers in school, nativity scenes, and really any public displays of Christianity by any government body. That's why I said what I said. And they do not take similar actions with, say, Islam.
99.9% of your politicians and leaders are not followers of Islam, so it makes little sense to do so. Plus 99.9% of your politicians are already quite happy to take on Islam by themselves...
40kFSU wrote: Liberal groups have led the charge against prayers in school
I hear that you're all for prayer in school.
So I know this satanist who would be glad to offer daily prayers to schools... perhaps I should schedule him the week after the bhuddist and hindu prayers?
Contradictory and slightly insane directives (many of which are selectively ignored, some of which are based on prejudice rather than any concept of rational thinking, while others are blow out of all proportion) and based on being punished for doing bad and rewarded for doing good, rather than doing good simply because it is good, and not doing bad because it is bad?
No, not necessarily in favor of prayers in school. Because you are all right allowing one religion and banning others would amount to a government sponsored religion. Which is what the Founders took steps to prevent. They took steps to protect everyones religious freedoms, that does not mean they took steps to sterilize society from religion.
Im not going to argue everyones opinions on religion, you must have your reasons.
Frazzled, thanks for the heads up. I should probably stick to painting little plastic soldiers and complaining about GW's market strategy.
Also, I dont think there are US government Islam displays, could be wrong. That goes back to the point of christian influence in our founding. You can find that everywhere. Which goes back to my original point.
40kFSU wrote:Frazzled, thanks for the heads up. I should probably stick to painting little plastic soldiers and complaining about GW's market strategy.
40kFSU wrote:No, not necessarily in favor of prayers in school. Because you are all right allowing one religion and banning others would amount to a government sponsored religion. Which is what the Founders took steps to prevent. They took steps to protect everyones religious freedoms, that does not mean they took steps to sterilize society from religion.
Im not going to argue everyones opinions on religion, you must have your reasons.
Frazzled, thanks for the heads up. I should probably stick to painting little plastic soldiers and complaining about GW's market strategy.
Also, I dont think there are US government Islam displays, could be wrong. That goes back to the point of christian influence in our founding. You can find that everywhere. Which goes back to my original point.
They never meant to sterilize it, that;s why you are allowed to build churches to what ever god you choose. The government is even nice enough to let you do it tax free, which I think they should stop. Your religion belongs in your church and home, not on the court house steps.
40kFSU wrote:Frazzled, thanks for the heads up. I should probably stick to painting little plastic soldiers and complaining about GW's market strategy.
Don't mind Frazz, he's just a grumpy old git
True but I'm right. Plenty of OT topics to voice opinion on without getting heartburn. The weekly antiChristian threads aint one of them.
I think we are now talking about something else. I was just trying to explain why the constitution sets up a secular government, but it was intended to be populated by persons of moral fiber. At the time, christianity. I don't see a problem with the tax code. Applies to all religions and non profits and charities. You want to change the tax code, cut income and corporate rates.
1) As to Obama being only half-negroid vs. 'pure' negroid (to use the anthropological term...)
There are very few 'pure' negriods in America, short of recent immigrants from Africa. The vast majority have at least some caucasian, oriental, or even native american mixed in. This happened because of a propensity of early American men to find negroid, and later mixed-ancestry - women very exotic and desireable. However, social forces kept the mixed-ancestry children classified the same as their 'pure' mothers. This caused a hybridization over the generations, leading to 'negroids' in America that routinely mix classic negroid features with caucasian or oriental ones. It is only a superfical skin coloration and our own stick-in-the-mud society that keeps them classified as 'negroid.'
In short, we deny our cousins the relationship because our great-times-x-grandfathers couldn't keep it in their pants. And then we wonder why they are so filled with hate...
2) The problems with Christianity isn't with the teachings of Christ. It is the 2000 years of political bull**** that got tacked on since then. Go back to what Jesus said in the bible (straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak) and ignore EVERYTHING else (which was concieved by men, and therefore potentially flawed), and it becomes a lot clearer what God intends for us.
3) To the OP: How do we reconcile the separation of Church and State v. Christian Rhetoric? We don't; not really.
40kFSU wrote:I think we are now talking about something else. I was just trying to explain why the constitution sets up a secular government, but it was intended to be populated by persons of moral fiber. At the time, christianity. I don't see a problem with the tax code. Applies to all religions and non profits and charities. You want to change the tax code, cut income and corporate rates.
Joey wrote:Because the prevailing politics of a nation have little to do with its constitution in reality, which is as it should be.
The founders of the USA were by-and-large secular, but the modern populace (and by extention the people they elect) are overtly religious.
You have that exactly backwards. The founders of the USA were all from one established religious sect or another. I challenge you to find one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence that was an atheist.
Joey wrote:Because the prevailing politics of a nation have little to do with its constitution in reality, which is as it should be.
The founders of the USA were by-and-large secular, but the modern populace (and by extention the people they elect) are overtly religious.
You have that exactly backwards. The founders of the USA were all from one established religious sect or another. I challenge you to find one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence that was an atheist.
Secular does not mean atheist.
Secular means a separation between church and state no matter the personal beliefs of any particular member of the government.
Is that cartoon......what? Is this actually the basis for your.....what? Wait, are you messing with me? Hey! Have you ever seen South Park Bigger Longer and Uncut?
40kFSU wrote:Is that cartoon......what? Is this actually the basis for your.....what? Wait, are you messing with me? Hey! Have you ever seen South Park Bigger Longer and Uncut?
.
I have that southpark movie on VHS around here somewhere, haven't seen it in ages. But this is what I think of every time someone like you says america is founded on christian values. Its funny cause its true
40kFSU wrote:Is that cartoon......what? Is this actually the basis for your.....what? Wait, are you messing with me? Hey! Have you ever seen South Park Bigger Longer and Uncut?
Contradictory and slightly insane directives (many of which are selectively ignored, some of which are based on prejudice rather than any concept of rational thinking, while others are blow out of all proportion) and based on being punished for doing bad and rewarded for doing good, rather than doing good simply because it is good, and not doing bad because it is bad?
Why don't you provide a few examples?
sirlynchmob wrote:
AustonT wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:Christianity is the worst source for morality.
This thread is positively brimming with wrong, I think I learned more about US history shagging my American missus than some of the Americans in here learned in ten years of school!
mattyrm wrote: This thread is positively brimming with wrong, I think I learned more about US history shagging my American missus than some of the Americans in here learned in ten years of school!
So are you really recommending we all er...never mind.
mattyrm wrote: This thread is positively brimming with wrong, I think I learned more about US history shagging my American missus than some of the Americans in here learned in ten years of school!
So are you really recommending we all er...never mind.
Haha!
Our lass says that men have all their best ideas during sex..
mattyrm wrote: This thread is positively brimming with wrong, I think I learned more about US history shagging my American missus than some of the Americans in here learned in ten years of school!
