I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Off-Topic: Talk about anything you want. => Topic started by: lmunchkin on July 04, 2011, 11:37:02 AM
-
For many years we have lived on Federal guidelines to keep Church and State Separate. Do you feel it is time to change that law or keep it? Should we begin to mix religion with Politics?
-
The very last thing I want is to see our government meddle in even more personal affairs. The choice of which religion (or none) to follow should be strictly in the hands of each individual.
If the USA were a theocracy, the government could choose an official state religion, something from which our forebears fled. People who advocate that the majority should determine whether or which religion should be institutionalized forget that majorities change. Keeping church and state separate protects both.
Aleta
-
It seems to me that every dollar bill contradicts the separation of church and state (in God we trust).
If the church is to play a part in government, then which will be the lucky one? There are so many. Or would you advocate several fedrally recognised churches?
The UK has Church of England representatives in the upper chamber, but they have little influence. The church's influence in general is much less now than it was when I was a child. I particularly remember that the swings and other amusements for children were locked up on Sundays. Not so now.
-
For many years we have lived on Federal guidelines to keep Church and State Separate. Do you feel it is time to change that law or keep it? Should we begin to mix religion with Politics?
NO NO NO NEVER
but it does :boxing; :boxing; :boxing;
-
We all know the story about the Puritans fleeing from England to America so that they could have religious freedom. What most people forget is that the Puritans didn't like the idea of religious freedom for others. They were just as tyrannical in this regard as was the Anglican church leaders in England at that time.
Which religion are you going to mix with politics?
I watched a very interesting documentary on HBO this evening, written, filmed and produced by Alexandra Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's daughter. It was called "Citizen USA"; it will probably be OnDemand by now, so check it out. Anyway, Alexandra's husband is Dutch, and since he married an American, he was easily able to get a green card. When his first child was born, though, he decided that he didn't want to be the only one in the family who was not American, so he applied for citizenship. Alexandra took his experience and travelled to each of the 50 states and witnessed a Naturalization ceremony in each state. After each ceremony, she spoke with several new American citizens and would ask them why they wanted to become an American. One man from Poland said that he wanted to be a citizen in a country who could overcome its past and elect a black man as President. Many women said that in America, they could own their own home, own their own car, create their own businesses, things that they never would have been able to do in their native land. One Muslim woman in Tennessee, another in Mississippi and another man in Michigan all said that they appreciated the religious freedom they had in this country. You don't really think of Muslims living in the American Bible Belt expressing gratitude for religious tolerance! But that goes to show how much Americans fundamentally cherish not only their faith but also their freedom to have whichever faith they choose.
On a personal note, I feel that religion belongs either in the home or in the church. It does not belong in government and it does not belong in our schools. Parents should give their children whichever kind of religious education they feel is appropriate. In saying that, though, I think that government should act in ways that are pretty universally recognized as fair-minded and compassionate. I don't think you have to be of any organized religion to want our government to be responsible, fair and humane.
What we understand to be the mixing of Church and State is anti-American. As Aleta pointed out, that would mean our federal government would choose an official state religion, and I can't think of anything more against the ideals of the Founding Fathers than that!
-
For many years we have lived on Federal guidelines to keep Church and State Separate. Do you feel it is time to change that law or keep it? Should we begin to mix religion with Politics?
That sound you hear is our Constitution throwing up....
-
Most folks do not have knowledge of the Christian origins and roots of America as well as the Christian roots of the English Common Law on which the majority of our rights are based. Indeed, the 14th amendment when incorporated into the 1st amendment declared several state constitutions unconstitutional, but that was not the original intent of the founders who specifically kept the provisions in the constitution separate from state and local rights.
Eight states originally had requirements that all those in the state government must believe in Jesus and God as the Supreme Being in acceptance of the Christian religion. The establishment clause had to do with denominations, not religions as we now view the term. There was nothing in the constitution at the time it was written to prohibit the Christian religious test at state and local levels. It was only after the much later 14th amendment incorporated the 1st amendment to apply to states and local governments did we begin to see an intrusion upon the expression of Christian principles in these governments.
http://vftonline.org/TestOath/22leaders.htm
At the Federal level, we had mandates for an American Bible that was actually authorized and printed by congress(1782), we established Christian missions to the indians with congressional approval and many of the founding fathers professed belief in Jesus Christ.
Yet today, we would be led to believe that America was a secular nation right from it's foundations, this is simply not true. There are four Supreme Court rulings in our history that declared America a Christian nation. The last was in 1931. If folks wish to state that America is no longer a Christian nation, I have no argument with that statement at all, much to our demise. But going back to the founding fathers and the subsequent generations, they not only declared, but embraced we were a Christian nation. It was not until 1948 in McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948). However, it was not until the 1960's that the crusade against Christianity in our government really began.
McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html
In 1984, ironically, Ronald Reagan signed into law the taxation of churches through social security taxation and at the same time made them tax collectors as well. I know a man in prison today who is there because of his misplaced trust in the constitution that would overturn this law. A sad situation no doubt and one that the founders would turn in their graves over. The constitutional provisions were never meant to keep the influence of Christianity out of the government, on the contrary, they were to protect the church from the state. Today, the historical revisionists would have us believe that it was they were protecting the government from Christian religion. That is simply not true.
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/handbook/handbook.11/handbook-1136.html
In fact and reality, 8 of the original states were in essence run as Christian theocracies which our Federal constitution of 1789 did not overturn or interfere whatsoever. In fact, 7 states still have the original language in their state constitutions even though SCOTUS has ruled them unenforceable in 1961.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins
Thus, to state that America is not a Christian nation today, that is certainly a much more accurate statement than to make the false assertion that the founding fathers had the same view. It truly was not until 1961 that America denied it's Christian origins in earnest and began a crusade against Christianity at the Federal level. Today, any expression of Christianity in public is often viewed as unconstitutional. Sadly, what started as a Christian nation is now largely hostile towards this religion. Limiting the expression of Christianity to simply home and church is a persecution that will one day eliminate those two areas someday as well. Sorry, I don't leave my Christianity at home with me, it is who I am. Religious tolerance is now extended to almost every religion, yet not to Christianity. The child bringing a Bible to school is often subject to questioning at the very least by school officials, yet a recent court decision allows Sikhs to bring their ceremonial knives into the schools.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/04/us/school-told-to-allow-sikhs-to-have-knives.html
Lastly, how ironic that although Christians are banned from prayer, Muslims are not:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-25-muslim-special-treatment-from-schools_N.htm
America is no longer a friendly nation to Christians and our sphere of freedom to practice our religion is slowly becoming more and more restricted to the point that if laws declaring homosexuals protected rights, the US courts will soon in my opinion be able to force American churches to hire openly gay men and women in religious positions. There are many who have already advocated such and I hope and pray that our religious freedoms do not erode to that point, but we are certainly in danger of that right now. In fact, in Canada, several verses in the Bible are already declared hate speech and anyone that preaches these verses from the pulpit can and have been arrested and prosecuted. So, if folks wish to speak about separation of church and state, getting all of the facts is an essential place to start.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=20862
Is America a Christian nation anymore? Not at the Federal level for sure yet what a glorious past America once had.
-
For many years we have lived on Federal guidelines to keep Church and State Separate. Do you feel it is time to change that law or keep it? Should we begin to mix religion with Politics?
That sound you hear is our Constitution throwing up....
Religion has always been mixed with politics and there's nothing in the Constitution to prohibit anyone from mixing religion with politics!
The writers of the Constitution never intended to root out religion from every facet of the government. The government is PEOPLE and especially in the late 1700s most people were strongly entangled with some form of traditional religion. So unless all religious people are banned, there is no way to keep religion out of the government.
The establishment clause of the First Amendment was written to prevent the GOVERNMENT from establishing a state-sponsored church such as the Church of England and forcing people to join that "establishment of religion" or making it a requirement for office seekers, or otherwise forcing it down people's throats by using the police powers of the government to do so. Specific clauses were added to the Constitution that clearly forbade using religion as a means test for holding office and preventing Congress from passing laws concerning religion. But the Founders never intended to wipe out all vestiges of religion from public life.
People have opinions, convictions and ethics, usually based on their religion if they have one, and those convictions are the essence of the people serving in government whether religious or not. How can anyone function if they have to set aside all traces of their religion when they enter the Capitol? So it wasn't to stamp out religion in politics or government that was the goal; rather, it was to prevent the GOVERNMENT for forcing religion on to the people (by force). Of course the non-religious or the irreligious or even those totally anti-religious can all run for any office. Then it's up to the voters to decide.
-
idk if this is ever relevent, so forgive me if it isnt.
The school in which I used to attend, and my son now attends, does not allow anyone to wear "alternate" religious symbols. They do however allow the cross. I don't really think that should be right... I personally love the Cross and I am christian, but I have a friend, who has children that are of the Wiccan faith, and are not allowed to wear their religious symbol. When I was in that school, I was not allowed to wear an old star of david I found at a sale, and thought it was pretty! I had no idea it was even religious symbol at the time! I was told to remove it at once.
I find that to be wrong. If they allow one, they should allow all. Or none. Just saying.
-
idk if this is ever relevent, so forgive me if it isnt.
The school in which I used to attend, and my son now attends, does not allow anyone to wear "alternate" religious symbols. They do however allow the cross. I don't really think that should be right... I personally love the Cross and I am christian, but I have a friend, who has children that are of the Wiccan faith, and are not allowed to wear their religious symbol. When I was in that school, I was not allowed to wear an old star of david I found at a sale, and thought it was pretty! I had no idea it was even religious symbol at the time! I was told to remove it at once.
I find that to be wrong. If they allow one, they should allow all. Or none. Just saying.
Is this a public school? If yes, I think it's very relevant and sounds most illegal to me. You are right in that it is the favoring of one religion over another that causes the real problem.
Willis, I think the spirit of lmunchkin's question was clear to all who responded, even though she may not have worded it well. Should we repeal "that law" (The First Amendment) and slide toward theocracy, where government is allowed to promote a specific religion? If we don't have the freedoms of the First Amendment, which revolve around freedom of thought and expression, we don't have much, do we.
Stoday, I looked up the various legal battles surrounding In God We Trust and it has apparently been decided that it does not go toward establishing a religion (therefore not in violation of the Constitution) and the phrase has "lost through rote repetition any significant religious content". I would have to admit that I have no problem with that.
-
In 1984, ironically, Ronald Reagan signed into law the taxation of churches through social security taxation and at the same time made them tax collectors as well. I know a man in prison today who is there because of his misplaced trust in the constitution that would overturn this law. A sad situation no doubt and one that the founders would turn in their graves over.
Hemodoc, you have mentioned your friendship with Kent Hovind before. He did not think that those laws were going to be overturned, he bragged repeatedly about outsmarting them. He threatened investigators, made his employees state that they were "volunteers" or "missionaries" (what happens if one of those people needs Medicare and does not have enough work credits?) structured cash transactions, wasted years of the courts time, and lied A LOT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind) (According to this article, he also does not believe there is such a thing as the separation of church and state) He is by every definition a criminal and is exactly where he belongs, having been found guilty on 58 counts. (58!!!)
I do not view America as a Christian nation, and I do not see that as a detriment in the least.
-
I think the Founders were men of the Enlightenment. They professed a belief in God but that isn't the same as being a Christian. There are a lot of Founders and each state has its Founders but if you're talking about Washington Franklin Jefferson Madison Adams Hamilton then I'd say they were free thinkers.
-
America is no longer a friendly nation to Christians and our sphere of freedom to practice our religion is slowly becoming more and more restricted to the point that if laws declaring homosexuals protected rights, the US courts will soon in my opinion be able to force American churches to hire openly gay men and women in religious positions. There are many who have already advocated such and I hope and pray that our religious freedoms do not erode to that point, but we are certainly in danger of that right now. In fact, in Canada, several verses in the Bible are already declared hate speech and anyone that preaches these verses from the pulpit can and have been arrested and prosecuted. So, if folks wish to speak about separation of church and state, getting all of the facts is an essential place to start.
Is America a Christian nation anymore? Not at the Federal level for sure yet what a glorious past America once had.
I am truly, truly baffled by this victimhood mindset. Who is preventing you from practicing Christianity? How are you defining "Christian"? Do you know any Christians who are prevented from going to church or praying in their homes or wherever they like? My husband and I were out for dinner the other evening and noted a family at a nearby table praying before their meal. No one persecuted them. What kind of worship or show of your Christian faith is being denied you?
And what exactly is this "glorious past" that America once had but now does not because it is now "unfriendly" to Christians? Are you perhaps talking about the "glorious past" where plantation owners believed God created black people to serve white ones? Or perhaps it's that glorious past where God meant for whites to sit at the front of the bus with blacks in the back. Oh, I know! It's must be the glorious past of Manifest Destiny where God told the white man that he was destined to fill the American continent, almost obliterating an entire race of people that couldn't possibly be favored by God.
You seem to have a rosy image of America's past, and I for the life of me can't figure out why, but it certainly doesn't have to do with a greater presence of God in America. If it is true that America had indeed once been a Christian nation, then that is a lie. If it were so, we would not have enslaved or killed millions and millions of people. We have NEVER been a Christian nation....NEVER!
(Oh, and I am sure that Jesus Christ heartily approved of women being burned for being "witches", yet another chapter of our glorious Christian past.)
-
In 1984, ironically, Ronald Reagan signed into law the taxation of churches through social security taxation and at the same time made them tax collectors as well. I know a man in prison today who is there because of his misplaced trust in the constitution that would overturn this law. A sad situation no doubt and one that the founders would turn in their graves over.
Hemodoc, you have mentioned your friendship with Kent Hovind before. He did not think that those laws were going to be overturned, he bragged repeatedly about outsmarting them. He threatened investigators, made his employees state that they were "volunteers" or "missionaries" (what happens if one of those people needs Medicare and does not have enough work credits?) structured cash transactions, wasted years of the courts time, and lied A LOT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind) (According to this article, he also does not believe there is such a thing as the separation of church and state) He is by every definition a criminal and is exactly where he belongs, having been found guilty on 58 counts. (58!!!)
I do not view America as a Christian nation, and I do not see that as a detriment in the least.
Dear Cariad, I wouldn't call meeting someone briefly twice being "friends" with Kent Hovind, but he did indeed believe that the constitution in the end would trump these new laws. A simply perusal of his writings and listening to his videos makes this clear. He believed he could overturn them by direct confrontation which sadly is not a defense not only for Kent but many others.
Nevertheless, the point I am making is that the interpretation of the "separation of church and state" which is not even in the constitution mind you as interpreted today really as freedom from religion was not at all what the writings of the founding fathers declared nor several Supreme Court decisions all the way up until 1938. No one dared tax the church as it had originally been interpreted taxing God. Ronald Reagan bravely sold out that provision on January 1st 1984. For what Kent Hovind is in jail was not at all a crime before that date. His mistake was believing sincerely that he could go back in time. I have no such illusions. Simply put, Kent Hovind refused to be a tax collector which he believed was not a task that constitutionally belonged to the church. The modern era of this day does not hold the sanctity of the church that people did in the government until our recent generation. Times are different.
Actually, Kent Hovind's downfall began when he became associated with a man named Glenn Stoll who has been conning unwary Christians for decades. Hovind turned over control of his ministries properties to Glenn Stoll believing he would be able to render the same legal protections that several Catholic dioces had enjoyed in the past but the courts have ruled them as unlawful tax scams outside of that narrow application. Glenn Stoll has somehow evaded imprisonment while many, many of his followers have paid their price to society. This con artist stood as his lawyer with no law degree and Hovind placed his trust in this person to his demise.
As far as the "bragging" part you are referring to, that was David Gibbs III who visited Hovind and then served as a key prosecution witness against him. Gibbs is noted as Terri Shaivo's lawyer. Pride is a sin that many of us fall into and I am sure that was a part of his downfall, but I am convinced that he truly believed in challenging these laws he believed in his heart were unconstitutional and he was right if it had been before January 1st, 1984.
Sadly, although we here the term God bless America frequently, the majority of folks just wouldn't want Him to interfere at all in their lives and in reality I believe He is giving us our wishes collectively in this nation to simply walk away from Him. I must disagree that you don't see this as a detriment. In fact, John Adams would strongly disagree with your contention that there is no detriment:
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
http://candst.tripod.com/morrelpeo.htm
-
I think the Founders were men of the Enlightenment. They professed a belief in God but that isn't the same as being a Christian. There are a lot of Founders and each state has its Founders but if you're talking about Washington Franklin Jefferson Madison Adams Hamilton then I'd say they were free thinkers.
