Republicans v secular America

[La8pv]

Republicans v secular America

With blatant disregard for the first amendment, Republicans' intolerance of US secularism means things are turning ugly





Dan Kennedy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/dankennedy)
guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/), Tuesday 23 February 2010 19.00 GMT


If you're part of secular America – that is, if you're an atheist, an agnostic, a religious liberal or even a mainstream believer who thinks religion (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/religion) should be kept out of politics and vice-versa – then you should be very afraid of what the Republican party has in store for you in 2012.
No news there, you might say. The Republicans (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/republicans), as we all know, have been in thrall to the Christian right since the Reagan era (http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2004/06/Ronald-Reagan-My-Christian-Hero.aspx). But there's something new, something more intolerant, something truly ugly in the works. And if you don't believe me, let's start with Tim Pawlenty, unassuming governor of Minnesota in his day job, fire-breathing Christian warrior and aspiring presidential candidate in his spare time.
"I want to share with you four ideas that I think should carry us forward," Pawlenty said on Friday at the annual gathering of the Conservative Political Action Committee (http://www.cpac.org/), or CPAC. After invoking "basic constitutional principle and basic common sense," he continued:


"The first one is this: God's in charge. God is in charge ... In the Declaration of Independence it says we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. It doesn't say we're endowed by Washington, DC, or endowed by the bureaucrats or endowed by state government. It's by our creator that we are given these rights."
Never mind Pawlenty's fundamental and no doubt deliberate misreading of the founders' intent. (Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, is well-known for having cut up a Bible (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/Jesus-Without-Miracles1dec05.htm) to remove all supernatural references to Jesus.) How, in practice, does Pawlenty envision "God's in charge" as a governing principle?
Pawlenty didn't say. But he oozed mild-mannered hatred for anyone who doesn't share his beliefs. In a bizarre closing in which he invoked the civil war general (and future president) Ulysses S Grant as some sort of rough-around-the-edges, proto-Tea Party role model, Pawlenty trashed anyone who attended "Ivy League schools" or who go to "chablis-drinking, brie-eating parties in San Francisco". (You can watch Pawlenty's address at CSPAN.org (http://www.cspan.org/Watch/Media/2010/02/19/HP/A/29747/CPAC+Continues+In+Washington.aspx), starting at the 1:38:30 mark.) It sounded like a parody of Pat Buchanan's famous 1992 "culture war" speech (http://factonista.org/2008/12/20/pat-buchanans-culture-war-speech/). Except that Pawlenty is one of the Republicans' two most plausible candidates for president in 2012.
The other would be former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who fell far short of the prize in 2008, but whose legendary self-discipline has put him in a strong position for 2012.
The trouble is that Romney has already declared war on secular America. In December 2007, you may recall, he delivered a speech (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/14789305/detail.html) in which he defended his Mormon religion at a time when he was under assault from evangelical Christians. It was, in many respects, a sensible plea for religious tolerance.
Except that Romney called for tolerance only among believers, explicitly omitting non-believers. "Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me," Romney said. "And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."

As New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote the next day (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07brooks.html), "Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious." Brooks – a conservative, though a secular one – warned that Romney was calling for "a culture war without end".
Romney and Pawlenty are the early front-runners for the Republican presidential nomination, and it's a good thing: the most frequently mentioned potential fringe candidates are even worse. If you have not seen Sarah Palin asking God to build a natural-gas pipeline in Alaska, well, do yourself a favour right now (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q9MMJESywA) (see also her recent speech at the Tea Party convention (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/feb/07/sarah-palin-tea-party)). Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, personifies the Christian right in its purest form. "I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ," Huckabee said in 1998 (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/hedges). There is no reason to think he's changed his mind.
(I realise that I am leaving out Ron Paul right after he won the CPAC straw poll (http://www.cspan.org/Watch/Media/2010/02/19/HP/A/29747/CPAC+Continues+In+Washington.aspx). As best as I can tell, Paul actually does believe in a secular government. But Paul is a libertarian who's entirely out of step with the Republican party, regardless of how adept he is at mobilising his devoted followers to pack events like straw polls. He was unable to establish himself as a serious candidate in 2008 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/16/guiltbyassociation), and there's no reason to think he'll do any better in 2012.)
Barack Obama, in his inaugural address (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99590481), said that "our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth."
It is that simple, inclusive vision that we're in danger of losing if Romney or Pawlenty – or, God help us (so to speak), Palin or Huckabee – is elected president in 2012. In truth, the founders made it clear in the first amendment (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights) that we need not just freedom of religion, but freedom from religion, especially given that 79% of Americans believe in miracles (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/miracles-world-news-question-day/story?id=9908545).