The American education system is abysmal most places. There's a book called, "lies my teacher told me," that examines history books used by schools and deconstructs some common misconceptions and oversights.
mattyrm wrote: This thread is positively brimming with wrong, I think I learned more about US history shagging my American missus than some of the Americans in here learned in ten years of school!
So are you really recommending we all er...never mind.
Haha!
Our lass says that men have all their best ideas during sex..
Hahahaha!! Frazzled to the rescue again! I don't think our friend up north picked up on that. I love it when people from other countries try to lecture on America. At any rate I am done. Gotta go to work. Damn 1%. Take care out there.
mattyrm wrote: This thread is positively brimming with wrong, I think I learned more about US history shagging my American missus than some of the Americans in here learned in ten years of school!
The American education system is abysmal most places. There's a book called, "lies my teacher told me," that examines history books used by schools and deconstructs some common misconceptions and oversights.
Seriously though, who was it said all of the founding fathers were Christians?!
Even I know that almost all of them had at one point gobbed off about the whole state Religion thing, Benjamin Franklin, Paine, Adams, Jefferson, James Madison and even big bad George, I am pretty certain, if I could be arsed to google it, would all have been extremely critical at least once or twice of organised Religion at one point or the other. I remember my missus telling me that one of them famously said he absolutely hated going to church and only went to placate the masses, it might even have been George.
Who was the guy who said something like "Lighthouses are more use than Priests" was that Franklin?
mattyrm wrote: This thread is positively brimming with wrong, I think I learned more about US history shagging my American missus than some of the Americans in here learned in ten years of school!
The American education system is abysmal most places. There's a book called, "lies my teacher told me," that examines history books used by schools and deconstructs some common misconceptions and oversights.
Seriously though, who was it said all of the founding fathers were Christians?!
Even I know that almost all of them had at one point gobbed off about the whole state Religion thing, Benjamin Franklin, Paine, Adams, Jefferson, James Madison and even big bad George, I am pretty certain, if I could be arsed to google it, would all have been extremely critical at least once or twice of organised Religion at one point or the other. I remember my missus telling me that one of them famously said he absolutely hated going to church and only went to placate the masses, it might even have been George.
Who was the guy who said something like "Lighthouses are more use than Priests" was that Franklin?
yep it was franklin, and "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
mattyrm wrote: This thread is positively brimming with wrong, I think I learned more about US history shagging my American missus than some of the Americans in here learned in ten years of school!
The American education system is abysmal most places. There's a book called, "lies my teacher told me," that examines history books used by schools and deconstructs some common misconceptions and oversights.
Seriously though, who was it said all of the founding fathers were Christians?!
I dunno, did anyone actually say that in the thread or did we jump to that assumption at some point?
AustonT wrote:
I dunno, did anyone actually say that in the thread or did we jump to that assumption at some point?
Aye Austin, this bloke..
40kFSU wrote:Anyone who thinks the Founding Fathers weren't Christian, or didn't set up the country based on those principles, didn't want Christian leaders, simply hasn't read any of their writings.
I havent read all of their writings, but I still know the above is total nonsense.
I mean, what would be an accurate description of them?
Most were Deists right? They certainly didn't believe that everything in the bloody bible was literally true for example. His post just reeks of revisionist bs that Creationist Americans are attempting to spread.
I mean, sure some were devout Christians, but some blatantly weren't right?
Ahh...I read that post but apparently it didn't click.
Religious: yes
Christian: maybe (but mostly: no)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:
I mean, what would be an accurate description of them?
Free. (it's a cheesy answer but largely true, before the revolution as well as after distance from England made them free to pursue their religious beliefs)
Most were Deists right? They certainly didn't believe that everything in the bloody bible was literally true for example. His post just reeks of revisionist bs that Creationist Americans are attempting to spread.
I mean, sure some were devout Christians, but some blatantly weren't right?
I dunno if I would say most. There's some obvious ones: Thomas Paine, Franklin (although he could have been happily pagan who knows), Madison, and Hamilton. but Jefferson and (John) Adams were Unitarians. Samuel Adams was a Puritan if memory serves, and a pretty devout and open one at that. Washington was probably an Anglican with a splash of Diesm, etc. They were a pretty eclectic mix of guys, and there's probably no good answer your last line is probably the best description.
AustonT wrote:Why don't you provide a few examples?
Love thy neighbours (unless they art gay evil sinners)?
oh do you mean?
thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself?
It's weird I've never seen parenthetical quotation in the bible. So you couldn't be bothered to find actual examples and this is the weak gak you actually came up with?
AustonT wrote:Why don't you provide a few examples?
Love thy neighbours (unless they art gay evil sinners)?
oh do you mean?
thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself?
It's weird I've never seen parenthetical quotation in the bible. So you couldn't be bothered to find actual examples and this is the weak gak you actually came up with?
Even you have to admit there is a big difference between what is in the bible, and what christians actually believe right? Most can't even agree on if the old testament is to be followed or not.
AustonT wrote:Why don't you provide a few examples?
Love thy neighbours (unless they art gay evil sinners)?
oh do you mean?
thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself?
It's weird I've never seen parenthetical quotation in the bible. So you couldn't be bothered to find actual examples and this is the weak gak you actually came up with?
Even you have to admit there is a big difference between what is in the bible, and what christians actually believe right? Most can't even agree on if the old testament is to be followed or not.
You must then surely admit that lumping a billion christians into one stereotyped group while posting clearly satirical youtube videos as cover for your beliefs doesn't appear to mark you as a person who has an objective and learned view on Christianity then does it?
AustonT wrote:oh do you mean?
thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself?
It's weird I've never seen parenthetical quotation in the bible. So you couldn't be bothered to find actual examples and this is the weak gak you actually came up with?
Well, I assumed that you would be aware of the two biblical examples I was referring to, since they are reasonably well known. But no, I can't be bothered to google some examples, because they have been posted umpteen million times before and frankly "debating" the same things every week (as referenced by Frazz) is kind of boring.
What's this "even you" nonsense? There's a HUGE difference between what's in the bible and what Christians actually believe; you'd be hard pressed to find Christians who actually have read the bible.
I asked you to provide a few examples for your statement, you didn't even give one less than a bumper sticker. I'm not trying to bag on you, but if you can't give an example then why bother making a statement like, "Christianity is the worst source for morality." If it was the "worst" source for morality you'd think it would be easy to come up with dozens of supporting statements.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:
AustonT wrote:oh do you mean?
thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself?
It's weird I've never seen parenthetical quotation in the bible. So you couldn't be bothered to find actual examples and this is the weak gak you actually came up with?
Well, I assumed that you would be aware of the two biblical examples I was referring to, since they are reasonably well known. But no, I can't be bothered to google some examples, because they have been posted umpteen million times before and frankly "debating" the same things every week (as referenced by Frazz) is kind of boring.
AustonT wrote:Why don't you provide a few examples?
Love thy neighbours (unless they art gay evil sinners)?
oh do you mean?
thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself?
It's weird I've never seen parenthetical quotation in the bible. So you couldn't be bothered to find actual examples and this is the weak gak you actually came up with?
