Topic: Can a Christian be a good American? (Read 12171 times)

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #60 on:** November 19, 2007, 02:36:34 PM »

"See how you just spun this nonsense out of your own misunderstanding of Atheism."

Welcome to my book of anecdotes.

Dicoll · « **Reply #61 on:** November 19, 2007, 04:30:24 PM »

It's not that difficult to understand.

Religion is the drug, you are the pusher and the Atheist just says NO.

You don't need to research and understand the chemistry involved to see how the drug affects the behaviour of the user.

Tomtheironmongoose · « **Reply #62 on:** November 27, 2007, 07:25:01 PM »

Yeah, religion is a drug. Just like how antibiotics are drugs. As well as other essential medicines.

Dicoll, just out of curiousity, would you count delusional or irrational as contrary to the normal order? I amjust curious about this because if that is the case, then that would make atheism delusional and irrational, because it has only put foward by a small minority of people throughout history. Of that small minority, even less were qualitatively smart.

Dicoll · « **Reply #63 on:** November 28, 2007, 10:13:16 AM »

You suggest that 'normal order' it that which is believed by a majority, as in 'might-makes-right'. Under that definition, Muslims 20.12% or Roman Catholics 17.33% have the most rational of world-views. (Figures are from the CIA world fact book)

Rationality is easily defined. If you cannot conduct an argument or explain and event without invoking the 'supernatural' or 'miracles', that argument is irrational.

There are many more Atheist than you will find on the surface. For centuries it was a virtual death sentence to declare oneself as Atheist. The modern world is becoming more enlightened but religious fervour can still wield a powerful fist. Just look at a current news story where Turkey is attempting to prosecute the publisher of Richard Dawkin's book 'The God Delusion' because it may be "an attack on religious values".
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/28/dawkins.turkey.ap/index.html
Talk about putting the cart before the horse. Religion is of course an attack on rational values.

Tomtheironmongoose · « **Reply #64 on:** November 29, 2007, 03:44:08 PM »

Then what is normal?

Then arent you appealing to empirical data and not rational understanding?

Dont argue from ignorance. Only the incompetent and the ignorant should be tolerated in that, and I hope you are neither.

OK, the Turkish publisher should be able to publish Dawkins. But where ever Dawkins got his education, they should take his diploma away. He has no understanding of philosophy or theology, and has result, he usually talks out of his rear.

Please define rational values? Compassion, Charity, Hope? Those hardly seem rational. Except to exploit them for ones own gain. David Hume said that morals are not conclusions of our reason.

When one gets right down to it, atheism is more of an attack on reason. Atheists and Christians start on the presupposition. The Christian has faith seeking understanding. The Atheist has faith seeking vindication.

JustLiz · « **Reply #65 on:** December 05, 2007, 11:04:34 AM »

Quote from: Dicoll on November 28, 2007, 10:13:16 AM

Rationality is easily defined. If you cannot conduct an argument or explain and event without invoking the 'supernatural' or 'miracles', that argument is irrational.

Okay, since nobody else has done it, I will.

Dicoll, Where did you find this definition of rationality?

Dicoll · « **Reply #66 on:** December 05, 2007, 11:18:24 AM »

Quote from: JustLiz on December 05, 2007, 11:04:34 AM

Quote from: Dicoll on November 28, 2007, 10:13:16 AM
Rationality is easily defined. If you cannot conduct an argument or explain an event without invoking the 'supernatural' or 'miracles', that argument is irrational.
Okay, since nobody else has done it, I will.
Dicoll, Where did you find this definition of rationality?

Ummm.... it's mine.

But you're welcome to poke holes into it.

End Bringer · « **Reply #67 on:** December 05, 2007, 11:53:39 PM »

Quote from: Dicoll on November 28, 2007, 10:13:16 AM

Rationality is easily defined. If you cannot conduct an argument or explain and event without invoking the 'supernatural' or 'miracles', that argument is irrational.

Dear Kettle, it

Dicoll · « **Reply #68 on:** December 06, 2007, 07:48:41 AM »

Quote

So really, how do you find Christians disloyal to America when it's pretty much the Christian faith held by strict hard-liners that made up this country?

I said it before. Two hundred plus years ago, if you weren't associated with one religion or another, you were ostracized and virtually dead. You simply could not afford to be without association to a religion. That does not mean that they were all

End Bringer · « **Reply #69 on:** December 06, 2007, 05:46:53 PM »

Quote from: Dicoll on December 06, 2007, 07:48:41 AM

Quote
So really, how do you find Christians disloyal to America when it's pretty much the Christian faith held by strict hard-liners that made up this country?