"While we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe, the religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to them whose minds have not yielded to the evidence which has convinced us," wrote James Madison (http://www.seekfind.net/JamesMadison.html).

In contrast to Madison, the Republicans propose a theocracy of believers. It is an assault not just on anyone who isn't one of them, but on the American idea, and on liberal democracies everywhere.




12345678900000

[vryhpyammoadded]

One of my favorite propaganda issues to laugh at is this bizarre notion that some people get snookered into believing, that the Republican Party is some sort of theocratic, or becoming theocratic, organization out to stomp all over secularism like jack booted fascist storm troopers. The Republicans are not the only party containing populations of religious zealots throwing all manner of logic out the window.

Note, when I say religion I am not necessarily speaking of religion itself but the manner in which some people seem to blindly worship people, trends, philosophies and religion in the manner of pop cultural fandom with little regard at all to reason.

If anything, today it is faith based zealotry within both parties threatening secular America, not just the Republicans.

[Hollis]

^^^ what he said.

LOL, I guess for those who live in the UK, they need to know there are boggy men in the USA. 1980 was the hay day of the "religious right", it has faded to being a shadow of itself. If you listen to them (Religious Right), the boggy man is secular hedonist or humanists, or socialists, or ......................... There are probably as many secularist in the R's as in the D's.

[LineDoggie]

Apparently, only Republicans believe in god in the USA according to the Guardian. Dan Kennedy seems to think the GOP is American Taliban. Good to see the Journalist is unbiased and professional

[JUNKHO]

Apparently, only Republicans believe in god in the USA according to the Guardian. Dan Kennedy seems to think the GOP is American Taliban. Good to see the Journalist is unbiased and professional


Yup - it is an assault by the MSM. My man W will weigh in pretty soon to explain exactly how.

[Noons86]

Apparently, only Republicans believe in god in the USA according to the Guardian. Dan Kennedy seems to think the GOP is American Taliban. Good to see the Journalist is unbiased and professional

That doesn't really match up with the first sentence of the article in question.



If you're part of secular America – that is, if you're an atheist, an agnostic, a religious liberal or even a mainstream believer who thinks religion (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/religion) should be kept out of politics and vice-versa – then you should be very afraid of what the Republican party has in store for you in 2012.

[seraosha]

If you're part of secular America – that is, if you're an atheist, an agnostic, a religious liberal or even a mainstream believer who thinks religion (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/religion) should be kept out of politics...
What about Religous Conservatives? Ah, I guess that dovetails too nicely with the conspiracy mongers to be included in a dubious heading of "secular America".

The bias against certain Evangelical Christains is what this article is really about. And with nuts like the Westburo Church out there making headlines, I guess it's not too far fetched to think that our friends across the pond are worried about it. But as someone thats absolutely SURROUNDED by Evangelical Christains, I can tell you that they are ok, just a little serious about some things that I don't agree on, like Halloween being bad, or that a "Spirit filled church" that seats thousands is kind of ridicolous, but compared to a few other religions out there that pride themselves on being all about "Peace", and then promote suicide attacks and the elimination of womens rights...yeah, I'll take someone that prays for a parking spot over a zealot, thanks.

[Jobu]

Those silly Christians with their rules.

No stealing, no adultery, no bearing false witness, loving their neighbors, turning the other cheek, etc.
That's crazy talk.

[SoftLion]

Those silly Christians with their rules.

No stealing, no adultery, no bearing false witness, loving their neighbors, turning the other cheek, etc.
That's crazy talk.

Destroy them before they have a chance to spread their vile message of values and morals. I say we need legislation encouraging abortion, crassness for its own sake, immorality, immaturity, and promiscuity, and all the other valuable and desirable traits so enamored by those inhabiting the high moral ground. Otherwise, this country will be lost.

[kamaz]

Those silly Christians with their rules.

No stealing, no adultery, no bearing false witness, loving their neighbors, turning the other cheek, etc.
That's crazy talk.

I think "turning the other cheek" is a disgustingly immoral teaching. A strictly Christian one as well. While this article is obviously a bit bloated, there is much truth to the allegation that there is a greater contrast between teh secular and religious vision for America. Everything from abortion, to teaching of evolution, to the Supreme Court, the fault line in many cases seems to be secular vs. religious.

[SoftLion]

I think "turning the other cheek" is a disgustingly immoral teaching..

Exactly - MAKE THOSE MOTHERF*CKERS PAY!!

Seriously? Ok


While this article is obviously a bit bloated, there is much truth to the allegation that there is a greater contrast between teh secular and religious vision for America. Everything from abortion, to teaching of evolution, to the Supreme Court, the fault line in many cases seems to be secular vs. religious.