Even you have to admit there is a big difference between what is in the bible, and what christians actually believe right? Most can't even agree on if the old testament is to be followed or not.
You must then surely admit that lumping a billion christians into one stereotyped group while posting clearly satirical youtube videos as cover for your beliefs doesn't appear to mark you as a person who has an objective and learned view on Christianity then does it?
they lump themselves together so they appear to be a bigger organization than they actually are. there are only 313,544,041 in the US, so how can 3x that many be christian? so if we accept that 81% of the citizens are christians that puts them at 253,970,673. Now if we take those and evenly distribute them between the 40,000 different christian denominations we get 6,350 per denomination. YMMV.
Of course you can't lump them all together, you can't ask 2 christians a simple question on the bible and come up with 1 answer. They cant even agree if the bible is 100% fact or just a book of metaphors. But when addressing any part of them, its easier just to type christians, then list some portion of the 40,000 groups that you know think that way. Christians do it to seem united as one big religion, I do it for convenience.
the youtube video is not cover for my beliefs, it is a accurate portrayal of what christians sound like to me, when they say the us is a christian nation. do you ever hear any christian saying its a Melkite Greek Catholic nation? or a westboro baptist nation?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:What's this "even you" nonsense? There's a HUGE difference between what's in the bible and what Christians actually believe; you'd be hard pressed to find Christians who actually have read the bible.
I asked you to provide a few examples for your statement, you didn't even give one less than a bumper sticker. I'm not trying to bag on you, but if you can't give an example then why bother making a statement like, "Christianity is the worst source for morality." If it was the "worst" source for morality you'd think it would be easy to come up with dozens of supporting statements.
I could, but that would have really taken us off topic and back to many other topics discussed lately. But I'd agree, very few christians have actually read the bible.
Eh, I had a long response typed out, but lost it due to internet shenanigans. ah well. You type something like "Christianity is the worst basis for morality" (paraphrasing) and then when challenged you say that Christians can't agree on what part of the Bible to follow. When you talk to Christians you think of a satirical cartoon. So I suppose what I'm saying is that I have a hard time thinking you're coming at this from a very unbiased view of Christianity.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Eh, I had a long response typed out, but lost it due to internet shenanigans. ah well. You type something like "Christianity is the worst basis for morality" (paraphrasing) and then when challenged you say that Christians can't agree on what part of the Bible to follow. When you talk to Christians you think of a satirical cartoon. So I suppose what I'm saying is that I have a hard time thinking you're coming at this from a very unbiased view of Christianity.
everyone is biased, thats what makes us human.
but those are two different points.
1. the bible is a horrible source for morality. Lets go Godwin's law and call it a day Hitler tries to commit genocide on the jews, everyone can agree hitler was immoral. God (if you accept him and the biblical flood as factual) Flooded the entire world reducing the entire human population down to 6ish people, and most species down to 2 that's moral because god did it. How are the two different? god clearly killed an untold magnitude more than even conceivable, but that's ok because he's the god of love? but hey lets everyone play along, judging by your own morals, if your neighbor did and ordered everything in the bible, which parts would you say were immoral?
2. no two christian denominations will ever agree complete on what the bible says. or weather it is even true or metaphor. Now add in good moral christian people like Anders Breivik, and see how quickly other christians quickly label him "not a true christain" and even here on Dakka, the mormons aren't even true christians. But then that begs the question, well which of the 40,000 types of christians are the true christians? Because what if it is the mormons, then you would be in the not a true christian group.
Joey wrote:Because the prevailing politics of a nation have little to do with its constitution in reality, which is as it should be.
The founders of the USA were by-and-large secular, but the modern populace (and by extention the people they elect) are overtly religious.
If you really want to continue having an argument where neither party is likely to change their mind, go right ahead, I don't see the point any more and will bow out. Feel free to type something like "moral contradictions in the bible" into google and go and spam the comments sections of any websites that come up telling them they are wrong.
If you really want to continue having an argument where neither party is likely to change their mind, go right ahead, I don't see the point any more and will bow out. Feel free to type something like "moral contradictions in the bible" into google and go and spam the comments sections of any websites that come up telling them they are wrong.
This is why everyone knows atheists have absolutely no morality.
But I'm not interested in having an argument where neither party is likely to change their mind.*
* The above post is not meant to be taken seriously.
LoneLictor wrote:I'm a Catholic who gets Protestant and preferably Evangelical virgins pregnant and pressures them into abortions. That's what Jesus told me it means to be an American Catholic at least.
(Yes, I'm obviously joking)
I fixed this for you so you can still be a politician in America.
LoneLictor wrote:I'm a Catholic who gets Protestant and preferably Evangelical virgins pregnant and pressures them into abortions. That's what Jesus told me it means to be an American Catholic at least.
(Yes, I'm obviously joking)
I fixed this for you so you can still be a politician in America.
They don't. A lot of Christians (not all) are very clear that they want a theocracy.
I'm going to pray in church or at home when I damn well please. I don't need my government enforcing my religion.
Exactly. One should carry out his beliefs in a way that he sees fit (Unless of course those actions infringe on the well-being and beliefs of others). No one should be able to dictate otherwise.
Sadly, it would seem that there are quite a few who would see the puritanical regime of the 17th century restored...
The problem is many (not all) Christians want to be able to enforce their own beliefs on others. The secular nature of the constitution was intended to ensure that their was no tyranny of the majority.
A few comments to other points made in the thread
The bible is not the only source of morality and many laws such as not killing or stealing were enforce in many nations around the globe well before the bible
No one I have met or had contact with gets their morality just from the bible. People tend to cherry pick what they think is relevant or supports their own views using their own moral compass. Otherwise there would be laws banning shell fish, multi fabric clothing and working on Sundays. Also women would not have the rights they had now if everyone took the bible on its word.
The founding fathers were not primarily Christian many were deists etc
As someone said earlier America is a Nation consisting of mostly Christians not a Christian nation.
Lux_Lucis wrote:As the topic title says I'm interested in how the discourse in the US justifies the large amounts of Christian rhetoric that seems to permeate US politics.
There is a group in the US, it exists in other countries but not to the same extent, who actively work to try to drive a wedge between Christians and everyone else. It's important to realise that these people have very little interest in creating a genuinely Christian state (if such a thing were possible), their primary motivation is just tribalism, inventing an other and pretending they're as horrible as possible, in order to make themselves and the 'true christians' like them appear righteous. I suspect they do this because it's much easier than actually, you know, performing good works.
The above group is a reasonably small but very loud minority, with significant political and media connections. This leaves the majority of US Christians, who are broadly sympathetic to other Christians but not at all interested in the specifics of the above group to respond in a variety of ways. Some denounce the above tribalism, most ignore them, and some ignore or dismiss the more horrible claims of the above group while being broadly sympathetic to their more moderate claims.
And meanwhile that majority keeps on making noise and demanding far greater political attention than their numbers ought to justify.
