Church and State

[HouseOfDialysis]

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.

[Hemodoc]

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?

[HouseOfDialysis]

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.

[HouseOfDialysis]

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.

[kristina]

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.

[Hemodoc]

So true.  We grew up with Bambi and Flipper and our kids have grown up with Amber alerts and MTV.

[kristina]

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.

[Hemodoc]

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.

[kristina]

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".

[supporter]

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.

[Hemodoc]

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.

[MooseMom]

"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".

[MooseMom]

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!

[MooseMom]

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".

[Hemodoc]

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.

[rsudock]

I agree with Moosemom there is a difference between religion and faith...

[HouseOfDialysis]

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.

[Hemodoc]

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?

[Hemodoc]

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.

[Hemodoc]

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.

[lmunchkin]

GOD HAS BLESSED YOU WITH A WONDERFUL GIFT, PETER!


lmunchkin     

[HouseOfDialysis]

And to think this all kicked off with America's "innocence".

[Hemodoc]

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.

[jbeany]

  to all of you for keeping this intense discussion civil!

My  ...

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.

[MooseMom]

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.