I don't know what any of that means - what are you intimating? That religous views differ from secular views? Shocker?

[California Joe]

If that's an actual quote by Pawlenty he does sound like a ****. So yeah, that type of rhetoric would garner a pretty big "f*ck you" from me just based on the sheer ignorance of the Founding Fathers or the intentional misrepresentaion of their opinions in order to appeal to the torches and pitchfork crowd. JMO.

[kamaz]

its interesting and rather dangerous the way these tea party fools like Pawlenty think US was established as a 'Christian' nation. The complete ignorance of our founding Fathers and the Constitution is bewildering.

[SoftLion]

its interesting and rather dangerous the way these tea party fools like Pawlenty think US was established as a 'Christian' nation. The complete ignorance of our founding Fathers and the Constitution is bewildering.

Take your head out of your ass.

[kamaz]

Take your head out of your ass.


you know a saying, 'never argue with a fool, others wont be able to notice the difference'

its a good saying.

[SoftLion]

you know a saying, 'never argue with a fool, others wont be able to notice the difference'

its a good saying.

I was thinking the exact same thing when I posted what you quoted. Isn't it interesting that I think you have no idea what you are talking about and you think the same thing about me?

[Hollis]

you know a saying, 'never argue with a fool, others wont be able to notice the difference'

its a good saying.


Sometimes, it is wise to follow one's own advice.

[kamaz]

I was thinking the exact same thing when I posted what you quoted. Isn't it interesting that I think you have no idea what you are talking about and you think the same thing about me?

this is great, I was afraid of getting into an argument with you.

on the topic, this comment by David Brooks is how they say in Brazil, 'na mosca', on point.

As New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote the next day, "Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious." Brooks – a conservative, though a secular one – warned that Romney was calling for "a culture war without end".

this is the same type of ignorant, illiterate stupidity that keeps insinuating of a US being a distinctly Christian nation. Or the very same one that keeps pushing the ridiculously named 'Intelligent Design' aka Creationism curriculum into science classes. The one that think the Earth is 4,000 years old and that Flintstones was a documentary.

maybe these religious zealots can follow Jesus' teachings if they actually bothered to read them - Render unto Caesar what is Caesar and unto God what is God's.

[Albatross]

Sarah Palin is crushing the republican party with her full retard actions. She is just as bad as Obama, if not worse, just on the opposite side of the political spectrum. God help us.

[SoftLion]

this is great, I was afraid of getting into an argument with you.

on the topic, this comment by David Brooks is how they say in Brazil, 'na mosca', on point.

As New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote the next day, "Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious." Brooks – a conservative, though a secular one – warned that Romney was calling for "a culture war without end".

this is the same type of ignorant, illiterate stupidity that keeps insinuating of a US being a distinctly Christian nation. Or the very same one that keeps pushing the ridiculously named 'Intelligent Design' aka Creationism curriculum into science classes. The one that think the Earth is 4,000 years old and that Flintstones was a documentary.

maybe these religious zealots can follow Jesus' teachings if they actually bothered to read them - Render unto Caesar what is Caesar and unto God what is God's.

Great quotes. How profound. It would be interesting to see the credentials of your constitutional law professor and/or history teacher. If you have had neither, then it would be interesting to see how you manage to arrive at some of your conclusions regarding the consitution and the founding of this country. We are talking about the United States of America, right?

[seraosha]

Your moronic generalizations regarding people of faith is yet again on display, kamaz...but good advice on the futility arguing with you.

The United States of America was founded on Christian beliefs...just not the current Evangelical brand, but the "classical deist" persuasion.

[Mackie]

No stealing, no adultery, no bearing false witness, loving their neighbors, turning the other cheek, etc.
That's crazy talk.

You forgot kill Juice.

[kamaz]

Great quotes. How profound. It would be interesting to see the credentials of your constitutional law professor and/or history teacher. If you have had neither, then it would be interesting to see how you manage to arrive at some of your conclusions regarding the consitution and the founding of this country. We are talking about the United States of America, right?

I took an American Civics and Government class in college, and read a number of books that touch on this issue, including Thomas Paine, McCullough's great works like 1776 and Adams, JJ Rousseau, Hitchens biography of Thomas Jefferson and others.

there is no evidence whatsoever that US was founded as a distinctly Christian nation. THe Constitution does not mention God nor Christianity even once. Christianity is not mentioned in the Declaration of INdependence either, although God is referred to as for example, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, but the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document nor guidelines for establishing a government and law.