And then on top of that there's the actual Christian Dominionists, who honestly and geuninely believe the most important thing to achieve is to make the USA a formally Christian nation, with a code of laws tied directly to biblical commandments (or at least their personal interpretation of the bible). This group is broadly rejected by pretty much everyone, to the point where many religious commentators deny that such people actually exist, but at the same time this minority is very well connected within certain sections of the Republican party (they were particularly well represented among the staffers of the early generation of Tea Partiers).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zakiriel wrote:The gross misunderstanding, (and often its being misunderstood deliberately to advance whatever agenda of the month), of "Separation of Church and State" and what it means in the United States is both rife and appalling. The founding fathers of the U.S. founded this nation as a Christian nation.
No, they did not. That's just awful, wildly inaccurate history. Many argued at the time for a state religion, but there was considerable concern, given the diversity of christian churches in the nation at the time as to exactly which one would 'win out'. At the same time a sizable faction, led by Thomas Jefferson, who felt any person should be free to follow whatever religion they wanted.
The end result of these two political drives was a constitution that not only failed to endorse any religion, but one that explicity stated no religion was ever to be endorsed by the state.
The U.S. also did things with its legal system to not be like old English Law was at the time where you were presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Uh, no, that's complete nonsense. US common law took it's early standards from existing English common law, where a presumption of innocence was already in place. Indeed, the term 'presumption of innocence' was coined by the English lawyer Sir William Garrow.
You really, really need to read more, and better sources.
Activist Atheists as well as other people who want to define the rules we live by for their own power and agendas (state-ists) Have for some time now been suing right left and center when ever they have an axe to grind on how this or that religious view point or symbol should not in their minds be displayed or invoked in public or in government situations often saying that they are offended or misstating the separation of church and state clause. There is no right to not be offended. That is your personal choice.
There is a faction of people who are hyper-sensitive to any mention of religion in politics. But to pretend these groups are attempting to gain power, or that there actually isn't any concern over issues of state endorsement of religion is to invent a fantasy world utterly unlike the one we all actually live in.
Now on to the topic of Gay Marriage. Personally I have wondered why the LGBT community has not just formed their own Church and gone on their merry way with it rather than arguing with the Catholics, Baptists, Episcopals, Mormons, or what have you. Then saying we have freedom of religion and our religion preforms LGBT marriages that are recognized as such by the church.
Why would you wonder that? There are already a wide range of progressive churches willing to marry gay couples, and there is no effort to make any church marry someone they don't want to. What they actually want is legal recognition equal to that of any straight couple. How any religious body decides to react to that is entirely up to them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote:It would speak highly of the US if a openly atheist person could be elected president. But before that happens, I think the order will go something like:
obama 2012
democrat full black 2024,2028
Are you claiming Obama was more electable because he is of mixed race? That's just... this whole line of thought is just fethed up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:I doubt you'll see a Jewish or Athiest president in my lifetime (I'm not terribly old either). Mostly because Jews aren't exactly plentiful and few have aspired to the presidency, and because Atheists would have a great deal of difficulty mobilizing the American base.
You guys were one supreme court decision away from having a Jewish vice president in Joe Liebermann. But I agree that the relatively small number of Jews makes a future president less likely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
40kFSU wrote:The separation of church and state means there is to be no "Church of America". They wanted to avoid the religious issues national churches and religions brought up. Like the religious civil wars that wracked Europe. It does not mean religion cant be a part of public life. Anyone who thinks the Founding Fathers weren't Christian, or didn't set up the country based on those principles, didn't want Christian leaders, simply hasn't read any of their writings.
The US isn't set up on Christian principals. Claiming otherwise is to simply ignore what Christian principals are, and what the founding principals of the US are.
I mean, read the Ten Commandments.
1 Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.... Not part of the US law, in fact the opposite - that you can worship whatever you want, is the key component of the US constitution.
2 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above... Not part of US law, in fact free artistic expression is protected under the US constitution.
3 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain... Not part of US law, in fact blasphemy is protected under free artistic expression.
4 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy... Not part of US law, businesses open Sunday, sporting teams play, and nothing in law prevents this.
5 Honour thy father and thy mother... Nothing in law requires this.
6 Thou shalt not kill... And here's one that's actually part of US law. Only took us until number 6.
7 Thou shalt not commit adultery. Adultery is absolutely, 100% legal in the US.
8 Thou shalt not steal. And here we are at number 8, when we find the second commandment that's actually part of US law.
9 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Is illegal, in specific circumstances, but for the most part you're free to lie.
10 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house. Not only is this not legal, capitalist society actively encourages people to covet other people's stuff wherever possible.
So, basically, out of the ten commandments, you have two that are actually reinforced in US law. And it'd be a stupid, stupid thing to pretend 'don't kill' and 'don't steal' are specifically Christian values, given they've been a cornerstone of every society ever.
Instead, you can look to Greek and Babylonian writings to find the foundations of US law, coupled with much taken from the French writers of the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zakiriel wrote:The John Adams remarks in the treaty of tripoli have been referenced a few times in this thread but one must remember that John Adams was well know to be Obnoxious and Disliked and a Lawyer....
"Some people didn't like him therefore documents from his presidency didn't reflect the political sentiments of the time."
Make more sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
streamdragon wrote:So to say that the founding fathers were a religious group is not untrue in the slightest. To say that they were "christian", especially when trying to compare them to modern religious groups, is a complete fabrication.
I think the mistake is to try and claim the founding fathers as a single, unform hive mind. They were a group of individuals with diverse, sophisticated views on the complex issues of the day. There was tremendous debate on the issue of religion and state, and fortunately for the future of modern, free government, at the time the right side won the debate. It's a battle that the dominionists have been trying to re-open ever since.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
40kFSU wrote:Ok, I understand the points made. It is probably not entirely accurate to say all Founding Fathers were dyed in the wool christians as we know them today. What I mean is a government run by free people must have a moral compass. I believe they saw faith as the compass. The documents which structured the government do not establish or endorse a religion because they did not want to alienate or persecute anyone. Not endorsing a religion does not mean no religion. You have to read the other documents of the day to understand the entire founding of America. Federalist Papers are good. Courts even site them.
You are right that not endorsing a religion does not mean they endorsed no religion. You are mistaken in thinking anyone here is claiming otherwise.
On a more current note, when free peoples have no moral compass and are ignorant of current affairs (and I don't mean dumb I mean they don't know and understand) you get the crap that has been going on in my beloved America for the past 20 years or so. I am a conservative republican and I am not afraid to say the GOP is as much to blame as anyone else.
If you think people are somehow less moral today than they were twenty years ago you are grossly mistaken. And at no time before that were they any more moral. The fantasy of the golden age of a good, honest society is just that, a fantasy.
And I find your underlying assumption that one needs to be Christian to have a moral compass to be personally offensive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
40kFSU wrote:I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Jefferson may have said what he said but it doesn't nullify everything else. By moral compass I mean a common source of morality. Christianity has always been the source. If it wasn't, liberals wouldn't be he'll bent on tearing down all the Christian foundations or the country.