Actually that cohort of men were best known as Deists, and you are correct that they were not Christian so to speak. However, the were restrained in their comments due to the fact that their constituency in America were predominantly protestant Christian believers who lived by the constructs of the Bible as their single most important document. You are right that they probably would have felt more at home today in our overwhelmingly secular America, but nevertheless, history records their references to a Christian populace in their language and in their actions. Ben Franklin was actually a dabbler in many of the occult practices of the day as well as strong ties to the Masons. George Washington in fact is often attributed as the leader of the masons which he himself denied, yet today one of the biggest museums to George is the George Washington Masonic Museum in Virginia:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mbell1975/4234483063/in/set-72157622991900785
The Masons became such a powerful political entity that an "anti-mason" party developed several years later noted by John Quincy Adams as one of their supporters. They were the first "third" party in America. Nevertheless, the majority of the population remained overwhelmingly protestant Christians up until our last couple of generations really starting overtly in the 1960's.
-
We all know the story about the Puritans fleeing from England to America so that they could have religious freedom. What most people forget is that the Puritans didn't like the idea of religious freedom for others. They were just as tyrannical in this regard as was the Anglican church leaders in England at that time.
Which religion are you going to mix with politics?
I watched a very interesting documentary on HBO this evening, written, filmed and produced by Alexandra Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's daughter. It was called "Citizen USA"; it will probably be OnDemand by now, so check it out. Anyway, Alexandra's husband is Dutch, and since he married an American, he was easily able to get a green card. When his first child was born, though, he decided that he didn't want to be the only one in the family who was not American, so he applied for citizenship. Alexandra took his experience and travelled to each of the 50 states and witnessed a Naturalization ceremony in each state. After each ceremony, she spoke with several new American citizens and would ask them why they wanted to become an American. One man from Poland said that he wanted to be a citizen in a country who could overcome its past and elect a black man as President. Many women said that in America, they could own their own home, own their own car, create their own businesses, things that they never would have been able to do in their native land. One Muslim woman in Tennessee, another in Mississippi and another man in Michigan all said that they appreciated the religious freedom they had in this country. You don't really think of Muslims living in the American Bible Belt expressing gratitude for religious tolerance! But that goes to show how much Americans fundamentally cherish not only their faith but also their freedom to have whichever faith they choose.
On a personal note, I feel that religion belongs either in the home or in the church. It does not belong in government and it does not belong in our schools. Parents should give their children whichever kind of religious education they feel is appropriate. In saying that, though, I think that government should act in ways that are pretty universally recognized as fair-minded and compassionate. I don't think you have to be of any organized religion to want our government to be responsible, fair and humane.
What we understand to be the mixing of Church and State is anti-American. As Aleta pointed out, that would mean our federal government would choose an official state religion, and I can't think of anything more against the ideals of the Founding Fathers than that!
Religious tolerance is actually an outcome of true Christian belief where people must come to an individual knowledge and belief in the God of the Bible. That is the way Christianity has always been, we don't convert people at the point of a sword. We preach the gospel and people choose what they wish to believe or not.
-
America is no longer a friendly nation to Christians and our sphere of freedom to practice our religion is slowly becoming more and more restricted to the point that if laws declaring homosexuals protected rights, the US courts will soon in my opinion be able to force American churches to hire openly gay men and women in religious positions. There are many who have already advocated such and I hope and pray that our religious freedoms do not erode to that point, but we are certainly in danger of that right now. In fact, in Canada, several verses in the Bible are already declared hate speech and anyone that preaches these verses from the pulpit can and have been arrested and prosecuted. So, if folks wish to speak about separation of church and state, getting all of the facts is an essential place to start.
Is America a Christian nation anymore? Not at the Federal level for sure yet what a glorious past America once had.
I am truly, truly baffled by this victimhood mindset. Who is preventing you from practicing Christianity? How are you defining "Christian"? Do you know any Christians who are prevented from going to church or praying in their homes or wherever they like? My husband and I were out for dinner the other evening and noted a family at a nearby table praying before their meal. No one persecuted them. What kind of worship or show of your Christian faith is being denied you?
And what exactly is this "glorious past" that America once had but now does not because it is now "unfriendly" to Christians? Are you perhaps talking about the "glorious past" where plantation owners believed God created black people to serve white ones? Or perhaps it's that glorious past where God meant for whites to sit at the front of the bus with blacks in the back. Oh, I know! It's must be the glorious past of Manifest Destiny where God told the white man that he was destined to fill the American continent, almost obliterating an entire race of people that couldn't possibly be favored by God.
You seem to have a rosy image of America's past, and I for the life of me can't figure out why, but it certainly doesn't have to do with a greater presence of God in America. If it is true that America had indeed once been a Christian nation, then that is a lie. If it were so, we would not have enslaved or killed millions and millions of people. We have NEVER been a Christian nation....NEVER!
(Oh, and I am sure that Jesus Christ heartily approved of women being burned for being "witches", yet another chapter of our glorious Christian past.)
That is in part one of the reasons why we are at such a cross roads that immigrants have no trouble whatsoever understanding when comparing life in America to many of the nations from which they have come. Just ask my wife how she appreciates America compared to her native land. My wife is a naturalized citizen and has a greater love of this nation and its ideals and freedoms than most native born Americans. There is a reason for that which seems to escape many born here today.
You are certainly free to your own opinions, but a review of historical documents points to the fact that America was a Christian based nation actually starting as a theocracy in most of the original colonies. Sorry, no amount of modern historical revisionism will obviate those facts. The fact that sin existed in this nation likewise does not obviate the historical facts that we were at our onset a Christian nation. Those that braved the Atlantic for religious freedom and economic freedom I believe would take issue with your assessment of their motivations and sacrifices to find a place where they could exercise their beliefs in freedom. It truly was and is an amazing experiment in freedom that you would be hard placed to find another such example despite all of its well noted failures along the way.
-
By golly, you Americans do get stuck into issues. A most entertaining thread...congratulations to all the contributors.
-
I started school in 1967 and we prayed to God for a good day and then did the flag salute. Then started our day. I don't remember doing that in middle school. When they took God out of our schools was a sad day. Even if you don't share the same religion. Praying to your god or just time to meditate before your day is good.
As far as I know kids cannot bring bibles to school. I don't know about the book of Mormon. I guess it would have to be in someones locker as they go there before school which is usually right next door.
I feel funny praying at restaurants but I do it when I'm with church friends. I'm a hypocrite I guess. :( The bible talks about the end times. I see it all around.
I appreciate living in a country where I can practice my religion freely. I don't like it when others degrade Born Again Christians like saying "those Christians" blah blah blah. Tolerance..... remember? :-*
-
That is in part one of the reasons why we are at such a cross roads that immigrants have no trouble whatsoever understanding when comparing life in America to many of the nations from which they have come. Just ask my wife how she appreciates America compared to her native land. My wife is a naturalized citizen and has a greater love of this nation and its ideals and freedoms than most native born Americans. There is a reason for that which seems to escape many born here today.
You are certainly free to your own opinions, but a review of historical documents points to the fact that America was a Christian based nation actually starting as a theocracy in most of the original colonies. Sorry, no amount of modern historical revisionism will obviate those facts. The fact that sin existed in this nation likewise does not obviate the historical facts that we were at our onset a Christian nation. Those that braved the Atlantic for religious freedom and economic freedom I believe would take issue with your assessment of their motivations and sacrifices to find a place where they could exercise their beliefs in freedom. It truly was and is an amazing experiment in freedom that you would be hard placed to find another such example despite all of its well noted failures along the way.
I certainly agree that those immigrants who have jumped through all of the required hoops to become a US citizen probably have a greater understanding and appreciation of the freedoms we enjoy.
You may be right that from the outset, America was a "Christian based" nation (thankfully, you've retreated from the label of "Christian nation"). And yes indeed, I certainly question their motivations and sacrifices. While you may convey some sort of saintliness onto the people who crossed the Atlantic and then settled toward the Pacific, searching for their economic freedom and to exercise their beliefs how they wished, this "amazing experiment in freedom" enslaved a race of people, decimated a race of people and laid waste to vast number of animal species. Hide behind those rose-colored glasses all you like, but this is our history, and it certainly does not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
I would argue that despite our increasing secularity, we are more closely following those teachings now that we did 150 years ago. We strive to ensure freedom for ALL people, no matter their color. We work to including all citizens in our political process (universal suffrage). We give the tools of success to everyone (free education for all children). None of these were available to this righteous Christian nation 150 years ago.
I don't even know what definition of "Christian" you are using. Could someone explain to me exactly what a "born again" Christian is? How are they different from Christians whose faith never died in the first place?
-
Hemodoc, Kent Hovind knowingly and purposefully broke the law. I don't have the time nor desire to re-fight an argument that has been put to rest by our court system. There is nothing innocent nor accidental about structuring cash transactions. He has been caught on tape (which can be accessed on YouTube) discussing ways to hide assets with his son. Who knows how many public dollars he has wasted in entering nonsense pleas in court such as "subornation of false muster". You don't tell your employees to pass themselves off as volunteers without sending a neon-lit message to the world that you are trying to get out of paying your due employee-related taxes. In fact, this is such a fundamental issue in the tax code that it does not matter if all parties agree to, say, a contractor relationship. If the intent is to get out of paying tax, you are breaking the law. My father is a tax attorney and has been an employer for the past 30 years, and for personal reasons, I have discussed this at length with him. This is money that is to be used to care for these employees and their families, and he stole it from them and the rest of us who have to pick up the tab for any shortfalls. Kent Hovind tried to game the system and he lost. There is really nothing more to say.
MM, well-said, so much of what you've written. I don't understand the need to portray oneself as a victim all the time, either, other than it's what people do when they have run out of other arguments. I care very little for what the founding fathers would think of our interpretations today, and I don't really understand the need to endlessly go over and over what they might do in our present circumstances, to pretend to be, as Stephen Colbert put it, "a time-traveling mind reader". The separation of church and state is a basic principal on which our country operates - and to get back to the original, horrifying question, no, no, one million times no, we should not insert anyone's religion into our government.
This idea that the Constitution does not include the separation of church and state - this seems to have started up recently with the Tea Party and that one nutter candidate Christine O'Donnell asking Chris Coons in a debate where exactly the Constitution says this. He had the most priceless tone, as if he could not believe what she was asking. Here is the entire text of the First Amendment, (in case you're still following along, Bruno ;)): Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Straightforward and to the point, with precedent being set in the ensuing years to further define and establish this basic, basic tenet of American society. And precedent means a lot in this country, cases are won or lost on it.
Christian is not synonymous with moral, and non-Christian is not in any way synonymous with immoral or amoral. Nor does the word 'religious' automatically mean Christian. I would put atheist morality against Christian morality any day. Seeing this film in which Julia Sweeney, a long time Catholic, turns to Humanism, she explained that the first moment she entertained the idea that there was no God, she immediately thought about all the poor and suffering people of the world, realised that there was no deity looking after them, and thought "Someone's got to help them!" That's right - atheists cannot relieve themselves of responsibility by saying 'God will sort this one out'. It can be heartbreaking and it can cause a lot of guilt, but there it is.
I am going to have to leave you all to it. Like so many other discussions, this one has gone out of control with oversized posts (mine, for example!) and people talking past each other. Why do I ever involve myself in these discussions? It's not like I delude myself into thinking that I will ever change anyone's mind. Anyhow, a good day to all of you. :)
-
Hemodoc, Kent Hovind knowingly and purposefully broke the law. I don't have the time nor desire to re-fight an argument that has been put to rest by our court system. There is nothing innocent nor accidental about structuring cash transactions. He has been caught on tape (which can be accessed on YouTube) discussing ways to hide assets with his son. Who knows how many public dollars he has wasted in entering nonsense pleas in court such as "subornation of false muster". You don't tell your employees to pass themselves off as volunteers without sending a neon-lit message to the world that you are trying to get out of paying your due employee-related taxes. In fact, this is such a fundamental issue in the tax code that it does not matter if all parties agree to, say, a contractor relationship. If the intent is to get out of paying tax, you are breaking the law. My father is a tax attorney and has been an employer for the past 30 years, and for personal reasons, I have discussed this at length with him. This is money that is to be used to care for these employees and their families, and he stole it from them and the rest of us who have to pick up the tab for any shortfalls. Kent Hovind tried to game the system and he lost. There is really nothing more to say.
MM, well-said, so much of what you've written. I don't understand the need to portray oneself as a victim all the time, either, other than it's what people do when they have run out of other arguments. I care very little for what the founding fathers would think of our interpretations today, and I don't really understand the need to endlessly go over and over what they might do in our present circumstances, to pretend to be, as Stephen Colbert put it, "a time-traveling mind reader". The separation of church and state is a basic principal on which our country operates - and to get back to the original, horrifying question, no, no, one million times no, we should not insert anyone's religion into our government.
This idea that the Constitution does not include the separation of church and state - this seems to have started up recently with the Tea Party and that one nutter candidate Christine O'Donnell asking Chris Coons in a debate where exactly the Constitution says this. He had the most priceless tone, as if he could not believe what she was asking. Here is the entire text of the First Amendment, (in case you're still following along, Bruno ;)): Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Straightforward and to the point, with precedent being set in the ensuing years to further define and establish this basic, basic tenet of American society. And precedent means a lot in this country, cases are won or lost on it.
Christian is not synonymous with moral, and non-Christian is not in any way synonymous with immoral or amoral. Nor does the word 'religious' automatically mean Christian. I would put atheist morality against Christian morality any day. Seeing this film in which Julia Sweeney, a long time Catholic, turns to Humanism, she explained that the first moment she entertained the idea that there was no God, she immediately thought about all the poor and suffering people of the world, realised that there was no deity looking after them, and thought "Someone's got to help them!" That's right - atheists cannot relieve themselves of responsibility by saying 'God will sort this one out'. It can be heartbreaking and it can cause a lot of guilt, but there it is.
I am going to have to leave you all to it. Like so many other discussions, this one has gone out of control with oversized posts (mine, for example!) and people talking past each other. Why do I ever involve myself in these discussions? It's not like I delude myself into thinking that I will ever change anyone's mind. Anyhow, a good day to all of you. :)
Dear Cariad,
I never stated I supported Kent Hovind's actions, I do understand his basis for why he felt turning a church organization into a tax collector is unconstitutional and I agree with that position, but alas it is the law of the land and he is paying his debt to society. Not sure why folks don't understand the reason why churches have an ethical reason for not being tax collectors and I believe that is an infringement on the free exercise clause. As I mentioned previously, Hovind's downfall is most related to his relationship to Glenn Stoll who acted as his lawyer. It was on his advice that they did not withdraw anymore than 10,000 dollars at one time. Clearly under new banking laws in the last 20 years or so designed to fight the mob making these transactions illegal, he broke the law and got his wife a one year prison sentence at the same time. Look up Glenn Stoll and you will find he sells himself as a lawyer for churches even though he has no law degree. He also lists all of the people who have gone to jail following his directives. Why Hovind placed all of his trust in such a scam is the real question in all of this. Technically, he signed all of the properties over to Glenn Stoll. So, while I agree with Hovind's stand on the constitution, I recognize that the original intents of the first amendment when written are far from where we are today.
As far as the terms: separation of church and state, O'Donnell is correct, they are not part of the constitution, they are an interpretation put forth first by Jefferson and later picked up in Supreme Court rulings. I have already pointed out that the 1st amendment was looked at quite differently when it was written and in 1961. The wording is quite simple, congress shall not establish a state religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. Read Jefferson's comments in context and you will see that the term separation of church and state was first of meant to protect the church from the government:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=65
Understanding how church and state were one and the same throughout Europe at the time that the first amendment was written is the entire reason it was given to the American population. It was never meant as a prohibition of the influence of religion on the government which it is now being interpreted as being. Freedom of religion is now more correctly thought of as freedom from religion at the government level. I would refer you to the Supreme Court rulings up until 1938 that openly declared America was a Christian nation. The first Supreme Court ruling that challenged that was in 1948. The first amendment has evolved in the last two hundred years as have many others and it is unrecognizable from it's original intent of protecting God's church from government interference. Today, it is mainly interpreted as protecting the government from religion, a complete reversal of how it was interpreted at the onset.