Theres a lot of material avaialble to anyone who is interested on this topic, written by Constitutional lawyers and jurists. Heres a good example, it has a list of the Founding Fathers as well and their beliefs. You should read this.

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/nation.html



The Constitution
(transcript)

The 1787 constitution is a nearly godless document. It mentions neither God, nor Christianity outside of a reference to the date using the Christian calandar. It does however have a provision against requiring specific religious ideas as a qualification for office.



Treaty of Tripoli, article 11

A 1797 treaty between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, ratified by the US Congress and signed by President John Adams. (more)

"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 Musselmen..."

[Hollis]

The US was formed as a secular nation, even though there is religious influence, the founding father knew all to well of religious oppression. Religion is great for many people as long as it is not the another person's religion and that is the problem. Theocracy in the past has lead to oppression of freedom of thought. Regardless of how you want to call it, the US constitution allows a person to be answerable to a higher authority than man. We can call it one's conscious or some supreme being it does not matter. The laws of man are not absolute and can be challenged. The down side of secularism is that the laws of man become absolute.

The other aspect was that religion was a much stronger force 225 years ago than today. So both secularist and these Christians can both claim rights to how the US was founded. They are partially correct.


Kamaz, I does not seem to me you really know much about Christianity or religion per se, more like a anti-religion person. The bases of US law is a very interesting study along with the parts that added to it's conception, Common law, Cannon Law, Halacha. Roman law had a base of guilty until proven innocent. US law is innocent until proven guilty. You might want to find out why and where that came from.

[kamaz]

Your moronic generalizations regarding people of faith is yet again on display, kamaz...but good advice on the futility arguing with you.

The United States of America was founded on Christian beliefs...just not the current Evangelical brand, but the "classical deist" persuasion.

thank you for supporting my argument. There is an ocean of difference between a Christian deist who does not seek to inject their religious law and edicts into public policy and the current brand as exemplified by Pawlenty and Palin-drones and Tea baggers, who seek to bring their version of Christianity to every sphere of government, from education to science to 'morality'.

[SoftLion]

I took an American Civics and Government class in college, and read a number of books that touch on this issue, including Thomas Paine, McCullough's great works like 1776 and Adams, JJ Rousseau, Hitchens biography of Thomas Jefferson and others.

there is no evidence whatsoever that US was founded as a distinctly Christian nation. THe Constitution does not mention God nor Christianity even once. Christianity is not mentioned in the Declaration of INdependence either, although God is referred to as for example, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, but the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document nor guidelines for establishing a government and law.

Theres a lot of material avaialble to anyone who is interested on this topic, written by Constitutional lawyers and jurists. Heres a good example, it has a list of the Founding Fathers as well and their beliefs. You should read this.

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/nation.html

The Constitution
(transcript)

The 1787 constitution is a nearly godless document. It mentions neither God, nor Christianity outside of a reference to the date using the Christian calandar. It does however have a provision against requiring specific religious ideas as a qualification for office.



Treaty of Tripoli, article 11

A 1797 treaty between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, ratified by the US Congress and signed by President John Adams. (more)

"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 Musselmen..."

I would start by saying I can at least appreciate a sincere reply. As far as what you posted above, would you concede that any small burden of persuasion established by the scintilla of evidence you have offered supporting your position would be easily overcome by the tidal wave of evidence I could conjure up in opposition, or would you prefer the dissertation version after I get home from work and have about 4 hours to offer it up? We both know what I am talking about.

Also, I will leave you to your own imagination on why the treaty of Tripoli goes out of its way to state how the US was in no way founded based on Christian beliefs/values, etc.

[kamaz]

Kamaz, I does not seem to me you really know much about Christianity or religion per se, more like a anti-religion person. The bases of US law is a very interesting study along with the parts that added to it's conception, Common law, Cannon Law, Halacha. Roman law had a base of guilty until proven innocent. US law is innocent until proven guilty. You might want to find out why and where that came from.

I learned Jewish law in school, the Halacha and Mishnayit, believe me I know much about religious law and the path current law has taken from them. Much of Christian teachings and law came evolved from Jewish Talmuddic rulings within those courts, and before that from other sources like Hammurabi's Code and Phoenecian texts dating from even earlier time. This has nothing to do with what we are talking about here though.

[kamaz]

I would start by saying I can at least appreciate a sincere reply. As far as what you posted above, would you concede that any small burden of persuasion established by the scintilla of evidence you have offered supporting your position would be easily overcome by the tidal wave of evidence I could conjure up in opposition, or would you prefer the dissertation version after I get home from work and have about 4 hours to offer it up? We both know what I am talking about.