In case anyone is wondering what I was talking about when I talked about a section of Christians who are not very interested in being Christian, but very interested in a tribal war against the pagan others, it's this kind of nonsense from 40kFSU that I'm talking about.
Look at our laws, what are they based on?
Not the bible. Seriously, read the thing, and find me the part that argues for copyright protection. Then read your legal code, and find me the part that make the coveting of your neighbours property illegal.
I'm just predicting Obama to get re-elected, nothing more, nothing less. Then I went on to guess at the order of minorities that may be elected next. I only put the years in to show how slow a process it can be.
40kFSU wrote:Liberal groups have led the charge against prayers in school, nativity scenes, and really any public displays of Christianity by any government body.
How is it moral to make a person who doesn't follow your Christian faith to prayer in school as if he was?
And they do not take similar actions with, say, Islam.
Because there's never been a public school in the US that made kids undertake Islamic religious practices. If there was, the ACLU and other bodies would oppose them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:I think you're new here. Here's the deal.
Dakka OT has approximately one Christian bashing thread every 4.75 days. If you ignore them and let the bashers circle jerk, er I mean discuss it with each other in a positive up-lifting fashion- and instead just post in other threads, then your time here will be much better.
Stop pretending threads like this are Christian bashing. It makes you look ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
40kFSU wrote:No, not necessarily in favor of prayers in school. Because you are all right allowing one religion and banning others would amount to a government sponsored religion. Which is what the Founders took steps to prevent. They took steps to protect everyones religious freedoms, that does not mean they took steps to sterilize society from religion.
Which is why you are allowed to use whatever portion of your private time to pray to whatever God or Gods you want, and no-one is allowed to stop you. Which is why you are allowed to set up your own schools dedicated to teaching your children about your own faith, and no-one is allowed to stop you.
Which is totally different to having a specific time allocated in US government funded schools for children to be led in Christian prayer.
How you don't understand this is completely bizarre.
That goes back to the point of christian influence in our founding. You can find that everywhere. Which goes back to my original point.
No-one is arguing that the US isn't a majority Christian nation. It is, and has been throughout its history. Who is, and who isn't the majority religion is utterly irrelevant. The simple, plain and obvious point is that everyone is granted the freedom to worship whatever religion they please, and that no government law or resource should be used to place one religion over any other.
This means you cannot use government funded schools to require kids to perform Islamic, Jewish, or Christian rituals. It is just that simple.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chowderhead wrote:I can think of 10 good moral rules right off the bat.
Though shalt not covet thy neighbour's house?
Given our capitalist, aspirational society is pretty much based entirely around coveting other people's stuff, I'm going to go ahead and say we as a society have pretty much abandoned that particular moral lesson.
sirlynchmob wrote:1. the bible is a horrible source for morality. Lets go Godwin's law and call it a day Hitler tries to commit genocide on the jews, everyone can agree hitler was immoral. God (if you accept him and the biblical flood as factual) Flooded the entire world reducing the entire human population down to 6ish people, and most species down to 2 that's moral because god did it. How are the two different? god clearly killed an untold magnitude more than even conceivable, but that's ok because he's the god of love? but hey lets everyone play along, judging by your own morals, if your neighbor did and ordered everything in the bible, which parts would you say were immoral?
It's wrong when some Christians make bizarre literal readings of the Bible and use them to argue very silly conclusions, and it's just as wrong when some non-Christians make bizarre literal readings about God murdering most of humanity.
Moses and the Flood is a story, it's power and purpose is in the telling, and it is not meant to be read as if it actually really happened.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vulcan wrote:Yep. And they don't see the contraditition in their position either.
Yep. People are very good at believing "A" and "NOT A" at the same time, when they find both positions to be flattering to them personally.
carlos13th wrote:The problem is many (not all) Christians want to be able to enforce their own beliefs on others.
To be fair, lots of people of all kinds want to enforce their beliefs on others. That's basically the nature of human society, and it isn't even a bad thing.
The issue, to me, really comes with tribalism. That is, I don't think there's a problem, really, with someone having their Christian faith inform them that homosexuality is a sin, and therefore they don't believe the state should condone homosexual marriage. While I don't agree with them, it's their personal opinion and ultimately I have confidence that in time reality has a way of chipping away against incorrect beliefs - and at least on this issue history appears to be with me - approval of gay marriage is showing a long and steady increase to the point where it is now more popular than not.
Instead, the issue I have is with people deciding that one group of select people who are like them, in this case defined more or less as 'true christians' (be that christians, or evangelical christians, or baptists, or southern baptists, or even more even specifically than that), and that these are the only good people. So 40kSFU's claim that liberals are attacking Christian morality seemingly for no other reason than because they're bad. It's the assumption that there is a culture war being targeted against a group by an evil, nefarious 'other' that is utterly toxic to political discourse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote:@sebster
I'm just predicting Obama to get re-elected, nothing more, nothing less. Then I went on to guess at the order of minorities that may be elected next. I only put the years in to show how slow a process it can be.
I just think a conversation on Obama being electable because he was only 'half black' is a pretty messed up, and probably very inaccurate, way of looking at the world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LoneLictor wrote:Sebster said it much more smartly than I ever could. Because he's smart.
Sebster, you can put this in yer sig if you want.
Thankyou, and thanks for the offer to sig it. I won't, just 'coz it feels a little like bragging, but thanks for the offer.
sirlynchmob wrote:1. the bible is a horrible source for morality. Lets go Godwin's law and call it a day Hitler tries to commit genocide on the jews, everyone can agree hitler was immoral. God (if you accept him and the biblical flood as factual) Flooded the entire world reducing the entire human population down to 6ish people, and most species down to 2 that's moral because god did it. How are the two different? god clearly killed an untold magnitude more than even conceivable, but that's ok because he's the god of love? but hey lets everyone play along, judging by your own morals, if your neighbor did and ordered everything in the bible, which parts would you say were immoral?
It's wrong when some Christians make bizarre literal readings of the Bible and use them to argue very silly conclusions, and it's just as wrong when some non-Christians make bizarre literal readings about God murdering most of humanity.
Moses and the Flood is a story, it's power and purpose is in the telling, and it is not meant to be read as if it actually really happened.
But many christians do take the flood story literally, and that it actually happened. But if that part is just a story, then why isn't the entire bible just a story?. A nice work of fiction with nothing divine about it.
sebster wrote:So 40kSFU's claim that liberals are attacking Christian morality seemingly for no other reason than because they're bad. It's the assumption that there is a culture war being targeted against a group by an evil, nefarious 'other' that is utterly toxic to political discourse.
It is a common bit of unoriginal groupthink seen in the U.S. that he has regurgitated.
I keep hearing that social liberals are the ones attacking the religious conservatives. But the only real rationale I can see for that stance is to appear as the victim to rally more people behind the beliefs they are attempting to force others to abide by.
Comments by people like Fraz are indicative of such, when they attempt to downplay legitimate criticism as "Christian hate".
