The Blue Board

I skipped all of these posts because to OP: I know a lot of republicans but I've never heard one say that Christianity should be an official religion.

Bama - this is a great post. Thanks. And, thanks for describing your point of view. I'm a former agnostic so i understand where you're coming from. Sorry to hear about your experience with hypocrisy in the Church. It certainly isn't indicative of the Church as a whole or the church as it should be. And, I agree that the god that we tend to conjure is much too small an fallible to be of any value to the realities of history and humanity. The true God is much different and is extremely relevant though. Faith is complicated to be sure. However, I've found trying to understand life without it is much less logical.

It's certainly true that the Judeo-Christian ideal wasn't the only ideal that influenced the Founders. They were educated men who were products of their time, as are we. What i think folks fail to understand is where all the ideals of liberty, human rights, etc., came from in the first place. Natural rights is a biblical concept. Will Durant and Brian Tierney (the former is no friend of the Church) have both written books describing the influence the Christians had upon the Roman Empire and upon the development of Europe during the last couple of thousand years. As gifted and objective historians they both demonstrate, largely from the study of the original documents, as well as, a wealth of other relevant documents, that the Church transformed Europe from an honor based society, and a society that didn't value human life very much, to one where the Biblical ethic was celebrated. This was higly influential upon the Enlightenment and other movements even if those movements seemed anti-dogmatic. Essentially, the liberal movement in America, is simply borrowing from the Biblical ethic, even if it thinks it's running against the Church. The real problem occurs when the Church becomes apathetic, and loses its genius. You see, the contemporary American Church is part of the problem. It's weak and has largely become something less than the Church. So naturally folks are looking for more, while not realizing where their ideals of human rights are really from.

I can dig what you're saying about madison, but still he said it.

JQ Adams terminology is one that is distinctly Biblical and confessional (the latter being the practice of Christians) hence the assumption that he's talking about the Biblical God.

As to Jefferson I'd have to say you're right regarding personal faith vs. governance, even though the Bible had a tremendous influence over his ideals of governance. I'm not sure you could argue otherwise. Also, it depends on what Christian dogma you're talking about regarding seeing the true benefit of Jesus. You would find my theology to be somewhat different than that of your RC upbringing. Also, the historical Jesus doesn't allow us t5o strattle the fence regarding who He was and what He taught. I think Jefferson misunderstood Jesus and therefore incorrectly picked and chose what he liked and disliked about Him.

classic straw man example. set up a winning argument by intentionally misrepresenting your opponents position, typically something that makes them look foolish. then the peanut gallery jumps in and we all back-pat and talk about how stupid and unenlightened the other side is.

No you weren't. An agnostic or atheist doesn't believe in god/rejects the idea of Christianity because there is no evidence for it, and that's really the entire argument. Therefore, you either found evidence for the Christian god (in which case I'd love to see it) or you never really embraced the general thought process of an atheist/agnostic in the first place.

Hawks back and will be over shortly ......

I was an agnostic. It's interesting that you feel like you can tell me what I believed. It sounds desperate on your part. I had been influenced by youthful ignorance and arrogance, a couple of activist professors, and a couple of friends whose notion of freedom meant freedom from all rules and authority. Of course, that notion cannot possibly work in the real world. Basically, I was your typical kid who thought I was enlightened when in fact I wasn't. Now, i don't knock on folks questioning things. I actually think it's good to come full circle in your beliefs. It's good to look at things from all perspectives. I just insist that folks do so objectively and see all perspectives.

Now rams, I'm a novice at political discussions and most everything else. However, I understand religion and [hilosophy very well. There's a couple of threads on this board with my participation on such things. Check them out when you have time. If you still want to have a friendly debate then start things up.

So, in other words, you think Adams et al. lied on a federal document.

If the United States was "founded on the Christian religion", then why in the Constitution does it not mention God once? Why were phrases like 'In God We Trust' added to currency and the pledge long after the founding fathers were dead? Why is the only mention of religion in the Constitution that the US has no religion?