As far as the free exercise, ask any child who has attempted to bring a Bible to school in their own private belongings and see how people get all bent out of shape, yet at the same time Sikh's are granted the free exercise of bringing their ceremonial knives to school and muslims are granted prayer time and non-muslims must respect their worship to the point that males and females must separate. If folks don't want religion in schools, etc. why then are we allowing these others and denying Christianity? The hate speech issue is quite real as our neighbors in Canada know all to well and many wish to implement the same legislation here in America as well.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=24407
Canada is not the only nation to lock up people simply preaching from the Bible. Sweden is another nation that now outlaws parts of the Bible and they have prosecuted people.
http://www.soulwinning.info/rights/criminalizing.htm
So, not crying victim at all, simply putting forth some real concerns regarding the free exercise of my religion that many nations have recently adopting and many are advocating for here as well.
Separation of church and state mean completely different interpretations to people today as they did when written. By the way, the Bible makes it clear that there will come a time where God let's man have his wish of having a world completely outside of the influence of God. It is called the tribulation, a time that will be worse than any time or since.
As far as epiphany moments, when I was 36 years old, a medical school graduate with a degree in Biology, the moment that God began walking and talking with me understanding for the first time in my life that not only is He real, but he cares for us. He sends the sun and rain to believers and unbelievers alike. As far as Christian morality, I will take it over man's so called morality any day:
Matthew 5:43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
-
I'm curious Peter. What in your view would be different about our society if your understanding of the First Amendment was the basis for our society and laws?
In other words given a counter factual history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_history) of your choice - maybe starting in 1961 to keep it simpler or 1790 if you like - what would I notice in 2011 in that counter factual world that is different from the world out my window?
-
I'm curious Peter. What in your view would be different about our society if your understanding of the First Amendment was the basis for our society and laws?
In other words given a counter factual history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_history) of your choice - maybe starting in 1961 to keep it simpler or 1790 if you like - what would I notice in 2011 in that counter factual world that is different from the world out my window?
Dear Bill,
If the Supreme Court rulings of the 1960's had not occurred, that is an interesting question obviously which would only be speculation on anyone's part. I not only believe in the Bible, but I also believe in Bible prophecy which lists many of the outcomes 2000 years after Christ's first advent. (I do have scriptures that support the 2000 year period, but I will forego that discussion since this is mainly a secular website, but it is tolerant of Christian views to its credit.) So, while I firmly believe that the events that have happened were ordained by God's foreknowledge, it is an interesting speculation nevertheless.
Let me bite, I believe that those that honor God receive His blessings. With so many bumper stickers stating God Bless America, I suspect many folks feel likewise. I readily understand God's hand in my own life and the Bible records the historical blessings to a people that will obey His commandments. In such, are there agonies and pains and travails that this nation has undergone in the last 50 years that God would have avoided? Our Christian faith would say yes and that is our hope for this nation once again. However, Christianity is not a religion of coercion, God gave us free will and folks get to make their own choices.
To answer specifically, I suspect America would look a lot more like the 1950's, hopefully without all of the racial inequalities that existed at that time, but where people respected those that looked out for them whether a politician, policeman, fireman or even us disparaged doctors. The world today is one where respect of other people has been shredded, most especially with respect to life itself. Was it perfect in the 1950's? Absolutely not, but I remember well growing up in Alaska which remained isolated from the turmoil of the 1960's found in many American cities and it is indeed one of the most cherished times of my life. The Alaska of the 1960's had a true frontier spirit alive and well which remains in many places in Alaska today. It may be a poor analogy to America in old times, but I do believe it represents the unique American experience that spread across the nation from coast to coast. Divorce rates were lower, families had a mother and father and usually a large number of children that actually spent time together. Those that would not profess Christianity nevertheless shared many uniform "Christian" principles that were the fabric of our American society. Sounds like Richie and Fonzie would come around the corner in such a time, but truly, America has lost an innocence that shall never be regained.
I believe many folks would readily go back to those days if possible. Unfortunately, we cannot turn back the clock, but it was fun thinking about it for a little bit.
-
Peter, right now, somewhere in Alaska a young boy is growing up. And in 50 years he will remember that when he was young prices were reasonable, politicians were noble and children respected their elders. And he'll think, if only we could get back to the turn of the century everything would be better.
I think you are describing ordinary nostalgia.
-
America had innocence? When?
Besides, who wants to live in a theocracy?
When colonists arrived here, they banned other sects from practicing in their territory of random seizure and that went on down in time from Puritan, Anabaptist, on down to Mormon.
I just grow tired of people constantly seeking to point out something that does nothing to help or move our species along.
"The US is a Christian nation." "The Prophet of Islam was revealed the word of Allah." The Jews are God's Chosen People."
Okay, so what? Save all the souls you want. It won't end wars or stop buses blowing up. It won't stop decapitations in Mexico. It won't stop crazy people cutting out babies from expectant mothers. So, if you want the title you want, be it United Christian States of America, fine. Have at it. We'll see how well, theocracy works once we have debated, mulled over, and compromised on a New Nicaea for the Western World to abide by, as codified law upon free men, not just the followers of the rituals. Dissension, schism, and rinse, lather, repeat. Whether it's 325 A.D. or 2011 A.D., I don't anticipate much different results.
"God created the Universe and we should teach and adopt Intelligent Design in classrooms."
Okay, fine. Does ID help to teach verification and investigation? No. Will ID unlock new methods within the a fact-based experiment to conclude new interpretations of data streams? No.
More and more, I would love to see a repeal of religion as a tool of law. It'll will always be social engineering as God has changed his mind about what marriages are acceptable and his stance on slavery may not be popular with segments of the American population, native and imported. That said, our young species will find other stupid shit to kill each other over, usurp power over free humans when attainable, and seek to exterminate it's competitors like any good acolyte of the current Manifest Destiny du jour.
-
Peter, right now, somewhere in Alaska a young boy is growing up. And in 50 years he will remember that when he was young prices were reasonable, politicians were noble and children respected their elders. And he'll think, if only we could get back to the turn of the century everything would be better.
I think you are describing ordinary nostalgia.
Certainly possible Bill, but who would argue that America has not dramatically changed in the last 50 years. I remember when we didn't lock our doors and we did leave the keys in the ignition so we wouldn't lose them. I remember when people felt comfortable offering a ride to hitchhikers who were complete strangers. I remember when you could let your kids play anywhere they wanted and only told them to be home before dark. I remember when a public education meant something. I remember when a gallon of gasoline cost 35 cents and milk wasn't much more. I remember when we had milkmen that delivered the daily supply of milk, cream and butter directly to the house.
I remember when doctors made house calls to my grandparents. I remember when kids were seen but not heard. I remember when prime time TV had wholesome shows with moral messages. I remember when anyone with just about any job could support their wife and children by themself. I remember when Americans had a common culture, even those from other lands that bound us together as one nation under God. I remember before America lost it's innocence.
Nostalgic for sure, but it is the reality that I grew up in much the same manner that my father and his father before him, but my children had a much more constrained childhood than anything I experienced. We used to talk about the generation gap of the 1960's and 1970's, but in reality, my brothers and I can speak of experiences that were in many ways identical to my father's generation. I truly don't believe my children can say the same. Is that simply nostalgia, or have times truly changed?
-
And as far as "true" Christianity where people are informed of Jesus Christ, then left to their own decisions, independently... Not so much. IF this was such an easy thing to asses, and I don't mean to pick on Christianity, Islam and Judaism also apply.
This schisms occur frequently. Jesus was a Jew, but his followers are Christians and have WHOLE separate story from the Jews, in the sense of Messiah, and suddenly a personalize family to worship with the Catholics and the Saints all from Heaven down to Hell and back to Heaven again. Tzaddikim in Judaism, but I don't see candles and worship idols plastered with pictures of the Tzaddikim in Jewish Supply shops.
If these messages were so simple to take individually, then why all the different sects and splits over the DIVINE Scripture. Either it is or isn't. Protestants and Catholics have been blowing each other up for a while, That whole Moorish/Christian thing some centuries ago, and then of course the Anglican Church that was built on murder and theft by a big hairy royal.
Once again, this applies to any Abrahamic faith, but it's in Eastern religions as well.
Where is the truth derived that anyone can accept in any faith? A charismatic smooth talking personality? But couldn't that be the Anti-Christ? A rigorous old time self-flogger? But that's too extreme, so we take it down a notch. Do we compromise faith like horrid pop songs to appeal to the masses or are our religions meant to be rigid and not bendable from Old Testament law. So God changed his mind after and made a New Covenant. Convenient, eh?
I should really get to bed... 5am comes early.
-
I think it's simply a combination of information no longer being unavailable. We know things instantly with the internet. We can expose ourselves to limitless stimuli that we would have taken years or even a lifetime to achieve. Culture, literature, porn, music, ideas, theories... Everything is available. Call it a quickening, but times haven't changed. We just know more than we did and we have brushed aside the old mysteries and have now sought after new ones. These may all be brass rings, but these are the goals as a society we seek.
We have grown in knowledge, but become more shallow in our thinking. That's my honest summation of the last 30 years.
-
Peter, right now, somewhere in Alaska a young boy is growing up. And in 50 years he will remember that when he was young prices were reasonable, politicians were noble and children respected their elders. And he'll think, if only we could get back to the turn of the century everything would be better.
I think you are describing ordinary nostalgia.
Certainly possible Bill, but who would argue that America has not dramatically changed in the last 50 years. I remember when we didn't lock our doors and we did leave the keys in the ignition so we wouldn't lose them. I remember when people felt comfortable offering a ride to hitchhikers who were complete strangers. I remember when you could let your kids play anywhere they wanted and only told them to be home before dark. I remember when a public education meant something. I remember when a gallon of gasoline cost 35 cents and milk wasn't much more. I remember when we had milkmen that delivered the daily supply of milk, cream and butter directly to the house.
I remember when doctors made house calls to my grandparents. I remember when kids were seen but not heard. I remember when prime time TV had wholesome shows with moral messages. I remember when anyone with just about any job could support their wife and children by themself. I remember when Americans had a common culture, even those from other lands that bound us together as one nation under God. I remember before America lost it's innocence.
Nostalgic for sure, but it is the reality that I grew up in much the same manner that my father and his father before him, but my children had a much more constrained childhood than anything I experienced. We used to talk about the generation gap of the 1960's and 1970's, but in reality, my brothers and I can speak of experiences that were in many ways identical to my father's generation. I truly don't believe my children can say the same. Is that simply nostalgia, or have times truly changed?
Hello, Hemodoc, I don’t know about my father or grandfather,
but I remember my own childhood—years very well,
and they were not that much different from yours.
Perhaps your thoughts are not nostalgic as such, but times have truly changed.
I had access to watch TV as a child and teenager – and it did me no harm;
I would not even think of having any TV now.
I also remember a common culture with Concerts, Museums, Education, etc.
but I would not like to go to any School, College or University now.
I also avoid Concerts because whenever they perform any Bach
I would have to put-up with modern tooth-ache-symphonies as an extra;
so I have to very careful how I choose which Concerts to go to,
which leaves me with very, very few to choose from.
I was also brought up to believe WWII put an end to all wars
but there have been wars going on all over the world almost every day of the week.
I agree with what you say and I would go a bit further:
I don’t think it is only America that has lost its “innocence”,
perhaps the world as a whole has lost its “innocence” and lots of its charm.
I do regret there has been such an erosion of certain values and standards.
-
So true. We grew up with Bambi and Flipper and our kids have grown up with Amber alerts and MTV.
-
P.S. Another point I would like to make
with regard to the erosion of standards and values in our culture,
is of a subtle nature, but nevertheless important to me.
Whenever I went to a Concert “in the old days”,
the musicians and conductors were performing to the best of their ability;
they played with their heart and their soul and were able to convey this to the listener,
and the audience felt something from listening to the music:
it was “food for the soul”; it was enhancing, it was beautiful and harmonious.
This rarely happens today because it seems many musicians
are just “doing a job”, in a very technical, repetitive way,
and thereby they do not convey any spark or deep feeling for a composition
and the audience has no chance to feel anything at all.
These days often a good technique is conveyed to the audience, but hardly anything else.
This continuous erosion of former high standards and values is very sad.
-
P.S. Another point I would like to make
with regard to the erosion of standards and values in our culture,
is of a subtle nature, but nevertheless important to me.
Whenever I went to a Concert “in the old days”,
the musicians and conductors were performing to the best of their ability;
they played with their heart and their soul and were able to convey this to the listener,
and the audience felt something from listening to the music:
it was “food for the soul”; it was enhancing, it was beautiful and harmonious.
This rarely happens today because it seems many musicians
are just “doing a job”, in a very technical, repetitive way,
and thereby they do not convey any spark or deep feeling for a composition
and the audience has no chance to feel anything at all.
These days often a good technique is conveyed to the audience, but hardly anything else.
This continuous erosion of former high standards and values is very sad.
That could all be summed up as a loss of the innocence of this nation to appreciate simple joys such as a sunset and just sitting around the table with family and friends as well as the loss of virtue. It is very sad indeed and not the America I remember nor that of my father or grandfather.
-
Another point of great change has been
how administrative staff of organizations deal with the public,
whatever the organization, and whatever level in the organization:
all employees seem to be tightly bound by a contract.
However simple or complicated their contract is,
employees strictly follow the rules laid down,
and there does not seem to exist, anymore,
a freedom of thought and discretion
or the following of a logical path.
People seem to have become machines
to tick boxes and follow procedures
and anyone who slightly falls outside
of what they determine fits the model
falls through the net "into the abyss".
-
I myself am a deist; I am absolutely certain that there is a creator(s), but I am equally certain that, as the old quotation goes, "God hates religion". As was mentioned earlier on this topic, most of our American founding fathers were deists as well. I think this was for the best, though, and has given rise to a better society for it. There have been many great Americans who have held similar views, and they are the ones who have guided the country with the most wisdom.
The influence of religion on politics is and always has been a very dangerous thing, being based as it is on complete irrationality. Abraham Lincoln stated to a fellow attorney, Newton Bateman, that "Mr. Bateman, here are 23 ministers of different denominations, and all of them are against me but 3, and here are a great many prominent members of the churches, a very large majority of whom are against me. Mr. B., I am not a Christian, God knows I would be one, but I have carefully read the Bible, and I do not understand this book (drawing from his coat pocket a Bible). These men well know I am for freedom in the territories - freedom everywhere as far as the Constitution and laws will permit, and my oppponents are for slavery. They know this and yet with this book in their hands, in the light of which human bondage cannot live a moment, they are going to vote against me. I do not underatand it at all."
Similarly, Mark twain recognized the pernicious influence that religion always has on society, when he wrote, "Concentration of power in a political machine is bad; and an established church is only a political machine; it was invented for that; it is nursed, cradled, preserved for that; it is an enemy to human liberty, and does no good which it could not better do in a split-up and scattered condition." In another quotation, similarly noting the manipulative and destructive power of religion, he also stated, "Let me make the superstitions of a nation and I care not who makes it laws or its songs either." And further, "If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be - a Christian."
James Madison, when drafting the Constitution was aware of the tyranny of the majority that he had witnessed in Pennslyvania a few years earlier. The first thing the Pennsylvania legislature did when given the opportunity was to vote in laws oppressing the unpopular Quakers, in the same way the puritans burned witches, or the Anglicans burned Catholics, and the Catholics burned Jews, and that's leaving out, for reasons of good taste, the crusades and the inquisition. And don't even get started on the suppression of science and human advancement. Galileo got his apology about 400 years too late for what was done to him. And how can it be that in the year 2011, we're actually debating evolution; something that most rational people thought had been well settled for the last 90 years? Now we have states mandating the teaching of this absurd ancient middle eastern tale as to how the universe was created. It is only by luck of the draw that the ancient Hindu, Mayan or Egyptian version is not being taught in biology classes in Louisiana today. Again, quoting Twain, "If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him."
As to the more general question of whether we have ever been "Christian" as a nation (depending on how one wishes to define it), the 1796 Treaty with Tripoly directly states that, "The governement of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christaian religion." That, in addition to the 1st amendment directly stating that there shall be no laws establishing a religion, should settle the question. Good sense was the reason.
-
Dear supporter,
Not sure why we are talking about evolution and bashing the Christian creation story in this thread, but so be it. By the way, I fully believe the creation story as written and I have grave questions about the religion called evolution. The trouble is folks believe it is science but in reality, much is based on beliefs and faith in those beliefs that are not observable or provable. If you haven't reviewed it recently, science doesn't have a clue how the universe was created, where all of this matter came from, how life on earth started nor how any creatures evolved into other creatures. Lot's of theories that are largely based on speculation instead of hard evidence. In any case, not to start a discussion on evolution, but you did bring it up.