I want to say this is a new thing for the U.S., but reading back through correspondence of some famous writers in the past 150-200 years has shown that this is an ongoing issue that just raises its ugly head every so often.
They were certainly better thinkers than I, and they could not solve how to combat those who would take the ignorant under their wing and use their voice for personal gain.
It's enough to make me say "feth it. Let the ignorant have the united states, for they shall surely fall under their own decadence."
Who needs terrorism to crush that type of society when cultures such as that exist?
I don't know. I see the christian bias everywhere, but there's really nothing to be done about it, save removing every politician who aligns with any religion (which is clearly impossible).
Gay Marriage and Abortion are definitely religious issues, but it's almost taboo to refer them that way. For the most part though, we do a good job of separating church and state, I suppose.
Comments by people like Fraz are indicative of such, when they attempt to downplay legitimate criticism as "Christian hate".
I'm not downplaying legitimate criticism other than the simple statement that "my faith doesn't concern you so off," as a generic poicy statement.
People who do nothing on this board but go out of their way to make attacks are recognized as the trolls they are.
In regards to actual policy I'm firmly in line with the views of the French Republic. True separation of religion and state.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Samus_aran115 wrote:I don't know. I see the christian bias everywhere, but there's really nothing to be done about it, save removing every politician who aligns with any religion (which is clearly impossible).
Gay Marriage and Abortion are definitely religious issues, but it's almost taboo to refer them that way. For the most part though, we do a good job of separating church and state, I suppose.
Taboo my ass. Many gay marriage firsters sem to take great pride in attacking Christians on it, which alienates many of us Jesus Freaks who are actually supportive of gay marriage. interesting that you don't make the same commentary about Muslims also being against it. But thats not PC.
Comments by people like Fraz are indicative of such, when they attempt to downplay legitimate criticism as "Christian hate".
I'm not downplaying legitimate criticism other than the simple statement that "my faith doesn't concern you so off," as a generic poicy statement.
People who do nothing on this board but go out of their way to make attacks are recognized as the trolls they are.
In regards to actual policy I'm firmly in line with the views of the French Republic. True separation of religion and state.
Thanks for straightening out your position on the matter, James. I guess we are all trolls at some point or another...
I agree with the stance of "My faith doesnt concern you so bugger off", because really, religion is a personal thing. yet what worries me is how many who say this also tell others what they can or cannot do with their reproductive systems, for example.
You yourself may not be guilty of this, but it appears to be a prevalent hypocrisy in this country.
As funny as that is, you could argue it's still better so long as he didn't try to make elfish customs mandatory in publicly funded places.
I would much rather have some innocent and innocuous crazy dude who nurtures elves in his front lawn than some whack-a-doodle religious nut telling everyone else how to live their lives as if his word was mandate from god.
I agree with the stance of "My faith doesnt concern you so bugger off", because really, religion is a personal thing. yet what worries me is how many who say this also tell others what they can or cannot do with their reproductive systems, for example.
You yourself may not be guilty of this, but it appears to be a prevalent hypocrisy in this country.
I've found people from all walks of life - religious, irreligious, good, bad, Democrat, Rpepublic, all have a penchant for trying to tell me what to do or get the government to tell me what to do.
Actually I wasn't even thinking of you Matty. I was thinking of the Islamaphobic nuts on the continent itself, who are trying to push Muslims to not integrate in to greater society.
Proving once again that continental Europe is inferior to America when it comes to its system of immigration
Melissia wrote:Actually I wasn't even thinking of you Matty. I was thinking of the Islamaphobic nuts on the continent itself, who are trying to push Muslims to not integrate in to greater society.
Proving once again that continental Europe is inferior to America when it comes to its system of immigration
Well it is about time for lunch here. Hell I'm picking up some Taco Bueno for my mother anyway (seeing as her energy is drained a bit due to chemo), which should be amusing to see if they've upped their standards for hiring since last time I went there.
Melissia wrote:Well it is about time for lunch here. Hell I'm picking up some Taco Bueno for my mother anyway (seeing as her energy is drained a bit due to chemo), which should be amusing to see if they've upped their standards for hiring since last time I went there.
How's her appeitite? If she's eating Tex Mex thats a real good sign, real good.
About the same as it was before she started, so I'd say pretty good. I just need to try to get her to exercise a little (a walk around the block for instance) so that she doesn't get weaker.
I hope your moms doing alright, my mom had to go through it, and chemo is an real fether.
On topic, I never liked the term islamophobic.. it makes me sound as if I am scared of Muslim people? Im not even remotely scared of them, I just really dislike the tenets of their faith and find it to be incompatible with my ideals of equality, so I dislike the practitioner by default.
If someone dislikes gays and women, then I dislike them, it doesn't mean I'm scared of them, particularly because im neither gay, nor a woman!
CthuluIsSpy wrote:Sadly, it would seem that there are quite a few who would see the puritanical regime of the 17th century restored...
A perfect comparison.
Always remembering that the Puritans who set up the Massachusetts colony didn't leave England so they could practice their religion freely; they were kicked out of England for practicing their religious intolerance too freely.
And this is the change some people would make of America...
Melissia wrote:About the same as it was before she started, so I'd say pretty good. I just need to try to get her to exercise a little (a walk around the block for instance) so that she doesn't get weaker.
Thats always extremely difficult. Especially as the chemo wears on. Eating and drinking are critical. Dehydration can be near instantaneous it seems. Remember protein heavy stuff is the deal to help keep the blood count up.
sebster wrote:7 Thou shalt not commit adultery. Adultery is absolutely, 100% legal in the US.
Actually, there are laws on the books against adultery (being defined as being married and having sex with someone other thay your spouse) in many states. It's rarely prosecuted, but it forms the legal basis for many divorces.
sebster wrote:7 Thou shalt not commit adultery. Adultery is absolutely, 100% legal in the US.
Actually, there are laws on the books against adultery (being defined as being married and having sex with someone other thay your spouse) in many states. It's rarely prosecuted, but it forms the legal basis for many divorces.
Yeah, but there's also laws stating that if two trains meet on eachothers' paths (one going one way on east-west track A and one going another way on east-west track B) that they have to stop until one passes.
sebster wrote:7 Thou shalt not commit adultery. Adultery is absolutely, 100% legal in the US.
Actually, there are laws on the books against adultery (being defined as being married and having sex with someone other thay your spouse) in many states. It's rarely prosecuted, but it forms the legal basis for many divorces.
Yeah, but there's also laws stating that if two trains meet on eachothers' paths (one going one way on east-west track A and one going another way on east-west track B) that they have to stop until one passes.
Hunh? If they are on separate tracks (A and B) then they don't have to stop at all. And what does that have to do with Adultery being legal, illegal, or in the Ten Commandments?
sebster wrote:7 Thou shalt not commit adultery. Adultery is absolutely, 100% legal in the US.
Actually, there are laws on the books against adultery (being defined as being married and having sex with someone other thay your spouse) in many states. It's rarely prosecuted, but it forms the legal basis for many divorces.
