Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

AustonT wrote:I felt like it made sense, does it not?

I'm not sure if it's a joke, or if someone can actually become a politician with that sort of background.

Eh...50/50. JFK wasn't exactly a saint. Nowadays Jesus tells politicians all sorts of things. Like to run for President.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

sebster wrote:Stop pretending threads like this are Christian bashing. It makes you look ridiculous.

Anything that Biccat and Fraz don't like is Christian bashing in a thread discussion religion.

Just ignore them..

Melissia wrote:

sebster wrote:Stop pretending threads like this are Christian bashing. It makes you look ridiculous.

Anything that Biccat and Fraz don't like is Christian bashing in a thread discussion religion.

Just ignore them..

I'm pretty Sebster knows this, but watching him make mincemeat out of certain individual's arguments is usually entertaining.

This is true.

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.

AustonT wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

AustonT wrote:I felt like it made sense, does it not?

I'm not sure if it's a joke, or if someone can actually become a politician with that sort of background.

Eh...50/50. JFK wasn't exactly a saint. Nowadays Jesus tells politicians all sorts of things. Like to run for President.

good one!

sebster wrote:

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?

[edit]gah. quote tag fail

AustonT wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

AustonT wrote:I felt like it made sense, does it not?

I'm not sure if it's a joke, or if someone can actually become a politician with that sort of background.

Eh...50/50. JFK wasn't exactly a saint. Nowadays Jesus tells politicians all sorts of things. Like to run for President.

hey, it could be worse !

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.

reds8n wrote:
hey, it could be worse !

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.

Frazzled wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

reds8n wrote:
hey, it could be worse !

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.

So no, it cant be worse.

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.

But agreed, hypocrisy is universal.

Frazzled wrote:

But agreed, hypocrisy is universal.

It's egalitarian.

Hellfury wrote:It is a common bit of unoriginal groupthink seen in the U.S.

And in Europe and elsewhere.

In Europe the bogeyman is Muslims at the moment, I believe.

Melissia wrote:

Hellfury wrote:It is a common bit of unoriginal groupthink seen in the U.S.

And in Europe and elsewhere.

In Europe the bogeyman is Muslims at the moment, I believe.

Not for everyone Mel, just Matty.

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

And queso.

Yes, our queso is definitely better.

Mmn, queso fresco.

Now I am hungry. Why do I keep doing that to myself?

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.