As far as the Treaty of Tripoli, America in the constitution under the Federalist system rejected both a monarchy and a theocracy as the form of government and in that regard, it is true that America is not a "Christian" nation in the sense of a theocracy. No one has made that contention. On the other hand, to deny the influence of the Christian population that made up America at that time, nor the history of Christian theocracies we now call the original colonies, some of whom stated that the Bible was their governing document belies the myth that America has always been a secular nation. Our secular tendencies as the predominate philosophy of the majority of the American population only took off in earnest in the 50's and 60's especially, prior to that the majority professed Christianity.
In addition, in a prior post, I detailed four Supreme Court rulings up until 1931 that at the level of SCOTUS Declared America was a Christian nation in our institutions.
1931, U.S. v. MacIntosh 283 U.S. 605
We are a Christian people (Holy Trinity Church v. United States. 143 U.S. 457, 470 , 471 S., 12 S. Ct. 511), according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God. But, also, we are a nation with the duty to survive; a nation whose Constitution contemplates war as well as peace; whose government must go forward upon the assumption, and safely can proceed upon no other, that unqualified allegiance to the nation and submission and obedience to the laws of the land, as well those made for war as those made for peace, are not inconsistent with the will of God.
http://www.firstprinciplespress.org/American_History_Restoration_Project_Archive_files/Christian%20Nation%20supreme%20Court%20citations.pdf
In addition, you are completely overlooking the fact that the 1st amendment when written applied only to the US Federal government as far as not establishing a Federally endorsed or established religion as the marriage of state and religion in Europe at that time. However, many of the original states and some that were later added had oaths of office that proclaimed belief in the Bible and in God with Jesus as their personal saviour. The US federal constitution of 1789 did not in any manner prohibit this activity. It is only since the 14th amendment and incorporation to the state and local level that these oaths became unconstitutional.
MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTIONS
1780; (1822); 1853
CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS-------1780
CHAPTER VI
ARTICLE I. Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:
I _______, do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seized and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution, as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected.
Yes, deists existed, but if you look at the language of their writings, they did not openly declare a division with the Christian religion BECAUSE their constituents were overwhelmingly Christian in belief. It would have been political suicide for anyone to openly oppose Christianity in the manner that politicians do today because America was a Christian nation up until the latter half of the 20th century. Once again, no amount of historical revisionism will change these points.
I would further add that the so called "deists" among the founding fathers were predominantly Masonic in their beliefs and soon after the turn of the century, the most powerful influence in American politics was the Masons. This lead to the anti-mason party of John Quincy Adams, America's first third part. The masonic influence in American politics remains strong today. While in the Army, a friend of mine became acquainted with one of the JAG officers who had aspirations to enter into politics after leaving the Army. Despite my friend advising him against entering the masons, he did to further his ability to enter a political career.
In addition, in 1993 Strom Thurman rededicated the laying of the corner stone in the 200th anniversary of that event:
http://watch.pair.com/mason.html#architecture
Yes, deists existed among the founding fathers, but that does not obviate the fact that America was founded as Christian colonies that later became a Christian nation. We have moved far away from our firm foundations.
Lastly, American law is overwhelmingly based on the English Common Law which has it's roots in Christianity. In many ways, the common law coded in a secular format God's laws. Turn to Blackstone's commentaries on the common law as proof of that statement. There are many historical documents to prove the Christian nation that America once was. I would not now call us a Christian nation any longer. America has unfortunately rejected the God that gave us our blessings and we are now reaping the rewards of that decision. It saddens me to see so many people openly disparage the God of the Bible, but that is the America of today. It was not the America of 1789.
-
"America has unfortunately rejected the God that gave us our blessings and we are now reaping the rewards of that decision. It saddens me to see so many people openly disparage the God of the Bible, but that is the America of today. It was not the America of 1789."
These are very sweeping statements, and I dispute their veracity.
How many people openly disparage the God of the Bible? What people openly disparage is the way that some people trumpet their faith and look disparagingly upon people who do not practice the same way. Can you describe exactly how America has rejected God? I certainly do not want to live in the America of 1789 because at that time, slavery and misogyny were the orders of the day.
It saddens me that you see the 1950's as some sort of misty, innocent time. If you were female or if you were an American of color, I don't think you'd have the same view. Surely you don't believe that your nostalgia is shared by everyone. Today I read a story about a 71 year old African American woman who visited her favorite Chicago beach for the first time since the 1950's. Back then, she was a young participant in the NAACP who held a "wade-in" to protest the fact that because of her color, she was not allowed on the beach. Even now, she reluctantly visited because it brought back such bad memories. She is a woman of faith, but that faith did not innoculate her against the evils of racism, surely an anti-Christian sentiment.
But I do agree that while many Americans fight to bring equality to all people, there are a large number who seek to abdicate their Christian duty to make sure that no American goes hungry or goes without health care. Jesus Christ was an advocate for the poor and the sick, but we have people up in Washington who are eager to cut services to fellow Americans who need them. We no longer value our teachers, our policemen or the people who keep us safe in our neighborhoods, electing instead to make them out as greedy spendthrifts. We don't want to pay enough taxes to provide a good living wage to these people but think nothing of paying loads of money on football tickets or jerseys so that we can be entertained by high-priced athletes who earn millions because they can throw a football 30 yards or catch same pigskin. I wonder how many white "Christians" care all that much about the poor housing, poor health care and poor education provided for people who have more color in their skin. So yeah, maybe you're right after all. We don't care that much about our fellow man who we perceive to be somehow "other". We too easily forget that God created all men equal (oh, and that doesn't seem to include women).
And you are simply wrong to so cavalierly dismiss the hard evidence that points to evolutionary theory. Why do you believe the creation story as written? I thought you, a doctor, were a man of science, so why do you close your eyes to whichever bit of scientific knowledge you deem to go against your "faith"? Questioning the Creation story isn't "bashing" it. The more you know about science and the more you learn about evolutionary theory and the evidence that supports it, the more miraculous the Creation actually becomes. And it is not true that "science doesn't have a clue" how the universe was created...that's just a blatant untruth. You may not agree with the evidence because you may not understand it, but that doesn't mean science "doesn't have a clue".
-
PS, Hemodoc...when are you going to start blogging again? I visit your blog most days and am always eager for your newest entry. Get writing!! I miss it!
-
PPS...I, too, detect an erosion of civility and "virtue" (although I'd like to hear your more exacting definition of this), but I personally don't believe that it stems from a blatant rejection of God. I believe it comes with the internet age. I believe that communication with computers/internet/email/twitter, etc, magnifies what is already in us. If we are giving, loving and empathetic people, then it is easer to spread those qualities to those you meet online. But if you are mean spirited, it is so much easier to treat people harshly, hiding behind a computer screen, and you will simply become even meaner spirited and harsher. It is getting harder and harder to have civilized conversations with people online, and since that is how we communicate these days, the uncivilized behaviour becomes more difficult to ignore and escape.
A lot of us would like to live in a "simpler time", but I don't know if any time was "simple". Maybe there WAS a simple time or even a belle epoque for those who had health and money and connections, but I think a lot of people suffered just as they are still suffering. I am not theologian, but in my simple mind, there is a vast difference between religion and faith. Religion seems to me to be a manmade construct, thus suffering the indignities and farces that come from the imperfection of humans. Religion is too often used as a tool for power and domination and control. I have to wonder what Jesus Christ would make of the excesses of Rome. Faith, however, is between a person and God. To take faith and control it and twist it through organized, named "religion" seems to go against God. As cariad pointed out, there is too often a gap between "religious" and "moral".
-
Dear Moosemom,
The question is whether America ever was a Christian nation not whether it ever was or ever will be a perfect nation. What was America in 1789 if it was never, never a Christian nation as I believe you stated earlier?
Secondly, how did the universe come into existence? How did life evolve on earth? Where did all the matter come from?
If you take the time to explore just those three questions and mnay others, you encounter a big fat, I don't know, but we BELIEVE it could have been xyz. Evolution is not science, it is a religion since it is entirely based on the faith in evolution. Oh yes, we can measure rates of Carbon decay and all sorts of neat scientific measurements, the the most basic questions of evolutionary theory remain remarkably unanswered and to date, unanswerable. Darwin's theory of slow gradual changes is NOT supported in the geological record, giving birth to the many neo-Darwin theories of evolution, most of which disagree with each other. The only place where Darwinian evolution is still alive in our public school system, science has soundly rejected slow gradual evolution.
The only observable evidence seen to date is what we would call micro-evolutionary changes within a single kind of organism, we have never observed macro-evolution where one kind of animal changes into another kind of animal. Micro-evolution is better noted simply as variations within the kind of animal.
Reading books on evolution is something I have done many times over and they are filled speculations at every juncture. The most amazing molecule in all of "nature" is easily in my opinion DNA because it is the most information dense material in the entire known universe. No human invention comes anywhere near what God has placed in this self replicating, self repairing molecule. DNA contains information in a coded package that is actually a language of it's own. That is issue that most evolutionists completely ignore and deny, DNA contains language that determines whether your eyes are blue, green or brown. To BELIEVE that DNA could have simply come together by chance alone defies rational logic in my opinion to create life as we know it. When you look further, you realize that all of those little organelles inside of cells are actually complex machines further to that, just about all of the bodies functions is tiny, tiny molecular machines of incredible complexity, all regulated by the language of DNA. Looking at all of the evidence from science for evolution vs the God of the Bible, it all adds up in my mind to absolutely no chance of the truth of evolutionary thinking. Just my own opinion, but science has no answers when you really break down some basic evolutionary questions.
If folks wish to start their own thread on this issue, no problem, but back to the church and state issue, all you need to answer is why did the 1st amendment have no power whatsoever over the Christian oaths of office in many, many states until it was incorporated into the 14th amendment?
Secondly, if we were not a Christian nation as so many folks wrongly assert, why did we have all of those requirements of a religious tests by the Christian oath of office in all of those states. If we were not a Christian nation, what were we in 1789?
In addition, who ever said that the Bible is anti-science.
-
I agree with Moosemom there is a difference between religion and faith...
-
So we were a Nation of Christians that happily brought slaves to serve our economic engine because it was the Christian thing to do? Is it a Christian idea to hold our fellow man as 2/5 less than ourselves? I think you get where I am going with this.
But the notion that evolution is a religion is absurd. Macroevolution has been proven time and time again. Microevolution happens on a scale that we can't observe because our lifespan is too short to observe. There is no order to evolution, it is anarchic and random in the very definition of the words. I'm likely not going to convince you otherwise, but I put more trust in the cosmos than my fellow man. I find that sad, but we seek some overlying purpose when there doesn't seem to be one. We, as a species, have issues with accepting what everything simply is.
-
I agree with Moosemom there is a difference between religion and faith...
No doubt, that is exactly the lesson from Jesus many times over teaching against the religious scribes and pharisees and instead speaking of true faith which comes from the heart.
Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
-
So we were a Nation of Christians that happily brought slaves to serve our economic engine because it was the Christian thing to do? Is it a Christian idea to hold our fellow man as 2/5 less than ourselves? I think you get where I am going with this.
But the notion that evolution is a religion is absurd. Macroevolution has been proven time and time again. Microevolution happens on a scale that we can't observe because our lifespan is too short to observe. There is no order to evolution, it is anarchic and random in the very definition of the words. I'm likely not going to convince you otherwise, but I put more trust in the cosmos than my fellow man. I find that sad, but we seek some overlying purpose when there doesn't seem to be one. We, as a species, have issues with accepting what everything simply is.
The historical references to America as a Christian nation are replete. The issue of slavery is one that does tie into the comment above about true faith and religion. If you are willing to spend some time going back to the writings from people of that time, you will find that there was a great conflict among those that recognized the evil of slavery and supported abolitionist movements. You must remember that abolitionists in the south were hunted and punished as criminals in the south, yet thousands did so at their own risk. America did go through an a turbulent overthrow of this evil system in the civil war. The power of greed and evil is one of the topics on which the Bible goes into great lengths to speak against. If you are suggesting that slavery is a Christian endeavor by your comment, I would simply state that is not at all the message of Christianity. Many things have been done in the name of religion which is proven over and over again to be nothing more than the greed and avarice of sinful men, not the teachings of Jesus Christ our Saviour who came to set all men free from the spiritual bondage of sin, the greatest slavery of all.
Here is a link with dozens of writings from the slave period which documents Christians fighting against the evil of slavery, sometimes unfortunately within the ranks of their own churches. I would point out that the abolitionists won that battle and the evil of slavery ended.
http://www.classicapologetics.com/special/slaverevolt.html
Today, there are likewise many social issues that not only divide America, but many church denominations as well such as abortion and gay rights. However, the biblical teachings on these issues are clear and concise for anyone that wishes to obey the commandments of God in loving their fellow man. Evil abounds in every generation and those with true faith are most often at odds with the religious hypocrites of each generation. Religion and true faith are a completely different entity entirely.
-
But the notion that evolution is a religion is absurd. Macroevolution has been proven time and time again. Microevolution happens on a scale that we can't observe because our lifespan is too short to observe. There is no order to evolution, it is anarchic and random in the very definition of the words. I'm likely not going to convince you otherwise, but I put more trust in the cosmos than my fellow man. I find that sad, but we seek some overlying purpose when there doesn't seem to be one. We, as a species, have issues with accepting what everything simply is.
The difficulty I have with your statement is the understanding of how our bodies are intricately woven together in a fearful and wonderful manner. You speak of evolution as anarchic and random and that is the entire issue before us if anarchy and random events could "design" life in all it's forms. Even the most simple celled creatures are complex beyond all belief defying the logic that all of these things could be by chance alone. Just looking at Hemoglobin, a molecule we are all familiar with as renal patients, the miracle of oxidative respiration and transport of both O2 and C02 by the same molecule is truly amazing. The protein components of this molecule allow the iron in Hb to bind oxygen but not as tightly as it is bound by elemental iron alone that we call rust. The protein makes the Hb iron binding a loose connection that allows Hb to bind but also release it when it delivers it to the tissues. The same molecule then binds C02 on the return trip. It does this in an amazingly complex molecular machine. I see design in this complexity. I believe it takes great faith to believe it just happened by random chance alone since we cannot replicate this in experiments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWtXthfG9_M&feature=related
Now, you asked the question on how evolution could be considered a religion and I will simply use your own words as that proof since your faith in evolution and the cosmos is based on faith, not science. Science is founded by observations and testing those observations. By your own report, we cannot observe evolution because of the time factors alleged to be involved.
Macroevolution has been proven time and time again. Microevolution happens on a scale that we can't observe because our lifespan is too short to observe. There is no order to evolution, it is anarchic and random in the very definition of the words. I'm likely not going to convince you otherwise, but I put more trust in the cosmos than my fellow man.
Let me make one correction, macroevolution, the changing of one kind of animal or organism into another kind of animal has never been observed. Microevolution, which is small changes or variations within a kind of organism has been observed. There are many kinds of cats and dogs, but dogs don't change into cats and vice versa. That is micro-evolution which is observed and macro which has NEVER been observed. If it is true, then give us just one example of macro-evolution. If you spend anytime reading Stephen J. Gould, America's darling of evolution of the 20th century, he correctly points out that the fossil record shows species that do not change at all over large amounts of time. His theory of evolution is called punctuated equilibrium, quick saltations of changes. Yet, if you look at the mechanism that that alleged saltation would occur, it defies what we know about genetic information.
By your own statement, you correctly note that you cannot observe these changes and that is the reason why evolution is NOT science, it is a religion based on the belief that these things must have happened because we have such variety of life in the world.
Science Definition: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
Further, you cannot subject any evolutionary hypothesis to the scientific method of experimentation such as fossil remains and many of the other evidences used to support the "science" of evolution. You can measure rates of decay and other issues such as this, but I know of no macro-evolution experiments. Lot's of micro-evolution experiments that are then speculated and projected to be the engine of evolution. However the most famous or infamous depending on your perspective is the fruit fly experiments where generation after generation of fruit flies were radiated causing all sorts of variations with in the fruit fly kind, yet none of these mutations were beneficial in any manner. Beneficial mutations should be quite evident if evolution is true, yet where are all of the examples?