Yeah, but there's also laws stating that if two trains meet on eachothers' paths (one going one way on east-west track A and one going another way on east-west track B) that they have to stop until one passes.
Hunh? If they are on separate tracks (A and B) then they don't have to stop at all
According to the law in Texas, they do.
My point was that every place has stupid laws on the book, but as a rule in adultery is legal. Socially frowned upon, but legal. Used as a justification for divorce != illegal.
Melissia wrote:According to the law in Texas, they do.
My point was that every place has stupid laws on the book, but as a rule in adultery is legal. Socially frowned upon, but legal. Used as a justification for divorce != illegal.
Okay, I see what you are saying. A stupid law is a stupid law.
My counter is that it is still a law. Here in Missouri, there actually is a crime called Adultery that involves a married person having sex with someone other than their spouse. I was bringing it up in response to Sebster's analysis of the how many of the ten commandments had made it into the American legal system.
Yes, it is pretty dumb, along with the crime called Sodomy (any sexual act that isn't straight-up intercourse, including manual, oral, and anal variations - and makes no distinction between willing and unwilling participants). It is hardly ever prosecuted (well, Sodomy comes up in a lot of Rape cases as well), and no one proactively looks for it, but it is still a law. Which was my only point.
Melissia wrote:About the same as it was before she started, so I'd say pretty good. I just need to try to get her to exercise a little (a walk around the block for instance) so that she doesn't get weaker.
Might be careful about that, Catching a bug could be deadly. Mi madre refuses to eat almost anything, she's on a iv supplement drip. I'm trying to convince her to use marijuana because she's wasting away and it's not even the chemo killing her.
Melissia wrote:Well it is about time for lunch here. Hell I'm picking up some Taco Bueno for my mother anyway (seeing as her energy is drained a bit due to chemo), which should be amusing to see if they've upped their standards for hiring since last time I went there.
I'm sorry to hear about your mother Melissia. I lost my sister to pancreatic cancer two years ago and chemo is a deal you make with the devil.
Vulcan wrote:
Yes, it is pretty dumb, along with the crime called Sodomy (any sexual act that isn't straight-up intercourse, including manual, oral, and anal variations - and makes no distinction between willing and unwilling participants). It is hardly ever prosecuted (well, Sodomy comes up in a lot of Rape cases as well), and no one proactively looks for it, but it is still a law. Which was my only point.
That's still a law? And here I thought Australia had been behind the times in getting rid of that law.
Vulcan wrote:Yes, it is pretty dumb, along with the crime called Sodomy (any sexual act that isn't straight-up intercourse, including manual, oral, and anal variations - and makes no distinction between willing and unwilling participants). It is hardly ever prosecuted (well, Sodomy comes up in a lot of Rape cases as well), and no one proactively looks for it, but it is still a law. Which was my only point.
Actually, the law does make a distinction between willing and unwilling participants. At common law willing participants were co-conspirators, and therefore couldn't testify against one another at trial. So it would be almost impossible to prosecute someone in cases of willing participants.
The sodomy laws were most often used to prosecute spousal rape.
Most of the founding fathers either did not believe in religion, disliked it, or did not wish to impose it on others.
Now I am a faithful church goer, but I DO NOT want to have my religion shoved down other peoples throats because 9 times our of 10 that will make them hate me and everyone else that shares my religion.
This is why I wish that we ended up electing a Muslim or Jewish president, just to see all the hard-line and christian evangelicals go ape-
I'm sorry to hear about your mother Melissia. My best wishes to both of you.
sirlynchmob wrote:But many christians do take the flood story literally, and that it actually happened. But if that part is just a story, then why isn't the entire bible just a story?. A nice work of fiction with nothing divine about it.
I'm saying that the biblical literalists searching Mount Ararat for the actual ark, or the atheists saying that thousands of inches of water had to fall every second for the whole world to be flooded are basically, functionally illiterate, because they have no idea how to actually read a story.
The point of the story, the characters and the themes, and in the poetry of the telling, holds the point, and has important truth, even though the whole of the world never actually flooded. It is story of faith, and of God saving the church (or even an origin story of the church).
It's no different to watching the Avengers and pointing out it isn't phyically possible for any power source, even theoretical, generate the power needed by Iron Man's suit. It's just not the point of the story.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hellfury wrote:It is a common bit of unoriginal groupthink seen in the U.S. that he has regurgitated.
I keep hearing that social liberals are the ones attacking the religious conservatives. But the only real rationale I can see for that stance is to appear as the victim to rally more people behind the beliefs they are attempting to force others to abide by.
The issue to me, by and large, is that such a culture war is very flattering to both sides. It's nice to consider ourselves as enlightened rationalists, fighting against the irrational. It's just as nice to think of ourselves as noble, righteous people fighting against decadent, immoral secularists.
The issue is that once we start to really like the fight for how it makes us feel about ourselves, then we go looking for grounds to fight over, even when there's nothing of substance to fight over. It's why the religious right is knee deep in the fight over gay marriage even though someone else getting married affects them not one tiny bit - because it means they get to go into battle for their side - prove their credentials as a righteous, god fearing person. But it's also why atheist groups will go to court over a christmas display in the middle of town. They all love the fight, because it tells them something about themselves they find flattering.
I agree that in the US the religious side is more aggressive, because they're more numerous, better organised and much more closely aligned with one of the major political parties, but that's really just circumstance.
The way to end this, and get back to arguing over things that actually matter, is to start seeing the whole fight for the nonsense it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vulcan wrote:Actually, there are laws on the books against adultery (being defined as being married and having sex with someone other thay your spouse) in many states. It's rarely prosecuted, but it forms the legal basis for many divorces.
Interesting. I knew that since about 1960 every state in the union has maintained no fault divorce, and so assumed that adultery no longer longer mattered in courts of law (barrng, of course, pre-nups, but that's private contract, not public law).
I had no idea that some states continued to have adultery laws, even if largely unenforced.
sebster wrote:
The issue to me, by and large, is that such a culture war is very flattering to both sides. It's nice to consider ourselves as enlightened rationalists, fighting against the irrational. It's just as nice to think of ourselves as noble, righteous people fighting against decadent, immoral secularists.
But where does that leave those of us that just want to be left to our decadent, immoral, secular ways?
sirlynchmob wrote:But many christians do take the flood story literally, and that it actually happened. But if that part is just a story, then why isn't the entire bible just a story?. A nice work of fiction with nothing divine about it.
I'm saying that the biblical literalists searching Mount Ararat for the actual ark, or the atheists saying that thousands of inches of water had to fall every second for the whole world to be flooded are basically, functionally illiterate, because they have no idea how to actually read a story.
sebster wrote:
The issue to me, by and large, is that such a culture war is very flattering to both sides. It's nice to consider ourselves as enlightened rationalists, fighting against the irrational. It's just as nice to think of ourselves as noble, righteous people fighting against decadent, immoral secularists.