There really isn't any evidence to support the notion that the US was founded on principles of christianity.

Now, if you mean that the US was founded on general principles like respecting other people - well then, yes, sure. But that didn't come from the Bible - it came from the Enlightenment, and most specifically John Locke. The parts of the Bible that most Christians focus on, namely, the parts that can be summed up, "Don't be a jack---" resemble the general ideals of the US. But that is not their source, that is merely coincidental. If America was founded on principles of Christianity, homosexuality would have been outlawed, slavery would have been outlawed (though you might feel free to disagree with me on this once, as Jesus was decidedly pro-slavery, the Bible was pro-slavery, and the South used the Bible to justify slavery and racism up throughout the Civil War), etc. etc.

FWIW, you have also yet to provide a single scrap of evidence that the Constitution and Bill of Rights came from the Bible or Christian values.

Whatever the hell 'Biblical ethic' means.

The Bible says all sorts of ludicrous things like moving sticks on the Sabbath sends you to hell, eating shellfish is wrong, women should have no place in anything even resembling an authority role, if a woman is raped as a virgin, the rapist should pay the woman's father 50 pieces of silver and marry her, if a woman isn't a virgin on her wedding night she should be stoned to death (which, when combined with the previous rapist discussion means any woman who is raped should be stoned to death), slavery is permissible for 7 years, certain tribes and races are innately superior to others, God designed every inch of us but screwed up the penis so we have to hack part of it off, etc. etc.

If you mean the occasional Jesus quote of treating others well, then sure the US was founded on basic human decency, well yeah. But that doesn't mean they used Christianity as the basis for the documents, and in light of the ridiculous morals presented in roughly two thirds of the Bible, I hardly think anyone who has read the entire Bible would call it an ethical book.

Further, the idea that "Christian ideals" are under attack is ludicrous. Teaching evolution in schools is hardly an attack on Christianity. Removing prayer banners and signs on public property isn't an attack on Christianity either, it is simply enforcing secularism and removing things that were unconstitutional to begin with. For the first time in United States history, there are a group of people who are motivated to actually keep secularism intact, and Christians aren't getting the unconstitutional, special treatment they once did. That is not mean there is an attack on Christianity or it's ideals or anything - please let me know the moment governments mandate teaching evolution in Sunday School or have "There is no god" banners at a school. I would protest them right alongside you. But until that day comes, the idea that Christianity is under attack is incorrect and insane.

With this being said why do you think they left out Christian references? Would it be because they wanted to seperate the two?

I suppose so. I think the FF wanted to separate tthe two to keep the state from impinging on the chuech and vice versa. However, that doesn't mean that Biblical principles didn't help guide the ideals of the state.

You didn't offend and I appreciate your post. I think the FF were very intelligent men who understood that religious affairs and civil affairs don't often mix well. This is especially true when you consider that they envisioned absorbing folks from different religious backgrounds. As a Christian my faith colors every aspect of my life. But, in America I realize that people of every faith and creed have a right to their opinions as well. So, I don't think my faith should dictate all that happens in America. Jesus wouldn't want us to force anyone to believe anyway. All I ask is that the Bible be highly respected in our country. Too often folks reject the Bible outright b/c they don't agree with some Christians they know or b/c they quote a passage of Scripture out of its historical context that might seem questionable on the surface. I can't tell you how often I've had to correct folks on that. You're right when you say that the Bible isn't the only source of wisdom or of valuable ethics. It also isn't the only influential ethos that guided the FF. However, it is the main one that guided them, and as a result, it should be highly respected by all Americans, IMHO. One of the great things about the Bible is what it emphasizes. Other religions or philosophies may teach that it's good to be nice to people (to keep it simple). But, it's the comprehensive nature of that ethic (moreso than anywhere else), that's contained in the Bible, that sets it apart.

You are an absolute ignoramus.