Once again, if you spend anytime reading evolution books, they are filled with speculation filling in these gaps and not science since they cannot be observed or experimented. To believe in evolution takes faith to fill in all of those gaps since there is no way to know them from science. Unravelling your own statement, you have actually so stated that exact fact yourself. I came to the conclusion in my own life that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than the literal words written in the Bible. That was the day I became a born again believer in Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
-
GOD HAS BLESSED YOU WITH A WONDERFUL GIFT, PETER!
lmunchkin :flower;
-
And to think this all kicked off with America's "innocence".
-
And to think this all kicked off with America's "innocence".
Dear House, yes, the thread has got quite a bit off course, but the innocence I was speaking about was that of our culture in our dealings with other folks. We have become desensitized to events and things people say and do with 50 years of TV. Can you imagine the reactions of folks beamed up from the 50's to today? I would believe that they would be in a profound state of shock over ordinary speech by many people today let alone what you see just on TV commercials let alone the content of the shows themselves. That is what I meant by an innocence that we have lost as well. I personally don't believe we have gained in the last 50 years. Instead I believe we have lost many things that are very precious and cannot be found again. That is the essence of innocence.
-
:bow; to all of you for keeping this intense discussion civil!
My :twocents;...
Who's innocence do you think got lost here? Upper class females? I'd lay money on the fact that lower income people, especially those who weren't white, could get shifted forward in time and not be the least bit shocked by the language, the trashy behavior towards females, or the disrespect shown to other people. They might be shocked that blacks can do it in public now without getting lynched for it, but the behavior isn't anything new. Trash talk and disrespect were certainly common - they just were focused on a narrower segment of our population.
-
Hemodoc, I suspect that you and I are talking at cross-purposes because even though it appears we disagree, I'm not sure we actually do.
You can quote all sorts of historical facts that establish America historically as a Christian nation, and I won't dispute that, but if it is indeed true, then our hypocrisy is legion. We may have called ourselves a Christian nation, but we did not behave in what we define as a Christian manner. To preach the word of God on Sunday but whip a slave on Monday seems to me to refute the notion that we were a Christian nation; that's what I mean when I claim that our history doesn't show that we were ever Christian, ie, following the teachings of Christ. But this is a semantic argument. I am not interested so much in historical labels as I am in the morality of our forebears as they crossed the plains and headed for the Pacific coast.
I understand that evolution is a theory, but I find it infinitely more engrossing and miraculous than the story of Adam and Eve. I agree with you absolutely that when you really study the science behind life, behind DNA and hemoglobin, for instance, there is more reason than ever to suspect that perhaps there was a Creator. I personally believe that the creation of the universe and of the intricacies of life on earth was so far beyond human understanding in biblical times that the story of Genesis is just that...a story. Why could not a Creator/God design the evolution of man? I'm not sure it is true that there is NO science backing the story of evolution. Human skeletons have been found that seem to indicate that men 100,000 years ago did not look like men of 2011, that there has been there has been extensive physical and cultural evolution. Can't this be part of God's plan?
And I agree that we don't know what caused the universe to be formed in the first place. Maybe God provided that first spark, The Big Bang. I don't know; God hasn't told me. I guess you would counter with the argument that it is all in the Bible. Well, the Bible is thousands of years old, the Old Testament older still, and I'm not sure that if God were to announce that He designed the miracle that is DNA, anyone from those ancient times would understand that story.
I am still not terribly sure what you mean by "becoming a born again believer of Jesus Christ of Nazareth." Would you mind explaining? How are you different from what you were before? That's a serious question; I'm not trying to be a smart aleck. I think I might understand your posts more fully if I understood more about how you are defining yourself.
I like it when conversations like these go off course a bit; I find them intensely interesting.
I am also wondering if HOD and you are using different definitions of "innocence". I do see your discomfort at the coarsening/desensitization of our culture, particularly when dealing with other people, and I agree. I wonder if our parents felt the same. But I am not sure that is a function of any secularization. It's odd; we are fighting to make this a more fair and equal society, but at the same time, we treat each other individually with such harshness. Go and read the comments on any political blog or website (or any online edition of a newspaper), and the vitriol is astonishing. When we enslaved and butchered people for financial gain, that certainly wasn't "innocence" despite it being 150 years ago. And the general lack of respect we show each other today (and it is getting worse) certainly doesn't speak to any "innocence", either.
We have gained a lot but have lost a lot, too, in the past 50 years.
-
:bow; to all of you for keeping this intense discussion civil!
Any other kind of discussion is dull. If you can't share conflicting ideas without getting into a shouting match, then you don't really have much to share in the first place. Besides, you can't listen well if everyone is shouting.
-
I'll get back to the offshoots of evolution in a bit, but this notion that our Nation was innocent seems highly romanticized to me.
I'm still a young pup of 34 years and I sense a quickening in realization of the world around us, but that's mainly due to the increase in reception and transmission of information, wants and desires, and everything else.
The access and prolific distribution of information as escalated exponentially. I firmly believe there hasn't been a further decline in our species, we just simply have access to more things happening then we did before. But I WILL WHOLEHEARTEDLY endorse the poverty of our language has plummeted sharply in the past 20 years. Lingo and slang is one thing, but to see so many young people right on up to elderly who can't articulate their thoughts and express them clearly and coherently is truly nauseating to me. I can read back when Presidents took their speeches seriously and put thought into them and not just to score bragging rights about how many shots over the bow could be fired. I do remember when kids actually used ma'am and sir willingly and not have to be reminded.
Language is a big link for us all, but lot of us, especially Americans, have decided to side step language and go right to the fearlessness and idiot level (literally, idiot) speaking of texting grammatical rules, which there are none. They have forsaken language. Only two other things make us a people, Borders and Customs. One down, only two left, and that's pushing it.
-
:bow; to all of you for keeping this intense discussion civil!
My :twocents;...
Who's innocence do you think got lost here? Upper class females? I'd lay money on the fact that lower income people, especially those who weren't white, could get shifted forward in time and not be the least bit shocked by the language, the trashy behavior towards females, or the disrespect shown to other people. They might be shocked that blacks can do it in public now without getting lynched for it, but the behavior isn't anything new. Trash talk and disrespect were certainly common - they just were focused on a narrower segment of our population.
Dear Jbeany,
I didn't grow up with a golden spoon in my mouth at all. During my childhood starting in the late 50's, people of color, white or red, rich or poor in general treated each with respect and civility. In my grandmother's generation, she never called her next door neighbor by her first name even though they knew each other most of their lives. My mother was a virgin when she married my father at the age of 21 even though she had quite a few boy friends along the way. Certainly my generation didn't invent sex, nor did my mother's generation not have those few that bucked societies norms. Today, the peer pressure to have a child before leaving high school is intense and accepted by this generation. Yes, America has lost a civility and an innocence that shall not be attained again. Amber alerts for child abduction are a near daily occurrence when they were almost never heard of or even contemplated when I was growing up as a child going wherever we pleased even at a very young age with absolutely no parental supervision. In Nome Alaska, we took 10 mile or more bike rides into the middle of the tundra hunting and fishing and playing. We went ice skating, skiing, sledding all over the area only making sure we came home before dark.
Without getting into all of the social problems today and of time past, who would dare let their kids do any of the things we did as children only one generation ago. I believe I am correct in stating that is a loss of our national innocence as a culture. Is the inequality of the KKK, and other issues lost to that idea and sense that America is no longer the safe nation it once was due to many factors? My goodness, such discord over such a simple statement. Yes, we have lost that innocence that folks growing up in the last 30 years have no clue to what I am talking about. But I can readily state that those 50 and over know exactly what I am talking about. I would never let my children or grand children do the things we did as kids. If that is not loss of innocence, please tell me what it is?
-
It's also a matter of population increasing, those mores and taboos that come with those persons making their start in America, etc. Shaken, not stirred.
-
Today, the peer pressure to have a child before leaving high school is intense and accepted by this generation.
Do you have any school age children? No, it is not.
-
Peter, I can't see anything in your alternative world that is really attributable to Supreme Court cases in '60s. Miranda rights? Life begins at viability? Mapp's effect on evidence? I think the more interesting alternate history is to imagine the change were it to happen in 1790. I'm not too sure how we should change the First Amendment - what words to suggest in their place and I think you imagine a country where the Constitution does not constrain action at the State level which would have more profound effects on our history than just eliminating the separation of Church and State.
So I won't try and come up with any specific changes to the language I'll just say that from the beginning our Constitution allowed the enforcement of religious practices via civil and criminal laws. So small things would have changed - a tradition of no labor on Sunday maybe would have been supported by laws strictly limiting what could be done on a Sunday (more than there was). But bigger things would have changed too. If each state established a separate religious identity what would have that meant throughout our history? For instance one can imagine that the Mexican American War might have become animated by religious differences. Perhaps an anti-catholic American administration would have pressed the war and conquered Mexico leaving an American version of the Raj south of the boarder.
In general, I think alternate history America would be less welcoming to immigrants not from northern Europe. Certainly the anti catholic biases of America in its first 100 (or 150 years) would have manifest in allowing much less immigration from Ireland and Italy. In general the Catholic church would play a much diminished role in alternate history America. Instead the Baptist Church and evangelical revival style religion would like be even more dominate through out the 1800s. Would there have been a Civil War? I don't think we can work it out entirely but I think it is likely that a smaller more traditional America would have compromised by extending slavery to the western territories below some latitude. I think this is the sort of thing that would arise out states having stronger separate identities.
I think the alternate history America would enter the 20th century quite different from the America we know. Would the Write brothers exist in the alternate history America? Would Edison? Or Ford? To what extent does freedom from state supported religion lead to, or allow to flourish, the creative genus that has fueled America's success? In general it seems like what supporters of a church state blend imagine is that we would have a more conservative, traditional culture. But with that value would come an inclination to interfere with the creative distruction that is a critical feature in the history of today's America's success.
I don't think we could have some sort of march to progress right up to 1955. Everything stays the same only Eisenhower declares an end to History My fellow Americans we have reached our destination. We no longer need to progress; let's just keep things as they are. And the states quickly ratify Ike's proposal and amend the Constitution.
When I think about growing up in the '50s and '60s vs. today, I'd say one big difference with far reaching effects is the decline of unions. I think church attendance has stayed about the same but union membership has declined along with financial security for millions of families. In general how would today's social issues turn out in alternate history America?
I think across the world unions and churches are usually allies, so I'd think this alternate history America would not be some libertarian paradise. Churches of any faith are perfectly willing to involve themselves in your life so to some degree alternate history America would feature more government involvement in the economy and it would likely feature a stronger social safety net. Women's rights history, from suffrage to reproductive rights to labor and education access would not have unfolded as it has, which I assume is a feature and not a bug to those who would want a church state blend.
If America had allowed church and state to blend we would have a very different history of the last 220 years. Maybe, a believer would say that the factor I am missing is the favor of God but I thought we already had that - I thought the North had it. I thought the guys who ran ashore on Omaha Beach had it. Didn't America under Reagan have it?
I'm saying today, in the America we know, we're fine. We face fewer immediate challenges than any generation who have come before us. And we have a better awareness of our mid and long term challenges than any previous generation. The average American today has more personal freedom than any previous average American because people are wealthier. Poverty is enslaving, wealth lets you be your own man. We are a wealthier country today than we were at any time during the previous centuries. We're just a less equitable country but that is by choice.
I'm curious Peter. What in your view would be different about our society if your understanding of the First Amendment was the basis for our society and laws?
In other words given a counter factual history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_history) of your choice - maybe starting in 1961 to keep it simpler or 1790 if you like - what would I notice in 2011 in that counter factual world that is different from the world out my window?
Dear Bill,
If the Supreme Court rulings of the 1960's had not occurred, that is an interesting question obviously which would only be speculation on anyone's part. I not only believe in the Bible, but I also believe in Bible prophecy which lists many of the outcomes 2000 years after Christ's first advent. (I do have scriptures that support the 2000 year period, but I will forego that discussion since this is mainly a secular website, but it is tolerant of Christian views to its credit.) So, while I firmly believe that the events that have happened were ordained by God's foreknowledge, it is an interesting speculation nevertheless.
Let me bite, I believe that those that honor God receive His blessings. With so many bumper stickers stating God Bless America, I suspect many folks feel likewise. I readily understand God's hand in my own life and the Bible records the historical blessings to a people that will obey His commandments. In such, are there agonies and pains and travails that this nation has undergone in the last 50 years that God would have avoided? Our Christian faith would say yes and that is our hope for this nation once again. However, Christianity is not a religion of coercion, God gave us free will and folks get to make their own choices.
To answer specifically, I suspect America would look a lot more like the 1950's, hopefully without all of the racial inequalities that existed at that time, but where people respected those that looked out for them whether a politician, policeman, fireman or even us disparaged doctors. The world today is one where respect of other people has been shredded, most especially with respect to life itself. Was it perfect in the 1950's? Absolutely not, but I remember well growing up in Alaska which remained isolated from the turmoil of the 1960's found in many American cities and it is indeed one of the most cherished times of my life. The Alaska of the 1960's had a true frontier spirit alive and well which remains in many places in Alaska today. It may be a poor analogy to America in old times, but I do believe it represents the unique American experience that spread across the nation from coast to coast. Divorce rates were lower, families had a mother and father and usually a large number of children that actually spent time together. Those that would not profess Christianity nevertheless shared many uniform "Christian" principles that were the fabric of our American society. Sounds like Richie and Fonzie would come around the corner in such a time, but truly, America has lost an innocence that shall never be regained.
I believe many folks would readily go back to those days if possible. Unfortunately, we cannot turn back the clock, but it was fun thinking about it for a little bit.
-
Bill, I have never advocated nor will I advocate for merging church and state as you have implied. Separation of church and state has served america well, but today we have a much different interpretation of what it means to this nation. Today, it essentially means freedom from religion instead of freedom of religion. It is simple fact that the 1st amendment was limitation upon the federal government and not the state or local municipalities. The incorporation of the 1st amendment into the 14th was when that changed.
I firmly believe in states rights as did the founding fathers. Please note the 10th amendment, perhaps the most ignored amendment we have.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The thread has migrated quite a bit. My contentions by the historical documents including several state constitutions, several Supreme court rulings are that America was at one time a Christian nation. I have never ventured at any time that we were a theocracy and I do support the separation of church and state as originally intended by the founding fathers. The current interpretation in my opinion does not line up with that intent, but I am not a Supreme Court judge so my opinion doesn't matter much in the course of events. Nevertheless, if you follow the historical cases from our earliest days, the current interpretation is a reversal of several earlier rulings. So be it, that is the world we live in today.
As far a purchasing power and wealth, we are on the verge of the next generation not doing as well as ours. We do have a lot of neat toys here in America, but the trends are not good at all at this time. But sticking to the church and state issue, going back to the reason for the 1st amendment is a study in European history and the dangers of church and state upon the freedom of religion. England has the church of England, and many Catholic nations were ruled in concert with the Vatican. Need I go into the story of King Henry VIII?
Here is an excellent essay summarizing the issue in the historical context:
Separation of Church and State - Summary of Fact Vs. Deception
The current implied meaning of the "Separation of Church and State" metaphor and its use is just the opposite of what was intended and what historical facts justify. Our framers feared a state denominational church based upon European history. The constitutional restrictions were targeted at our government to prevent it from making a denominational religion the state church. We actually embraced the Christian Theism doctrinal religion as the state religion. Now we are rejecting any expression or symbol of our doctrinal religion, which our framers embraced. We are treating the doctrinal religion of our heritage like a virus that must be expunged from the public square. We also have inverted the original intent of the "Separation of Church and State" metaphor. The oppression that the Christian Theism religion is now undergoing through the ACLU and activist judges is the same evil that the establishment clause in our constitution was intended to prevent. Our current state religion of humanism is using the full power of the government to oppress the nonconformists to its doctrine, which is exactly the opposite doctrine of Christian Theism.
http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm
http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state-2.htm
-
Bill, I would add one more historical fact. Rhode Island under Roger Williams, the person who organized the first Baptist church in America is also the father of separation of church and state in America, a fact little known and glossed over in today's discussions. It was meant as a protection of the church from the state, not the state from the church.
Along with some followers, the Williams's traveled into the Narragansett territory to the south of Massachusetts. Here he purchased land from the Indians and founded Providence, Rhode Island. In 1638, Roger Williams organized the first Baptist church in North America. The destinctinves of baptism by immersion for believers only and separation of church and state were included in the church's doctrinal statement.
http://www.allaboutbaptists.com/history_Roger_Williams.html
-
I think this is crux of it - We are treating the doctrinal religion of our heritage like a virus that must be expunged from the public square.