Also, I will leave you to your own imagination on why the treaty of Tripoli goes out of its way to state how the US was in no way founded based on Christian beliefs/values, etc.

no need for a doctoral thesis, just a few examples on why you think US is a distinctly Christian nation. Surely there is something in the founding documents or laws that unambiguously establish US as a Christian nation?

[martinexsquaddie]

paine was not into religion at all the founding farthers were definitly against having an offical church as that caused trouble in the uk catholics getting it and methodists etc and bishops making law.
the c of e thses days is fairly mild but a palin inspired church of america would be anything but .

[SoftLion]

no need for a doctoral thesis, just a few examples on why you think US is a distinctly Christian nation. Surely there is something in the founding documents or laws that unambiguously establish US as a Christian nation?

You confuse me with your ideal adversary, the one who opines that this nation was established as a distinctly Christian one. Rather, as already mentioned by Hollis, it was established as a secular nation, but religious/Christian influences abound (do you disagree?), which is what I am referring to.

You also stated that, "The complete ignorance of our founding Fathers and the Constitution is bewildering." My only response is "Wut"?

EDIT: and just out of curiosity, care to extrapolate on your statement that "turning the other cheek is a disgustingly immoral teaching"? I would surmise you operate under an interesting value system, foreign in nature to mere mortals like myself.

Hollis Said:
"The laws of man are not absolute and can be challenged. The down side of secularism is that the laws of man become absolute."

Quote of the year.

[Hollis]

I think Influence is different than being based on. There is a reason why the US was not a theocracy but a secular government. Many immigrants came to the use to escape religious persecution. The sad part is that they could now practice their own form of religious persecution. Early colonies were a mess. Theocracies, historically, have been pretty much anti- the Bill of Rights. The theocracies in Europe were all based on some form of Christianity.

From the Declaration of Independence;

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


The bold illustrates something that is more than just the power of Humans That there is something more than the force of government. That we are held to a higher power than our own. A materialist can say it is one conscientious, a theist can define some kind of supreme being, a humorous can call it the flying spaghetti monster, it does not really matter except in the claims of others in this secular VS these particular brand of Christianity on what it all means.

There are other factors that influenced the founding fathers, one can read the rest of the Declaration of Independence, the discussion on the Bill of Rights, etc. to figure those out.

[muttbutt]

Those silly Christians with their rules.

No stealing, no adultery, no bearing false witness, loving their neighbors, turning the other cheek, etc.
That's crazy talk.
Those tenets exist in other religions and in non religious beliefs....unless every non Christian/atheist is a *** mad bank robber who is also a serial killer on the weekend...you know for fun.

ect

And I say all that as a Catholic who's previous ideas of tolerence was to kill everyone we didn't like. :)...the good old Days.

[SoftLion]

Hollis has done an admirable job eloquently laying out his position on this topic, and I defer to his reasoned insight thus far.

[kamaz]

You confuse me with your ideal adversary, the one who opines that this nation was established as a distinctly Christian one. Rather, as already mentioned by Hollis, it was established as a secular nation, but religious/Christian influences abound (do you disagree?), which is what I am referring to.


I agree only to the extent that most of the Founding Fathers were Christian as far as their belief, although many like T.Jefferson were deists, and nothing like Christians of the modern political Right. There may have been 'influence' just as they were greatly 'influenced' by Greek writings lof Socrates and Sophocles or Ariopagitica, but it does not establish US as a 'Christian' nation by any means. This is exactly was people like Pawlenty are saying, that the US was established directly as a Christian nation, a complete nonsense.




You also stated that, "The complete ignorance of our founding Fathers and the Constitution is bewildering." My only response is "Wut"?

in refernece to Palin's and Pawlently's remarks on the nature of our country's founding.



EDIT: and just out of curiosity, care to extrapolate on your statement that "turning the other cheek is a disgustingly immoral teaching"? I would surmise you operate under an interesting value system, foreign in nature to mere mortals like myself.

in short I find the teaching of loving your enemies and turning the other cheek to be completely immoral and perverse. I dont like my enemies, I want to destroy them, and I wont turn a cheek if someone tries to hurt me or infringe on me, this is a ridiculous notion.



Hollis Said:
"The laws of man are not absolute and can be challenged. The down side of secularism is that the laws of man become absolute."

Quote of the year.
I dont understand this statement at all. The only 'absolute' laws are the ones from religious texts. Look at how adherently Sharia is followed, its considered a 'perfect' legal system by its followers since it is God's law, not man's. No law is absolute in a secular, non-theological legal system, the above statement is void of any meaning.