But where does that leave those of us that just want to be left to our decadent, immoral, secular ways?
dogma wrote:But where does that leave those of us that just want to be left to our decadent, immoral, secular ways?
Well you're left smugly claiming yourselves about the false culture war.
No-one gets out of this without me judging them for something
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote:so the bible is just a story, good to know.
No, not even a little. The point is that nothing is 'just a story', whether the events in it literally happened or not. And especially not the bible. I'm an atheist, and calling it 'just a story' bothers the hell out of me, because I happen to think the stories mankind has told happen to matter one hell of a lot. Stories are how we understand a very complicated world.
However, I don't see a great deal of distinction between a story where an all powerful being wipes out most life with a flood, and a story where an all powerful being tries to eat the earth but is stopped by his messenger who grew attached to the inhabitants and flew up into space on his surfboard to stop his former master using the power cosmic.
Although granted one has much better illustrations than the other...
You don't understand the difference and cultural impact between a millennium spanning story and a recent comic book story? For starters probably just about every human on the planet knows the Flood Story in one form or another while Galactus is still recent pop culture figure. Another difference is that without those other stories you wouldn't have these later stories. The ancient stories that have survived through time inform our storytelling today. Stories from the Bible have informed comic book storytelling, never the other way around. This isn't even touching understanding the cultural impact.
Perhaps I should have been clearer; I understand that older stories inform works that come later etc, however, the story itself is still just a story - saying that the bible stories somehow informs all other stories is false; for a start the bible is not the origin of most of the fiction it contains, itself being a modified collection of myths and legends from local fokelore and religions mashed together and changed over time. Additionally, many of these other stories exist still in their own right to give their own inspirations.
Secondly, many ideas occur independent of any external influence; pyramids in egypt and ziggurats in south america, pictograms, maths, writing, fire, metalworking, various gods/spirits etc to explain the unknown and even stories arise in lands completely cut off from one another with surprising similarities.
Saying that the flood story (or any other in the bible) is important? Maybe for providing a number of reasonably well known examples of tropes etc. But being important simply because they are in the bible? Not so much.
SilverMK2 wrote:However, I don't see a great deal of distinction between a story where an all powerful being wipes out most life with a flood, and a story where an all powerful being tries to eat the earth but is stopped by his messenger who grew attached to the inhabitants and flew up into space on his surfboard to stop his former master using the power cosmic.
Then you don't. But that doesn't mean millions of people don't find a great deal of truth behind the story of the flood, and other stories within the bible, and that makes it far more than just a story. And that's without any of them believing there was literally a flood, by the way.
sebster wrote:
The issue to me, by and large, is that such a culture war is very flattering to both sides. It's nice to consider ourselves as enlightened rationalists, fighting against the irrational. It's just as nice to think of ourselves as noble, righteous people fighting against decadent, immoral secularists.
But where does that leave those of us that just want to be left to our decadent, immoral, secular ways?
Join the LIbertarian Party and support a French republic style separation? You won't be popular though.
sirlynchmob wrote:so the bible is just a story, good to know.
No, not even a little. The point is that nothing is 'just a story', whether the events in it literally happened or not. And especially not the bible. I'm an atheist, and calling it 'just a story' bothers the hell out of me, because I happen to think the stories mankind has told happen to matter one hell of a lot. Stories are how we understand a very complicated world.
Well as far as stories go, the bible isn't even that good of one. Sure its a cult classic, but I'd hardly rank it up there with Shakespeare, Twain or Poe. For people of the era though Socrates, or plato are much more philosophically relevant than the bible. Plus they were real people.
sirlynchmob wrote:so the bible is just a story, good to know.
No, not even a little. The point is that nothing is 'just a story', whether the events in it literally happened or not. And especially not the bible. I'm an atheist, and calling it 'just a story' bothers the hell out of me, because I happen to think the stories mankind has told happen to matter one hell of a lot. Stories are how we understand a very complicated world.
Well as far as stories go, the bible isn't even that good of one. Sure its a cult classic, but I'd hardly rank it up there with Shakespeare, Twain or Poe. For people of the era though Socrates, or plato are much more philosophically relevant than the bible. Plus they were real people.
I hope I'm not the only one that sees the humor in someone claiming that the people in the Bible were not real, unlike Socrates.
Melissia wrote:Uh yeah, the bible's great flood story isn't even original to the bible, so don't try to claim it informed all other stories.
Who claimed what now? I think you probably need to go back and re-read what I said.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote:Well as far as stories go, the bible isn't even that good of one. Sure its a cult classic, but I'd hardly rank it up there with Shakespeare, Twain or Poe. For people of the era though Socrates, or plato are much more philosophically relevant than the bible. Plus they were real people.
The Bible is a story. It's a whole load of stories, and some of them are really, really good ones. Good enough to have been retold countless times, and have their themes, characters and imagery worked into countless other stories. I mean, I couldn't even begin to count the number of hollywood movies that put Jesus imagery onto their main characters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote:I hope I'm not the only one that sees the humor in someone claiming that the people in the Bible were not real, unlike Socrates.
LoneLictor wrote:I'm a Catholic who gets Protestant and preferably Evangelical virgins pregnant and pressures them into abortions. That's what Jesus told me it means to be an American Catholic at least.
(Yes, I'm obviously joking)
I fixed this for you so you can still be a politician in America.
Ahtman wrote:You don't understand the difference and cultural impact between a millennium spanning story and a recent comic book story? For starters probably just about every human on the planet knows the Flood Story in one form or another while Galactus is still recent pop culture figure. Another difference is that without those other stories you wouldn't have these later stories. The ancient stories that have survived through time inform our storytelling today. Stories from the Bible have informed comic book storytelling, never the other way around. This isn't even touching understanding the cultural impact.
I don't know what exact percentage of the bible's stories are original, but it's nowhere NEAR 100%. Other, older stories "informed" (what an awkward term to use?) the bible and thus, it's kind of silly to say that the bible has "informed" comic book writers (not all of whom are Christian) about all stories even tangentially related to anything that may have happened in the bible.
Melissia wrote:I don't know what exact percentage of the bible's stories are original, but it's nowhere NEAR 100%. Other, older stories "informed" (what an awkward term to use?) the bible and thus, it's kind of silly to say that the bible has "informed" comic book writers (not all of whom are Christian) about all stories even tangentially related to anything that may have happened in the bible.
Depends on how you define "Original." I happen to subscribe to the Documentary hypothesis, or JEDP. At least some of the Pentateuch has been linked to earlier Caananite writing...which is kind of a "duh" statement. The Yahwesitic cult did not develop in a vacuum. The period that describes the Unified Kingdom is basically pro-David propaganda. Post Unified Kingdom is basically all original Hebrew writing, although it is more than likely that at least some of THOSE writing were developed outside of the bible first.
In which case under the JEDP very little of the OT is "original" as many of the books ascribed to a particular person, or groups of people were either recorded or wholly written by priests or scribes...which isn't exactly unique in ancient writing.
good one!
off," as a generic poicy statement.