What are the examples? In our Public Square individuals, whether elected officials or private citizens proclaim the importance of Jesus in their life regularly. The courts have held that public funding of religious nature is not allowed. It isn't the act that is not allowed, it isn't the words spoken, it's the public funding.
I am at a loss as to the importance of public funding of religious events.
-
I think this is crux of it - We are treating the doctrinal religion of our heritage like a virus that must be expunged from the public square.
What are the examples? In our Public Square individuals, whether elected officials or private citizens proclaim the importance of Jesus in their life regularly. The courts have held that public funding of religious nature is not allowed. It isn't the act that is not allowed, it isn't the words spoken, it's the public funding.
I am at a loss as to the importance of public funding of religious events.
Dear Bill, who is asking for public funding of church activities. The Bible speaks against this in more than one place. In addition, the article never mentioned anywhere public funding. Those that follow the Bible understand that Jesus wishes His church to be supported by His followers only.
III John 7 Because that for his name's sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles.
I actually looked at the Bush faith based organizations getting Federal money as a dangerous precedent and erosion of our constitutional protections. He who has the gold rules. Many churches refused these funds based on Bible teachings.
On the other hand, just last month, one more case against the ten commandments came down the pike. Indeed, Christianity is being purged from the public square just as mentioned in the article above.
http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20110617/NEWS01/106170302/Mansfield-Ten-Commandments-battle-pitched-U-S-Supreme-Court?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFrontpage
-
Which Ten Commandments? Don't different faiths have different versions of the Ten Commandments? I think those passages of the Bible (Exodus 20:2–17; Deuteronomy 5:6–21) has 14 or 15 declarative statements so how those are parsed varies.
Of the ten, the first five by most counts (first four in the Catholic/Lutheran tradition) don't play a role in criminal or civil courts. Justice is blind to your moral qualities. The second five (or six) are actual crimes and their prosecution is based on existing criminal law - with the possible exception of neighbor's wife coveting. But if we assume it's nonconsensual then that's against the law. So no, I don't think any poster is appropriate in a court room, and a poster of Ten Commandments doesn't belong there.
-
Which Ten Commandments? Don't different faiths have different versions of the Ten Commandments? I think those passages of the Bible (Exodus 20:2–17; Deuteronomy 5:6–21) has 14 or 15 declarative statements so how those are parsed varies.
Of the ten, the first five by most counts (first four in the Catholic/Lutheran tradition) don't play a role in criminal or civil courts. Justice is blind to your moral qualities. The second five (or six) are actual crimes and their prosecution is based on existing criminal law - with the possible exception of neighbor's wife coveting. But if we assume it's nonconsensual then that's against the law. So no, I don't think any poster is appropriate in a court room, and a poster of Ten Commandments doesn't belong there.
Bill, the choice to be a Christian is one of the liberty to do such or not. The liberty of a nation to determine who they will call upon is also based on liberty. Those people at the start of our nation placed that choice in the hands of the God of the Bible. Today, America has chosen in so many ways to make the God of the Bible unwelcome in our institutions any longer. Historical documents record that this was not the case in 1789. Times change and choices change.
As far as the 10 commandments, I would take your statement and state that they were here first and our laws followed. Looking at the history of the English common especially from Blackstone and it becomes evident that many of the freedoms and law granting those freedoms came directly from the Bible and were codified into the English law. In fact, if you read the story of Charles Finney, the famous evangelist of the 1800's, he started his career as a lawyer and was converted to Christianity by studying Blackstones commentary on the English common law.
Charles Finney 1792-1875
American evangelist and educator. Charles Finney was born at Warren, Connecticut, but two years later his family moved to upstate New York, where he received his early education in frontier schools. As a young man, he studied law and set up practice at Adams, New York.
While reading Blackstone's Commentaries on Law, Charles Finney noted continuous references to the Holy Scriptures. Blackstone repeatedly mentioned the Bible as the highest authority. This moved Finney to buy a Bible, and he soon was reading it more than law.
http://www.firesofrevival.com/charlesfinney/
Up until the 1960's the God of the Bible was considered the highest authority in America, even by our own Supreme court. America has bravely stepped away from this and declared that man is now the highest authority in this land supplanting our dependence on the Lord God of Israel abased on our ability to reason. I firmly believe that this is a terrible mistake. The bumper stickers stating God bless America while well meant become meaningless in light of the overwhelming support of removing the God of the Bible from all American governmental institutions including our public schools. That is America's choice today, but I would suggest that there are always consequences for our choices. I believe this one is a grave error. But so be it, God gave us free will and expects us to exercise it whether we make the right or wrong choices.
-
Hemodoc, do you think that Congress today in 2011 feels that the God of the Bible is the highest authority in the land?
When you state that "America" has stepped away from God as the highest authority, who exactly do you mean?
-
Hemodoc, do you think that Congress today in 2011 feels that the God of the Bible is the highest authority in the land?
When you state that "America" has stepped away from God as the highest authority, who exactly do you mean?
America is a uniformly secular society today with pockets of Christianity while in the 1700's it was uniformly a Christian society with pockets of secularism. In our highest court of the land, the 10 commandments, the basis of the common law which makes up the fabric of our constitution is no longer allowed. I would categorically state that the Supreme court believes its authority is higher than God's in this nation. It rulings since 1961 support that opinion.
As far as congress, most of them likewise are overwhelmingly secular. Even within the GOP, the tea party who openly support God and Country are a minority within the GOP.
On the other hand, Jesus does not impose Himself upon anyone. They are free to accept or reject His offer of eternal life. I don't believe in forcing folks against their wills, nor does God. When Samuel anointed Saul as the first king of Israel, God told Samuel essentially that the people had not rejected Samuel as their leader, they had rejected God. God allowed this but did direct Samuel to warn Israel of the consequences of this choice.
I Samuel 8:5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
6 ¶ But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.
9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
10 ¶ And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
19 ¶ Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;
I believe America is now heading toward the consequences of their free choice to reject the God of the Bible. Indeed, separation of church and state interpreted as freedom from religion is a very popular notion among a large majority of Americans. Blackstone was right, God is our highest authority. America did not tax the church until January 1, 1984 when Ronald Reagan began taxing the church of God through the Social security act. The founders dared not tax God who gave them their blessings and their freedom. I don't look upon Reagan in rose colored glasses at all as many of my fellow Christians do. Perhaps they simply don't understand how dangerous the power to tax is over the church. Chief Justice John Marshall so declared years ago that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Ronald Reagan did more damage to the church of America than most of us in the church understand. I believe those full consequences are yet to come to fruition yet as well. The irony of not only taxing the church but turning it into a tax collector at the same time goes against the tenants of Christianity. I firmly believe that this has not escaped God's attention.
Where is the protection of the church FROM the government anymore? Everyone is so concerned that the church will influence in any manner the government yet it is the government that has the power to destroy and not the other way around. In such, the first amendment is beginning to become meaningless in it's original intent of protecting the church from the powers of the rulers. What is even more remarkable is how few people even know of the "evolution" of the first amendment, nor apparently disagree with the current interpretation.
-
"On the other hand, Jesus does not impose Himself upon anyone. They are free to accept or reject His offer of eternal life. I don't believe in forcing folks against their wills, nor does God."
Unfortunately, some of God's followers more fervent throughout the centuries do not share your laid back attitude. These are the people who I do not get along with to put it politely.
-
Which Ten Commandments? Don't different faiths have different versions of the Ten Commandments? I think those passages of the Bible (Exodus 20:2–17; Deuteronomy 5:6–21) has 14 or 15 declarative statements so how those are parsed varies.
Of the ten, the first five by most counts (first four in the Catholic/Lutheran tradition) don't play a role in criminal or civil courts. Justice is blind to your moral qualities. The second five (or six) are actual crimes and their prosecution is based on existing criminal law - with the possible exception of neighbor's wife coveting. But if we assume it's nonconsensual then that's against the law. So no, I don't think any poster is appropriate in a court room, and a poster of Ten Commandments doesn't belong there.
I think the easiest way to decide if something might potentially violate mixing religion with civil activities would be to imagine if those Ten Commandments were instead a passage from the Koran or the Bhagavata. (I'm a Christian if that matters.) If a majority in a community voted for such displays, then that is just as much a tyranny of the majority and a violation of the First Amendment.
-
Which Ten Commandments? Don't different faiths have different versions of the Ten Commandments? I think those passages of the Bible (Exodus 20:2–17; Deuteronomy 5:6–21) has 14 or 15 declarative statements so how those are parsed varies.
Of the ten, the first five by most counts (first four in the Catholic/Lutheran tradition) don't play a role in criminal or civil courts. Justice is blind to your moral qualities. The second five (or six) are actual crimes and their prosecution is based on existing criminal law - with the possible exception of neighbor's wife coveting. But if we assume it's nonconsensual then that's against the law. So no, I don't think any poster is appropriate in a court room, and a poster of Ten Commandments doesn't belong there.
I think the easiest way to decide if something might potentially violate mixing religion with civil activities would be to imagine if those Ten Commandments were instead a passage from the Koran or the Bhagavata. (I'm a Christian if that matters.) If a majority in a community voted for such displays, then that is just as much a tyranny of the majority and a violation of the First Amendment.
Dear Willis,
Please don't get me wrong, I am not advocating that America re-adopt Christianity against the will of the people. As the example from Samuel above demonstrates, not even God would do that. If folks wish to turn their backs upon the God of Israel and seek their own gods or no gods, so be it. All I am stating is that God did create the heavens and earth and we shall all give account of everything we have done in our bodies whether good or bad on the day of judgement whether you believe in Him now or not.
Philippians 2:3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
-
"On the other hand, Jesus does not impose Himself upon anyone. They are free to accept or reject His offer of eternal life. I don't believe in forcing folks against their wills, nor does God."
Unfortunately, some of God's followers more fervent throughout the centuries do not share your laid back attitude. These are the people who I do not get along with to put it politely.
Dear House,
If you wish to know what the Bible is all about, simply read it for yourself. You don't need to listen to man, since Jesus came, you can go directly to Him without any mediator since He is our mediator directly.
God bless,
Peter
-
I've read the Bible, probably more than the average Christian, but since I have to deal with God's adherents and not God on a daily basis, I tend to take my impressions of God from His followers.
I know this is going to come off as slightly prickish, but it's not meant as such. Trying to prove God through the Bible is like trying to prove Superman through a comic book.
Believe it or not, I'd actually like to believe in gods and be able to relax about accomplishing all that I want to in this life and be comfortable in the knowledge of knowing. I don't feel, sense, or have the slightest inkling towards anything supernatural, so whereas I appreciate some aspects of various religions, from their moderating effects on behavior to great charity work from Mormons and Evangelicals alike, I get nowhere near these devoted people such as my own mother, who is a Carmelite lay nun, by the way. She converted to Catholicism after her transplant, actually.
-
Which Ten Commandments? Don't different faiths have different versions of the Ten Commandments? I think those passages of the Bible (Exodus 20:2–17; Deuteronomy 5:6–21) has 14 or 15 declarative statements so how those are parsed varies.
Of the ten, the first five by most counts (first four in the Catholic/Lutheran tradition) don't play a role in criminal or civil courts. Justice is blind to your moral qualities. The second five (or six) are actual crimes and their prosecution is based on existing criminal law - with the possible exception of neighbor's wife coveting. But if we assume it's nonconsensual then that's against the law. So no, I don't think any poster is appropriate in a court room, and a poster of Ten Commandments doesn't belong there.
I think the easiest way to decide if something might potentially violate mixing religion with civil activities would be to imagine if those Ten Commandments were instead a passage from the Koran or the Bhagavata. (I'm a Christian if that matters.) If a majority in a community voted for such displays, then that is just as much a tyranny of the majority and a violation of the First Amendment.
Dear Willis,
Please don't get me wrong, I am not advocating that America re-adopt Christianity against the will of the people. As the example from Samuel above demonstrates, not even God would do that. If folks wish to turn their backs upon the God of Israel and seek their own gods or no gods, so be it. All I am stating is that God did create the heavens and earth and we shall all give account of everything we have done in our bodies whether good or bad on the day of judgement whether you believe in Him now or not.
Philippians 2:3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
Hemodoc
I agree with you and I'm a lover of Paul's writings (not all Christians are so fond of Paul). But I'm not sure what your point was with that post?
-
Which Ten Commandments? Don't different faiths have different versions of the Ten Commandments? I think those passages of the Bible (Exodus 20:2–17; Deuteronomy 5:6–21) has 14 or 15 declarative statements so how those are parsed varies.
Of the ten, the first five by most counts (first four in the Catholic/Lutheran tradition) don't play a role in criminal or civil courts. Justice is blind to your moral qualities. The second five (or six) are actual crimes and their prosecution is based on existing criminal law - with the possible exception of neighbor's wife coveting. But if we assume it's nonconsensual then that's against the law. So no, I don't think any poster is appropriate in a court room, and a poster of Ten Commandments doesn't belong there.
I think the easiest way to decide if something might potentially violate mixing religion with civil activities would be to imagine if those Ten Commandments were instead a passage from the Koran or the Bhagavata. (I'm a Christian if that matters.) If a majority in a community voted for such displays, then that is just as much a tyranny of the majority and a violation of the First Amendment.
Dear Willis,
Please don't get me wrong, I am not advocating that America re-adopt Christianity against the will of the people. As the example from Samuel above demonstrates, not even God would do that. If folks wish to turn their backs upon the God of Israel and seek their own gods or no gods, so be it. All I am stating is that God did create the heavens and earth and we shall all give account of everything we have done in our bodies whether good or bad on the day of judgement whether you believe in Him now or not.
Philippians 2:3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
Hemodoc
I agree with you and I'm a lover of Paul's writings (not all Christians are so fond of Paul). But I'm not sure what your point was with that post?
Just trying to make the point that even though folks don't believe in Jesus here and now that does not in any fashion diminish the fact that He is real and so is His Holy word. All will stand before Him and give account of everything done in the body, whether good or bad. Hopefully folks will read and understand that He came to save the lost to give all eternal life. I have no doubt that those promises are real.
God bless,
Peter
-
What happens if you believe in the existence of God but have doubts about His benevolence?
-
I think a lot of the reading in the Bible shows he's not benevolent quite a bit of the time.
-
I think a lot of the reading in the Bible shows he's not benevolent quite a bit of the time.
He seems to be a scary dude, capricious at best. When people tell me to trust in God and to have faith, I'm not sure what it is I am supposed to trust Him with, nor am I sure in exactly what I am supposed to have faith.
All I know is that He took my innocent baby and maimed him, and I find it very difficult to "have faith" in such a deity. I am told that I am supposed to believe that God has His hand in everything, that He has a plan for us, but I don't want to be a part of any plan that hurt my innocent child. So I have a real problem talking about God. I do believe He exists, but His existence frightens me.
-
I think a lot of the reading in the Bible shows he's not benevolent quite a bit of the time.
He seems to be a scary dude, capricious at best. When people tell me to trust in God and to have faith, I'm not sure what it is I am supposed to trust Him with, nor am I sure in exactly what I am supposed to have faith.
All I know is that He took my innocent baby and maimed him, and I find it very difficult to "have faith" in such a deity. I am told that I am supposed to believe that God has His hand in everything, that He has a plan for us, but I don't want to be a part of any plan that hurt my innocent child. So I have a real problem talking about God. I do believe He exists, but His existence frightens me.
Dear Moosemom, I know the struggles you have had with your child, but I fail to understand why you would blame that on God. Jesus, created all things and then came down to earth in the from of a man and then gave His life a ransom for ours. Sorry, but that is not scary to me at all, that is the ultimate act of love anywhere in the universe. In so doing, He has already overcome the world and all of the evil within. Sorry, I just don't attribute my Lord and Saviour as a scary dude.
John 3:16 ¶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
-
There's also the Free Will/Divine Plan split. I remember people in my own family, pastors, priests, etc go on at length about how we all have a free will to decide our own live, but also that God works his Divine Plan because he knows what we do before we do it. Which would then lead one to think a few things. But that'll open up a whole new avenue.
-
I expect this will rub many people the wrong way, but I just don't think that God is all that concerned with our mortal existence. I don't mean that he doesn't CARE, but rather that it's UNIMPORTANT. It's my belief that our brief lives whether a few days or a century are nothing more than the birthing process. Very painful and scary. But the end result is worth it. Does a mother go through a birth because she wants to harm her child? No, it's just how life is. A mother's perception of life and that of a newborn are far apart, but much closer to each other than anything we can really conceive about God. His ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not our thoughts.