[Kaplanr]

Using Hollis' excellent post as a starting point, I'm in Kamaz's corner. There are specific and sound reasons why the founders used the wording they used, and not "Him", Jesus by name, or even God without the "Nature's" qualifier. Not to mention the whole 1st Amendment. It sure wasn't to be PC and avoid upsetting the Hebrews and Muhammedans then residing in the 13 colonies. To my knowledge the issue of direct inferences to a Christian God or the US being a Christian nation did not engender the kind of debate that say, slavery did in getting the Declaration ratified, or counting slaves did later on.

We've had this conversation/argument countless times here before. I'll come back to my question that seems uber-logical once the the US Christian state is in being. Whose Christianity? What happens when the pesky Episcopalians really start questioning the Catholic Church's liturgy? Where can I get tickets to the debates about the "Christianity" of the LDS Church? Just saying?

[SoftLion]

I agree only to the extent that most of the Founding Fathers were Christian as far as their belief, although many like T.Jefferson were deists, and nothing like Christians of the modern political Right. There may have been 'influence' just as they were greatly 'influenced' by Greek writings lof Socrates and Sophocles or Ariopagitica, but it does not establish US as a 'Christian' nation by any means. This is exactly was people like Pawlenty are saying, that the US was established directly as a Christian nation, a complete nonsense.

So you really want me to go into the "In God We Trust", "One Nation Under God", ten commandments adorning supreme courthouse, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc? There may have been influence? Hardly, but at least you are acknowledging these facts instead of posturing ignorance.

You can rail on about "everything I post tends to show that no mention or reference was not and has not ever been made in regard to Christianity or religion" as far as the founding of this country goes. I just don't believe you have the weight of history or factual support behind you.


in refernece to Palin's and Pawlently's remarks on the nature of our country's founding.

So you don't think the Founding Fathers and/or our Constitution are bewilderingly ignorant, as previously stated?



in short I find the teaching of loving your enemies and turning the other cheek to be completely immoral and perverse. I dont like my enemies, I want to destroy them, and I wont turn a cheek if someone tries to hurt me or infringe on me, this is a ridiculous notion.

We may be able to eke out a small amount of common ground here, but I bet you think Ghandi is a prick. Also, I would offer that your use of the term "enemy" is misleading in the context of "turn the other cheek", inasmuch as you view any person that has ever wronged you in any way an "enemy".



I dont understand this statement at all. The only 'absolute' laws are the ones from religious texts. Look at how adherently Sharia is followed, its considered a 'perfect' legal system by its followers since it is God's law, not man's. No law is absolute in a secular, non-theological legal system, the above statement is void of any meaning.

Here it really is amazing how differently we interpret that statement's meaning.

[SoftLion]

Using Hollis' excellent post as a starting point, I'm in Kamaz's corner. There are specific and sound reasons why the founders used the wording they used, and not "Him", Jesus by name, or even God without the "Nature's" qualifier. Not to mention the whole 1st Amendment. It sure wasn't to be PC and avoid upsetting the Hebrews and Muhammedans then residing in the 13 colonies. To my knowledge the issue of direct inferences to a Christian God or the US being a Christian nation did not engender the kind of debate that say, slavery did in getting the Declaration ratified, or counting slaves did later on.

We've had this conversation/argument countless times here before. I'll come back to my question that seems uber-logical once the the US Christian state is in being. Whose Christianity? What happens when the pesky Episcopalians really start questioning the Catholic Church's liturgy? Where can I get tickets to the debates about the "Christianity" of the LDS Church? Just saying?

You want to believe that anyone recognizing the many influences that Christianity and religion had on the founding of this country and its progression wants a religious state, which is painting with much too broad a brush. It won't happen, rest easy.

However, it is ignorant and irrational to fail to reconize the influence religion has on policy and legislation vis-a-vis the votes of those with such beliefs, much in the way as those with opposite beliefs influence legislation with their own votes. I suppose this should go in the "Mr. Obvious" section.

[Yeti2424]

I took an American Civics and Government class in college, and read a number of books that touch on this issue, including Thomas Paine, McCullough's great works like 1776 and Adams, JJ Rousseau, Hitchens biography of Thomas Jefferson and others.

there is no evidence whatsoever that US was founded as a distinctly Christian nation. THe Constitution does not mention God nor Christianity even once. Christianity is not mentioned in the Declaration of INdependence either, although God is referred to as for example, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, but the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document nor guidelines for establishing a government and law.






Then can we throw out the (out of context IMO) references by the Supreme Court of "the separation of church and state" for defense of the establishment clause as it, as a phrase, was only mentioned in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists and is in no other preceding legal documents...?

[seraosha]

The facts are plain for anyone to see.

Despite the overly religious and the underly religious bickering back and forth, the US was founded by Christians, on Christian beliefs, as a secular country that refuses to recognize and refuses to accept a state religion, and this was based on their deist precepts. Freedom of religion covers zealots in their fever dreams all the way to militant atheists wishing to forcibly erase any reference to a creator.
Thank God for the US, and God bless the USA.

[Azatavrear]

Kamaz
US Presidents swear in with their hand on the bible.
Look at the currency.............in God we trust. The founding fathers were also very wise for the seperation of church and state as well.

[Kaplanr]

The facts are plain for anyone to see.

Despite the overly religious and the underly religious bickering back and forth, the US was founded by Christians, on Christian beliefs, as a secular country that refuses to recognize and refuses to accept a state religion, and this was based on their deist precepts. Freedom of religion covers zealots in their fever dreams all the way to militant atheists wishing to forcibly erase any reference to a creator.
Thank God for the US, and God bless the USA.

I'd change some of your wording, but that's really just semantics. I'd argue that it was founded by men who were Christian, relying on their belief systems. IMHO, that's a level of humility that is seemingly lost some of the time.

[Hollis]

I dont understand this statement at all. The only 'absolute' laws are the ones from religious texts. Look at how adherently Sharia is followed, its considered a 'perfect' legal system by its followers since it is God's law, not man's. No law is absolute in a secular, non-theological legal system, the above statement is void of any meaning.


I would refer you to reading, why civil disobedience is allowed in the US. Also some reading on the Appellate system on the appeals system and ranking of laws. You stated Sharia Law, Imagine a law above that law, then it would not be absolute. The US constitution allows a person to follow a greater law, the law of conscience. The word "god" is a generic term. If can mean what ever you want it to mean. A Nation Under God, means the law of the land is not the final authority. The rights of a conscientious objection is based on this.

[HellToupee]

That still makes no sense, the Law at the top does not make it automatically absolute. Conscience has no Laws only emotions.

[seraosha]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

[HellToupee]

Natural Law is just made made laws that claim to be absolute, which is why everyone seems to have their own interpretation of what is "natural".

[seraosha]

Natural Law is just made made laws that claim to be absolute, which is why everyone seems to have their own interpretation of what is "natural".

I never knew wimbly had relatives in kiwilandia!

[matthew.manhorn]

You forgot kill Juice.

and killing gays. :roll:

[matthew.manhorn]

wrong thread

[kamaz]

So you really want me to go into the "In God We Trust", "One Nation Under God", ten commandments adorning supreme courthouse, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc? There may have been influence? Hardly, but at least you are acknowledging these facts instead of posturing ignorance. .

just so everyone is clear, the words 'In God we Trust' and 'ONe nation under God' were not part of the original documents and speeches that framed this nation by the Founding Fathers. These words were added over a hundred years after US was founded as a nation. Most of these changes occured in 1950s when US was battling 'godless' communists.

from wiki:

IN God we trust - In the United States, the motto first appeared on a coin in 1864 during strong Christian sentiment emerging during the Civil War, but In God We Trust did not become the official U.S. national motto until after the passage of an Act of Congress in 1956.

One nation under God - The Pledge of Allegiance to the United States is an oath of loyalty to the republic of the United States of America, originally composed by Francis Bellamy in 1892. The Pledge has been modified four times since then, with the most recent change adding the words "under God" in 1954.

There is no doubt that Christianity has had some influence on the founding of this nation, this is not what I am arguing about. I would argue that the Greek philosophy and Roman civic law had much more influence on our founding than anything in the Bible. What I am saying is that the US was not founded as a 'Christian' nation - the perennial claim of the religious Right.

The references to 'God' as mentioned by other posters were not included in the original founding documents nor writings.

[Hollis]

Kamaz good post, I does point out, that the original intent of the founding fathers of the US was a secular country and that more currently there is a push to become a more "religious" country. The return to something we were never.

[seraosha]

I think, at the root of the "conflict" is the assinine assertation that it's "Republicans against secular america".

That's as misleading as saying that the war on terrorism is a war on Islam...just because the majotiry of the terrorists we are currently fighting are Muslims. The majority of Republicans may identify themselves as religious, but by no means are they trying to create some half-assed theocrasy...although there are "christians" that want to create some kind of governemnt like that.

I'll fight those folks tooth and nail, and I go to church every Sunday.
I swore an oath to protect our Constitution, and I didn't see an expiration date.

But I have never heard an athiest say that he would defend my right to faith.

[kamaz]

The return to something we were never.

exactly my point. This is exactly what all the Huckabees, the Pawlentys and the Palins want, a 'Christian' America with 'moral' values, aka their own values. Its a perversion of our national history and tradition.