The years of our lives are nothing to God who exists outside of time and space as we understand it. Just blips on the calendar. We weren't made for the world as it is now; rather, God created a spiritual, yet physical world that was perfect for man (and woman of course). I believe that world still exists--call it another universe or spiritual plain or whatever I don't care--and God is waiting for us there. Someday we'll all look back to our lives on earth like that first scary bus ride to kindergarten--and laugh.
(Of course there are some wicked people who have lived nothing but wretched and evil lives who might not be laughing so much, but that's another topic.)
-
Dear Moosemom, I know the struggles you have had with your child, but I fail to understand why you would blame that on God.
Really?
John 3:16 ¶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
I've never really understood how the gruesome death of the Son of God can be attributed to God's love for us. Again, I am no theologian, so perhaps my question is naive, but can you explain this to me? And when it is said that Jesus Christ is our Savior, from what is He saving us?
Hemodoc, what do you pray for? Do you think God hears you? What do you ask from Him on a day to day basis, and what do you offer Him? From what have you been saved?
-
Willis, you may be right. Your post didn't rub me the wrong way; I'm interested in hearing what people believe our life on earth really means (or doesn't mean).
-
There's also the Free Will/Divine Plan split. I remember people in my own family, pastors, priests, etc go on at length about how we all have a free will to decide our own live, but also that God works his Divine Plan because he knows what we do before we do it. Which would then lead one to think a few things. But that'll open up a whole new avenue.
The issue of free will boils down to a discussion on love which MUST be free to be true love. You cannot coerce love, it must be by choice and by actions. Love without action is unrequited, love without choice is NOT love. It is risky to give someone the free will to love or reject, but to take away the choice then terminates in something much less than true love. Sadly, most people reject God. The path is broad that leads to destruction and narrow is the gate that leads to righteousness.
-
Sadly, most people reject God.
This is another pretty sweeping condemnation. How do you define this rejection of God? Do people not go to church often enough? Do they not pray enough? Do they not treat each other with enough compassion? How do you know that "most people reject God"?
-
Dear Moosemom, I know the struggles you have had with your child, but I fail to understand why you would blame that on God.
Really?
John 3:16 ¶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
I've never really understood how the gruesome death of the Son of God can be attributed to God's love for us. Again, I am no theologian, so perhaps my question is naive, but can you explain this to me? And when it is said that Jesus Christ is our Savior, from what is He saving us?
Hemodoc, what do you pray for? Do you think God hears you? What do you ask from Him on a day to day basis, and what do you offer Him? From what have you been saved?
it is not an easy concept to understand how God could atone for all of the sins of the world. I became a born again Christian through the study of Bible prophecy. I had many questions, most especially on how I could know that the Bible was really written when they claim it was written. I readily understood the historical truth of the Bible, but were they written after the fact and that is why they are accurate. It is a question that many have posed. However, I never once voiced this concern to anyone at all, only God knew my doubts. Making a long story short, through a friend of mine, my doubts vanished when reading through a specific topic fulfilled exactly today that was written about 2000 years ago. That was the moment that I realized that the Bible is the true literal word of God. Over the next few days, I literally spoke directly to the Creator of this universe and He answered many of my questions directly through His word.
So, when I come upon questions like yours on how could Jesus die for the sins of the whole world, it is beyond my human, finite reason, but because of my faith in God's word, I believe even if my understanding is limited. God has proven so many things to me, that I put me faith and trust in the rest that I cannot understand in my frail flesh.
From what have I been saved? My own sins and my own sinful nature. God is Holy and those that stand before Him must be holy. The trouble is, it takes only one sin to be a sinner of which we all have committed multitudes of sins. God is a righteous God, He is a merciful God and He also is a God of Justice. To not require justice for wrongs would make Him an unjust God. Since God the Father cannot be in the presence of sin, we are all without hope, yet:
16 ¶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 ¶ He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
The OT sacrifices all pointed to the sacrifice of God's only Son as a ransom for many. How God did this, I don't know. But that is the central tenant of our Christian faith.
As far as prayer, the Bible says to draw close to God and He will draw close to you and in those times when I have drawn close to God, He has answered my prayers in amazing ways so that I knew without doubt that it was not just coincidence. Sadly, I am not always as close to God as I should be. Does God hear? Absolutely. The first prayer that the Lord hears is to save us from the judgement to come when we call upon His name.
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
I believe the promises above completely and God has demonstrated His love to me personally and literally in so many ways. My faith is not at all blind, but based a true relationship with the Creator of the universe starting at the age of 36.
I wish you the best in your own quest for answers. Jeremiah the prophet spoke well:
Jeremiah 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
-
Sadly, most people reject God.
This is another pretty sweeping condemnation. How do you define this rejection of God? Do people not go to church often enough? Do they not pray enough? Do they not treat each other with enough compassion? How do you know that "most people reject God"?
That is not what I say, it is what the Bible says.
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Matthew 7:13 ¶ Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
-
That is not what I say, it is what the Bible says.
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Matthew 7:13 ¶ Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
I'm sorry to be so thick, but I don't understand, and I'd really like to. Are you saying that not being "born again" is tantamount to rejecting God? How is one "born again"? I'm not sure I understand well enough to pose a coherent question.
-
That is not what I say, it is what the Bible says.
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Matthew 7:13 ¶ Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
I'm sorry to be so thick, but I don't understand, and I'd really like to. Are you saying that not being "born again" is tantamount to rejecting God? How is one "born again"? I'm not sure I understand well enough to pose a coherent question.
God is spirit and we can only please Him in spirit and truth. You are not at all the first person to wonder what it is to be born again. It all boils down to believing His word first of all and understanding our own sin nature coupled by accepting Jesus as our Saviour. The rest God does, it is His gift. Jesus prayed for his followers at the end of the last supper. The key to this is that those that are saved have received and accepted and believed His word.
John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
Peter speaks of being saved by His word:
I Peter 1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
Lastly, understand that the Bible is spiritually alive.
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
So, it is not by our works we enter into heaven. It is by belief in the finished work of Jesus on the cross. We either believe and accept the gospel, or we reject that belief. I have no doubt whatsoever of its truth.
God bless,
Peter
-
So, it is not by our works we enter into heaven. It is by belief in the finished work of Jesus on the cross. We either believe and accept the gospel, or we reject that belief. I have no doubt whatsoever of its truth.
So, are you saying it is okay to sin as long as you believe?
-
Enough with the churchy words...I've studied the Bible for most of my life and it is still hard to understand.
It's like this, Adam (or man in general if you take the analogical approach) came to a point of losing his innocence. He(she) became self-aware. (Actually, in this case Arthur C. Clarke came pretty close in the book and movie "2001.") All men are doomed to failure and there is nowhere in life to go but eventually to the grave. Those of us here on IHD know this perhaps better than most.
Now, in Jesus, God injected himself into the "mortal" plane as a means of showing us how there is something else and that does not have to be final. Even though Jesus lived a perfect life and was revered by the masses, that just made him hated by the religious people because he didn't fit their mold and he scared the secular authorities (the Romans) who then agreed it was best to do away with him.
But that's the rub: Jesus didn't stay dead! So Jesus proved in person that death does not have to be final. Jesus (the true Jesus) is still hated by the "Religious" and the secular world. Don't judge Jesus by people who call themselves Christian. Christianity is a wonderful faith except it gets a bad wrap do to its followers and "not-so-followers." Somehow people think Christians should be perfect example of love and charity. Perhaps, but Christ-follows can do nothing but follow and are not and cannot be perfect. As a Christ-follower all I can do is recognize that if by following the example of Jesus that I (and you) too can rise from the dead.
-
So, it is not by our works we enter into heaven. It is by belief in the finished work of Jesus on the cross. We either believe and accept the gospel, or we reject that belief. I have no doubt whatsoever of its truth.
So, are you saying it is okay to sin as long as you believe?
In many ways, the greatest sin is unbelief. That is a sin without remedy. God will forgive all other sins, but no it is no OK to sin before or after salvation. We shall all stand before God and give an account of everything we have done in our bodies whether good or bad. Remember how many times Jesus saved a person from their sins and said, go and sin no more. I believe His words on this issue are the final authority. Look at the Epistle of John:
I John 2:MY little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments . . .
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.
Thus, Jesus is our example to walk as He walked so to speak. It is our goal not to sin, but when we do, we have an advocate for all men sin. But is it OK to sin, absolutely not.
-
That is not what I say, it is what the Bible says.
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Matthew 7:13 ¶ Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
I'm sorry to be so thick, but I don't understand, and I'd really like to. Are you saying that not being "born again" is tantamount to rejecting God? How is one "born again"? I'm not sure I understand well enough to pose a coherent question.
Dear Moosemom, perhaps the most succinct explanation of how people are saved comes from Romans:
Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
It all comes back to whether the word of God is truth. That is why the Bible is attacked by so many. I have found the Bible to be completely faithful in all ways.
-
Well since this post has kind of gotten away from my original intent, please allow me to interject! Hemodoc, there is One sin that the Bible speaks as Unforgiveable and that is the UNPARDONABLE SIN! What is your understanding as to what that is? I have heard different versions of this, but would be curious as to yours. Iam not questioning you because I too believe in the Bible, but have really never gotten a total answer to this! Or can you give me the scripture, so I can read for myself! Thanks so much!
IMO, you have been right on everything! I have read every scripture you have posted, and you have written accurately, the Words of God!
lmunchkin :flower;
-
Well since this post has kind of gotten away from my original intent, please allow me to interject! Hemodoc, there is One sin that the Bible speaks as Unforgiveable and that is the UNPARDONABLE SIN! What is your understanding as to what that is? I have heard different versions of this, but would be curious as to yours. Iam not questioning you because I too believe in the Bible, but have really never gotten a total answer to this! Or can you give me the scripture, so I can read for myself! Thanks so much!
IMO, you have been right on everything! I have read every scripture you have posted, and you have written accurately, the Words of God!
lmunchkin :flower;
Quite a bit of a jump, but here is one set of Scriptures talking about this, the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost:
Matthew 12:31 ¶ Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
-
Thanks Peter! I just read another explanation from Jesus in Mk. 3: 20-30.
lmunchkin :flower;
-
I am confused as to the nature of the Holy Ghost. I have been told of the Holy Trinity, ie, The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost, but I have also been taught that the three are one.
Hemodoc, this is a very personal question, so please do not feel obligated to answer, but I'd be very interested in your thoughts. How does Jesus Christ enter into your equation re your renal disease? Do you think your disease is part of God's plan? I hear an awful lot of people saying that terrible things that happen to good people are "part of God's plan". Do you think that's true? Do you think you, and the rest of us, are suffering through this horrible disease for a reason, and if so, what is it?
Do you ever ask God for anything? Do you feel that God is giving you strength to deal with ESRD, or do you feel he caused you to have it? Do you ask for strength?
Is it a sin to be angry at God even though you believe He exists? I've told him about my anger; do you think He has heard me?
-
I am confused as to the nature of the Holy Ghost. I have been told of the Holy Trinity, ie, The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost, but I have also been taught that the three are one.
Hemodoc, this is a very personal question, so please do not feel obligated to answer, but I'd be very interested in your thoughts. How does Jesus Christ enter into your equation re your renal disease? Do you think your disease is part of God's plan? I hear an awful lot of people saying that terrible things that happen to good people are "part of God's plan". Do you think that's true? Do you think you, and the rest of us, are suffering through this horrible disease for a reason, and if so, what is it?
Do you ever ask God for anything? Do you feel that God is giving you strength to deal with ESRD, or do you feel he caused you to have it? Do you ask for strength?
Is it a sin to be angry at God even though you believe He exists? I've told him about my anger; do you think He has heard me?
Yes, three persons, one God. Let's start with the first reference to the Trinity in the Bible, even though the word trinity is not directly in the Bible.
Genesis 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Genesis 3:22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Genesis 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
I am told by folks a lot smarter than me that the "us" in the Hebrew meant the three of us specifically.
Take a look at Isaiah where a the start of the sentence, God speaks of Himself in the singular and then switches to the plural:
Isaiah 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.
Now, let's look at the specific verses that speak of God's Son in the OT:
1) PSALM 2
1 WHY do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
Proverbs 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?
In the NT, we see several references but one in Hebrews tells the most since it quotes the verse in Psalms 2:
Hebrews 1:1 GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Psalms 45: 6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Now, the Holy Ghost, who is the Holy Ghost and what does He do? John spells it out in his gospel account.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
Paul tells us more about the Holy Ghost:
I Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
This is echoed first in a treatise in the book of Job:
Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.
Thus, it it the Holy Ghost that gives us the understanding of Jesus in things spiritual by comparing spiritual to spiritual.
-
I am confused as to the nature of the Holy Ghost. I have been told of the Holy Trinity, ie, The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost, but I have also been taught that the three are one.
Hemodoc, this is a very personal question, so please do not feel obligated to answer, but I'd be very interested in your thoughts. How does Jesus Christ enter into your equation re your renal disease? Do you think your disease is part of God's plan? I hear an awful lot of people saying that terrible things that happen to good people are "part of God's plan". Do you think that's true? Do you think you, and the rest of us, are suffering through this horrible disease for a reason, and if so, what is it?
Do you ever ask God for anything? Do you feel that God is giving you strength to deal with ESRD, or do you feel he caused you to have it? Do you ask for strength?
Is it a sin to be angry at God even though you believe He exists? I've told him about my anger; do you think He has heard me?
There are few men that have suffered in the manner in which Paul the Apostle suffered. He has a unique perspective on human suffering and how it fits into God's plan. We are stuck here in our current reality not understanding that the life we have now is nothing compared to eternal life promised by God. Our temporal lives are actually but a blink in the eye even though from our perspective time seems long. But in reality, our time on earth is very short indeed.
James: 4:another?
13 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:
14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.
15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.
II Corinthians 11:23 Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool ) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.
24 Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.
25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;
26 In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;
27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.
28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.
29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not?
30 If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities.
Philippians 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. . .
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
Jesus came and suffered here on earth for us. The Lord tells us that our time of passage here on earth will be filled with suffering and tribulation. For Paul, he viewed his present suffering here on earth as nothing compared to the glory that the Lord has for us in eternal life. In addition, Paul learned humility in his suffering even in his flesh:
II Corinthians 12:5 Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.
6 For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.
7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.
9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.
Even though Paul had called upon the Lord to heal many people and even to raise some from the dead, God left him with a "thorn in the flesh" to keep him humble lest Paul be filled with pride and then God could not use Him to accomplish His purpose of preaching the gospel to the
Gentiles.
If you follow it out, Paul was legally blind and that was his thorn in the flesh.
Galatians 4:13 Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first.
14 And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
15 Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.
So, even Paul the Apostle suffered physical ailments in the flesh and God used that infirmity to further the gospel of Christ making Paul dependent on God alone to accomplish his tasks. When we are weak in our own power and MUST call upon God, we become strong because we are then going in God's strength.
Does this give specific answers to why we suffer in our individual lives, no, but we are to call upon the Lord to give us strength in all things. Is that easy? No, not by any stretch of the imagination.
As far as my own renal disease, God speaks to us in that which we can bear:
I Corinthians 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
For myself, the Lord has first of all given my home hemodialysis which is a blessing beyond all imagination compared to life in-center which was filled with those Monday night headaches from a mild disequilibrium reaction after the long weekend. I don't miss those headaches at all. In addition, I still have enough residual urine function to not need any ultrafiltration at all, nor any EPO nor any PO4 binders. I feel quite fortunate to have the grace of God in all of those factors and I do give Him credit that it allows me to bear it better than many who are unfortunately stuck in the in-center routine. God may choose to take me home whenever he pleases, yet to date, my time on dialysis has not been the usual course that many suffer. It has not been fun or easy in any manner, yet, I have been blessed with nearly 5 years of dialysis without any fluid restrictions, minimal dietary restrictions and other blessings. I don't like doing dialysis on a daily basis, but so be it. Life is still good in many ways, albeit different.
Do I have all the answers? No, but I know enough to leave the rest in trust to God. The bottom line is whether the Bible is really the word of God or just a bunch of people making up their own god and selling it to the rest of us. I didn't find that when I searched the Scriptures for the answer to that question. Instead, my quest to know if the Bible really is His word led me to a place I never would have imagined at the start of that search, having a personal relationship with the Creator of the Universe who wishes to have all men saved.
II Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
That is really the take home message of the entire Bible, God is longsuffering to us and wishes that all men come to repentance of their sins to come into fellowship with God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
I hope this helps with some of your questions.
God bless,
Peter
-
This is what separation of church and state is all about in the 21st century, protecting the individual right to self determine your religious preference:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/07/14/evangelical-pastor-in-iran-may-face-death-if-doesnt-recant/
Iranian Pastor Sentenced to Death Could Be Executed if He Doesn’t Recant, Says Verdict
Iran's Supreme Court says an evangelical pastor charged with apostasy can be executed if he does not recant his faith, according to a copy of the verdict obtained by a religious rights activist group.
Christian Solidarity World says Iranian-born Yousef Nadarkhani, who was arrested in 2009 and given the death sentence late last year, could have his sentence suspended on the grounds that he renounce his faith.
Those who know him say he is not likely to do that, for if he were disposed to giving it up, he would have done it long ago.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/07/14/evangelical-pastor-in-iran-may-face-death-if-doesnt-recant/#ixzz1S7AIePv7
-
Thank you for all of that, Hemodoc. I have one last question for you, and then I promise to leave you alone.
What does God do with those who are unable to hear His word? Are those who are disabled or who are autistic...those whose minds work in unfathomable ways...how do they learn of God, and how can they believe what they cannot understand? Some people cannot believe that which they cannot see or cannot hear or cannot hold in their hands.
-
That's an interesting question. My son is autistic, though high functioning.
-
Well since this post has kind of gotten away from my original intent, please allow me to interject!
I don't think posts regarding religion ever stay completely on track, munchkin! The topic is too broad to ever truly narrow down!
What does God do with those who are unable to hear His word? Are those who are disabled or who are autistic...those whose minds work in unfathomable ways...how do they learn of God, and how can they believe what they cannot understand? Some people cannot believe that which they cannot see or cannot hear or cannot hold in their hands.
Okay, I'm not hemodoc, and I know I don't share his strength of faith, but I'm adding my two cents here. Have you ever (and I'm guessing you have) seen one of the autistic savants who see things so differently that they can reproduce an entire cityscape after looking at it for just a few minutes? Those artists may not be able to "see" the logic in making change for a dollar, but they certainly see the world in amazing ways. I've always thought that those with disabilities may be able to see God in a way we can't even begin to fathom, even if they can't make sense out of the written words of the Bible.
-
Yes, jbeany, I have seen the artwork of many autistic savants, but if you look at the work very closely, you will see that whereas it may be an exact replication of some scene, it probably will lack that fundamental essense of "art". They may "see" the world in a different way, but that difference will usually be sensory, not of any innate or profound understanding. Of course, autism is a spectrum disorder, so one autistic person may be very different from another, but all autistic people are affected by the "triad of impairments" to varying degrees.
To give you an example, my son had perfect handwriting by the time he was three (although once he got to school and was forced to learn cursive writing, that perfection dissipated), but he had trouble making up a story. He could count to 1,000, but mathematical concepts were much more difficult. He could recognize words and could read from a very early age, but he couldn't tell you in his own words what the story was about. That part of what makes us human and artful is impaired. So you can imagine how difficult it is to teach him about something like the existence of God.
Not only that, but my son refuses to enter a church. When he was 4 or 5, he was still in a mainstream school, and some semblance of religious education was at that time still a part of the UK curriculum. So, he and his class went to visit a local church, and he did not like that at all. He particularly hates to hear singing in church (which I think is the best part of any service; I was in the church and chamber music choirs at college, so this was disappointing). I've asked him what it is he dislikes about going into a church, and he can only tell me that it makes him sad. He has a deep emotional well in certain areas that I don't yet entirely understand.
HOD, my son is high functioning, too. I didn't know you had a son on the autistic spectrum, too! Does he have any religious beliefs? I am assuming you have heard of Temple Grandin. I seem to remember hearing her speak about God; I'll have to go and see if I can find out how she "sees" Him. I'd love to hear more about your son, if you care to PM me, as I don't want to hijack this thread more than I already have.
-
It's not hijacking, just the stream of conversation.
Eli, my son, turns 5 in August. With myself having no religious beliefs and my wife more or less not engaged in her faith, Eli will likely only see religion when we go see my mother, who is a Catholic and Carmelite nun. I'm going to be reading him all different mythologies as bed time stories. We'll see how that works for him.
-
Oh, I've just found this utterly fascinating chapter on "religion and belief" in Temple Grandin's book, "Thinking in Pictures". Since it is rather long, I'll just post the link...
http://www.spinninglobe.net/cowlady.htm
It is relevatory to read how this one specific autistic mind finds her own definition of religion and belief. Truly, truly fascinating, especially for anyone who knows someone who is autistic or for anyone who just has an interest how any human mind sorts through the meaning of a Creator, especially a mind as logical and "scientific" as Ms. Grandin's.
If anyone bothers to read this, please tell me what you think!
-
Dear Moosemom and HOD,
I actually worked with autistic kids for about two years after college and one summer during college. I actually worked with a criminally insane client for the summer between my first and second year of med school so I am very familiar with the spectrum of kids with autism. It was the May Institute for autistic kids started in the 50's I believe by Dr. May and his wife who had twin autistic kids. It was a residential center with about 50 kids of various function. There was one unit with the high functioning kids with one that used to earn time memorizing the phone book for entertainment as well as local maps. He would then sit there and write out all of the pages verbatim from the phone book. He wasn't very verbal, but in certain areas, he had total recall. I spent about a year as a special ed teacher at the May as well. We had varying degrees of success with the kids. It is not an easy chore to take care of many of these autistic kids, but the gains made especially in behavior control.
As far as going to heaven, I know that God judges people based upon their abilities. David lost a child with Bathsheba. Take a look at what he had to say about this issue:
II Samuel 12:21 Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread.
22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?
23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
David testifies with this statement that his child that died soon after childbirth was in heaven where David would join him later. Don't ask me how God sorts this all out, but that is David's testimony. Hope this helps.
God bless,
Peter
-
Macroevolutuion... I hadn't forgotten!
Anolis lizards had undergone rapid changes in body structure as each species in different levels of the trees. From length of legs to everything in between.
I believe it was within a fourteen year span, too.
Does this qualify to prove macroevolution to you?
-
Is America a Christian nation anymore? Not at the Federal level for sure yet what a glorious past America once had.
From the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797:
"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,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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."
-
Is America a Christian nation anymore? Not at the Federal level for sure yet what a glorious past America once had.
From the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797:
"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,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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."
Dear Hober Mallow, I could quote a whole lot of supreme court rulings, original documents, especially state constitutions etc. that show the true Christian nature of early colonists up to including the founding of this nation being a Christian nation, but folks will continue to choose what they wish to believe. Not much sense trying to change people's minds on this issue.
-
Is America a Christian nation anymore? Not at the Federal level for sure yet what a glorious past America once had.
From the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797:
"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,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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."
Hi Hober Mallow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hober_Mallow). Prescient call that Perry was a flash in the pan. You need to introduce yourself on the introduction board (http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?board=14.0). IHD is not an appropriate venue for sock puppetry, just saying. I think you got a point but I am a bit worried about the Hober Mallow.
-
Dear Hober Mallow, I could quote a whole lot of supreme court rulings, original documents, especially state constitutions etc. that show the true Christian nature of early colonists up to including the founding of this nation being a Christian nation, but folks will continue to choose what they wish to believe. Not much sense trying to change people's minds on this issue.
The Treaty of Tripoli was drafted and ratified by our "Founding Fathers."
It's no secret most of the Founding Fathers were deists. It's irrelevent to the argument. The Constitution is perfectly clear on the subject. This is a free country where one is free to choose his religion, and, as a Christian myself, I wouldn't have it any other way. One's religion holds much more significance if one freely chooses it without the sanctioning of his or her government.
-
Most folks do not have knowledge of the Christian origins and roots of America as well as the Christian roots of the English Common Law on which the majority of our rights are based. Indeed, the 14th amendment when incorporated into the 1st amendment declared several state constitutions unconstitutional, but that was not the original intent of the founders who specifically kept the provisions in the constitution separate from state and local rights.
Eight states originally had requirements that all those in the state government must believe in Jesus and God as the Supreme Being in acceptance of the Christian religion. The establishment clause had to do with denominations, not religions as we now view the term. There was nothing in the constitution at the time it was written to prohibit the Christian religious test at state and local levels. It was only after the much later 14th amendment incorporated the 1st amendment to apply to states and local governments did we begin to see an intrusion upon the expression of Christian principles in these governments.
http://vftonline.org/TestOath/22leaders.htm
At the Federal level, we had mandates for an American Bible that was actually authorized and printed by congress(1782), we established Christian missions to the indians with congressional approval and many of the founding fathers professed belief in Jesus Christ.
Yet today, we would be led to believe that America was a secular nation right from it's foundations, this is simply not true. There are four Supreme Court rulings in our history that declared America a Christian nation. The last was in 1931. If folks wish to state that America is no longer a Christian nation, I have no argument with that statement at all, much to our demise. But going back to the founding fathers and the subsequent generations, they not only declared, but embraced we were a Christian nation. It was not until 1948 in McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948). However, it was not until the 1960's that the crusade against Christianity in our government really began.
McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html
In 1984, ironically, Ronald Reagan signed into law the taxation of churches through social security taxation and at the same time made them tax collectors as well. I know a man in prison today who is there because of his misplaced trust in the constitution that would overturn this law. A sad situation no doubt and one that the founders would turn in their graves over. The constitutional provisions were never meant to keep the influence of Christianity out of the government, on the contrary, they were to protect the church from the state. Today, the historical revisionists would have us believe that it was they were protecting the government from Christian religion. That is simply not true.
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/handbook/handbook.11/handbook-1136.html
In fact and reality, 8 of the original states were in essence run as Christian theocracies which our Federal constitution of 1789 did not overturn or interfere whatsoever. In fact, 7 states still have the original language in their state constitutions even though SCOTUS has ruled them unenforceable in 1961.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins
Thus, to state that America is not a Christian nation today, that is certainly a much more accurate statement than to make the false assertion that the founding fathers had the same view. It truly was not until 1961 that America denied it's Christian origins in earnest and began a crusade against Christianity at the Federal level. Today, any expression of Christianity in public is often viewed as unconstitutional. Sadly, what started as a Christian nation is now largely hostile towards this religion. Limiting the expression of Christianity to simply home and church is a persecution that will one day eliminate those two areas someday as well. Sorry, I don't leave my Christianity at home with me, it is who I am. Religious tolerance is now extended to almost every religion, yet not to Christianity. The child bringing a Bible to school is often subject to questioning at the very least by school officials, yet a recent court decision allows Sikhs to bring their ceremonial knives into the schools.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/04/us/school-told-to-allow-sikhs-to-have-knives.html
Lastly, how ironic that although Christians are banned from prayer, Muslims are not:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-25-muslim-special-treatment-from-schools_N.htm
America is no longer a friendly nation to Christians and our sphere of freedom to practice our religion is slowly becoming more and more restricted to the point that if laws declaring homosexuals protected rights, the US courts will soon in my opinion be able to force American churches to hire openly gay men and women in religious positions. There are many who have already advocated such and I hope and pray that our religious freedoms do not erode to that point, but we are certainly in danger of that right now. In fact, in Canada, several verses in the Bible are already declared hate speech and anyone that preaches these verses from the pulpit can and have been arrested and prosecuted. So, if folks wish to speak about separation of church and state, getting all of the facts is an essential place to start.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=20862
Is America a Christian nation anymore? Not at the Federal level for sure yet what a glorious past America once had.
Dear Hober Mallow, to state that America was a Christian nation at its foundation does not imply that all of its documents are Christian in nature. I would suggest reading over this very old thread since most of what you are talking about has already been discussed. The greatest evidence of the Christian nature of America is found in the states documents some of which I listed in a prior post.
Once again, if you are not convinced, so be it. I really don't intend on changing your mind.
God bless,
Peter
-
Bill, I have never advocated nor will I advocate for merging church and state as you have implied. Separation of church and state has served america well, but today we have a much different interpretation of what it means to this nation. Today, it essentially means freedom from religion instead of freedom of religion.
No, it means the government cannot sanction any religion. You and I are free to follow any religion we choose.
It is simple fact that the 1st amendment was limitation upon the federal government and not the state or local municipalities.
This is factually incorrect. The supremacy clause establishes that the federal Constitution applies on the federal, state, and local level. No state law can trump federal law, and where a conflict between federal and state law arises, federal law must be recognized as supreme.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That's right. The powers "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution." The First Amendment applies at the federal, state, and local level, and the states cannot vote to change that even if 100% of the residents vote to do so.
We are treating the doctrinal religion of our heritage like a virus that must be expunged from the public square. We also have inverted the original intent of the "Separation of Church and State" metaphor. The oppression that the Christian Theism religion is now undergoing through the ACLU and activist judges is the same evil that the establishment clause in our constitution was intended to prevent.[/b]
Can you provide examples of such oppression by the ACLU and what you call "activist judges?"
-
Bill, I have never advocated nor will I advocate for merging church and state as you have implied. Separation of church and state has served america well, but today we have a much different interpretation of what it means to this nation. Today, it essentially means freedom from religion instead of freedom of religion.
No, it means the government cannot sanction any religion. You and I are free to follow any religion we choose.
It is simple fact that the 1st amendment was limitation upon the federal government and not the state or local municipalities.
This is factually incorrect. The supremacy clause establishes that the federal Constitution applies on the federal, state, and local level. No state law can trump federal law, and where a conflict between federal and state law arises, federal law must be recognized as supreme.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That's right. The powers "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution." The First Amendment applies at the federal, state, and local level, and the states cannot vote to change that even if 100% of the residents vote to do so.
We are treating the doctrinal religion of our heritage like a virus that must be expunged from the public square. We also have inverted the original intent of the "Separation of Church and State" metaphor. The oppression that the Christian Theism religion is now undergoing through the ACLU and activist judges is the same evil that the establishment clause in our constitution was intended to prevent.[/b]
Can you provide examples of such oppression by the ACLU and what you call "activist judges?"
Uh, who are you?
It's a little difficult impossible to care about your opinions when you have not introduced yourself. Please have the courtesy to follow the forum rules. As Bill Peckham explained, you need to go to the introduction section and let us know a bit about yourself, for example, what brings you to IHD.
-
Bill, I have never advocated nor will I advocate for merging church and state as you have implied. Separation of church and state has served america well, but today we have a much different interpretation of what it means to this nation. Today, it essentially means freedom from religion instead of freedom of religion.
No, it means the government cannot sanction any religion. You and I are free to follow any religion we choose.
It is simple fact that the 1st amendment was limitation upon the federal government and not the state or local municipalities.
This is factually incorrect. The supremacy clause establishes that the federal Constitution applies on the federal, state, and local level. No state law can trump federal law, and where a conflict between federal and state law arises, federal law must be recognized as supreme.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That's right. The powers "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution." The First Amendment applies at the federal, state, and local level, and the states cannot vote to change that even if 100% of the residents vote to do so.
We are treating the doctrinal religion of our heritage like a virus that must be expunged from the public square. We also have inverted the original intent of the "Separation of Church and State" metaphor. The oppression that the Christian Theism religion is now undergoing through the ACLU and activist judges is the same evil that the establishment clause in our constitution was intended to prevent.[/b]
Can you provide examples of such oppression by the ACLU and what you call "activist judges?"
Sorry, not sure how many times I have to state I am not interested in debating you on this issue. I will simply agree to disagree. Have a great day.
Peter
-
Sorry, not sure how many times I have to state I am not interested in debating you on this issue. I will simply agree to disagree. Have a great day.
Peter
Fair enough, and I'll respect that, though I don't quite get why one would bother posting his views on a public forum in the first place if one wished to avoid further discussion of them.
-
Dear Hober, I already discussed the issues I wished to discuss. Doesn't look like anyone but you is interested in this thread at the moment. Not much chance I will change your mind, so, yes, it is a public forum but sorry, where is it written that I have to participate any further in a very old thread if I don't wish to participate any longer?
Have a nice day my friend.
-
Sadly, most people reject God.
This is another pretty sweeping condemnation. How do you define this rejection of God? Do people not go to church often enough?
Reminds me of an old G. K. Chesterton quote: "Just going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in your garage makes you a car."