[Jobu]

Kamaz good post, I does point out, that the original intent of the founding fathers of the US was a secular country and that more currently there is a push to become a more "religious" country. The return to something we were never.

I'll have to disagree.
This has always been a religious country and it has always been an overwhelmingly Christian country.
Nothing has changed in that sense and a few words on a coin are pretty insignificant.

Through 200+ years, Christianity has been the de facto official religion of the country as a whole.
Until recently (last few decades) states were not even bound by the establishment clause and schools had state-sanctioned prayer.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

From those few words about what Congress can and cannot do, some people have come to the conclusion that all religion must be kept out of the public. It's nonsense.

[SoftLion]

exactly my point. This is exactly what all the Huckabees, the Pawlentys and the Palins want, a 'Christian' America with 'moral' values, aka their own values. Its a perversion of our national history and tradition.

I do find it interesting when someone, as you did above, demonstrates a fearful aversion to "moral values". Morals give people a conscience. Living with no regard for the well being of others affected by your actions is not the spirit of a society that I find appealing.

But then again, in your earlier posts about the "disgustingly immoral" proposition of "turning the other cheek", you seem to view anyone that has caused you to suffer a slight or perceived wrong your enemy, who you then wish to destroy. A difference of philosophy, I suppose.

[Hollis]

Jobu, I probably should have added, that secular doe not mean being pro-religion, it also does not mean being anti-religion. Part of this conflict is pro-religion VS anti-religion people. Some people want any reference to a religious influence to be removed and to deny that the religious influence ever existed which is a part of this conflict that is currently happening.

The people have been a majority a religious people, but the government is not. Though it is difficult to separate the government from the influence of the people.

While some Christians may be united in the belief we should have a Christian country, the problem, probably the biggest one would be whose brand of Christianity. That was a big problem in Europe when there was state religions. We can look at the England to see what that meant.

Again and probably to the chagrin to those who have a dog in this fight, Secular does not mean pro-religion or anti-religion. And in the secular development of the US, it also recognizes something more than man made laws. For a religious person than can mean religious laws, for a materialist (non-religious person) that can mean the freedom of consciences. As you pointed out:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

That is what I am pointing out or trying to describe.

[Azatavrear]

Well USA has long tradition of separating church and state yet it is obvious that religion and politics do end up mixing. What does a "Christian Nation" mean though? If it means a nation of Christians then yes, it is for now and has been as far as majority are concerned. But if it refers to being built on Christian religion then I would say no, it was built on certain values and morality of the constitution that makes it so different then say France.
But where did these morals come from? The answer must be Christianity. We shouldn't think that religion doesn't matter in this country. It may not matter to you or me but when it comes to the fate of the society, it means more than some may realize.

The only way to preserve the way you live is by preserving the place you live in and what it was founded on. You don't even have to believe in Jesus or go to church, but by recognizing those things as part of the culture and heritage and therefore the people........that is not cutting down other religions. It is preserving your history, the values and ideals as a society.

Morality cannot be legislated, but also it must not be abandoned. As a US citizen I am against creating a Christian Nation per say that goes against the wisdom of what the forefathers envisioned, especially branding a sect to it but the notion that all men are created equal, freedom, pursuit of happiness, etc…..comes from Christ (not the bible), doesn’t it?

[Steel21]

I really dont give a F&*K what the founding fathers wanted.

They lived hundreds of years ago, a different time a different age.

Get with the times. Religion and principle means nothing, standard of living and getting Sh^& done means everything.

Keep living with these ideological burdens and China will leave us in the dust in another 20 years.

I wish all religious institutions pay taxes like any other business, which is exactly what they are.

Morals comes from social needs of organisms, their inter-dependence and necessity for communal life. What we interpret as morality comes from a very basic biological programming that occurred when we as apes lived in communities.

[HellToupee]

But where did these morals come from? The answer must be Christianity. We shouldn't think that religion doesn't matter in this country. It may not matter to you or me but when it comes to the fate of the society, it means more than some may realize.


Which morals? Most morals would exist without religion, they existed before Christianity eg Roman law. Today moral reforms are in-spite of Christianity not because of it, eg gay rights, right to die etc.

[Azatavrear]

Which morals? Most morals would exist without religion, they existed before Christianity eg Roman law. Today moral reforms are in-spite of Christianity not because of it, eg gay rights, right to die etc.

Just saying that Christian ethics might have set the founders moral compass in some of their decision making even though most of them might have been against the power of the church and for religious freedom, which I happen to agree with, but some of things happening today seems more like the lack of moral then reform..........either way it is all very confusing.