I said it before. Two hundred plus years ago, if you weren't associated with one religion or another, you were ostracized and virtually dead. You simply could not afford to be without association to a religion. That does not mean that they were all

Copernicus · « **Reply #70 on:** December 07, 2007, 01:51:12 AM »

Quote from: End Bringer on December 06, 2007, 05:46:53 PM

First Amendmant:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press: or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You know, this tells me they knew something about their knowledge of respective government. As the First Amendment reads more like a restriciton of what the government can and cannot dictate. I see no restriction against religion in the First Amendmant. I see that they wanted free exercise thereof.

End Bringer, are you intentionally misreading what Dicoll said? The first amendment does ban government meddling in religion. Under the Articles of Confederation, several states had passed laws of establishment. The first amendment was designed specifically to ban those establishments. Freedom of worship does not mean freedom to use public property and public money to support religion. You have completely muddled the politics of those times by confusing the religious affiliations of politicians with official endorsement of religion by government. Jefferson's "Wall of Separation" letter to the Baptists really did express the intent behind that amendment.

Quote

That all men are created equal." sounds more attuned to the Christian view than the Atheistic, don't it?

You've misread the context, which was language intended to send a pointed message to the King and the Parliament. They deliberately used wording from John Locke, who had written a famous treatise on when rebellion against a government would be justified. The Constitution was more influenced by Hume, who was not as religious as Locke. Hence, there was no mention of "God" anywhere in that secular document.

End Bringer · « **Reply #71 on:** December 07, 2007, 12:33:45 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on December 07, 2007, 01:51:12 AM

Quote from: End Bringer on December 06, 2007, 05:46:53 PM
First Amendmant:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press: or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You know, this tells me they knew something about their knowledge of respective government. As the First Amendment reads more like a restriciton of what the government can and cannot dictate. I see no restriction against religion in the First Amendmant. I see that they wanted free exercise thereof.

End Bringer, are you intentionally misreading what Dicoll said? The first amendment does ban government meddling in religion. Under the Articles of Confederation, several states had passed laws of establishment. The first amendment was designed specifically to ban those establishments. Freedom of worship does not mean freedom to use public property and public money to support religion. You have completely muddled the politics of those times by confusing the religious affiliations of politicians with official endorsement of religion by government. Jefferson's "Wall of Separation" letter to the Baptists really did express the intent behind that amendment.

No, but I see you're misreading mine. I pointed out that the First Amendment bans government meddling in religion, but also bans the meddling in the exercising of that religion. If you acknowledge that the First Amendment bans government meddling with religion, how can you turn around and say the government can ban those religions when public resources are involved thanks to the First Amendment?

It says Congress shall not make a law respecting an establishment. The First Amendmant did not make the establishments illegal, but were rather designed to ban those laws respecting those establishments. It says nothing about prohibiting the establishments themselves. In fact, the second part of that sentence clearly says for no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

If it's public property than it belongs to the public, does it not? Religious people are part of the public, are they not? Preventing the public to freely exercise their freedom of religion and speech in public property or with public resources, violates their First Amendmant rights more than upholding it.

As far as Jefferson's letter goes, in what context did he make that statement? Many people rattle off Jefferson's wall of seperation between church and state as a well worn phrase, but give no decent arguement behind it.

But here let me help you. Jefferson's letter was written to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802. The Baptists were afraid that Congress might pass a law establishing a state religion. Jefferson wrote back and said there is a wall of seperation between church and state. In other words, the state could not break down the wall and establish a state religion (you'll notice the First Amendment addresses what Congress shall make no law for). The wall was for the state, not the religion.

Jefferson's letter had nothing to do with keeping religion out of government. Like I pointed out earlier most of the Founding Fathers were deeply religious men. If you read more of Jefferson's writings you'll find many places were he encourages the free exercise of religion. It's just the opposite of what you are saying.

Quote

Quote
That all men are created equal." sounds more attuned to the Christian view than the Atheistic, don't it?

You've misread the context, which was language intended to send a pointed message to the King and the Parliament. They deliberately used wording from John Locke, who had written a famous treatise on when rebellion against a government would be justified. The Constitution was more influenced by Hume, who was not as religious as Locke. Hence, there was no mention of "God" anywhere in that secular document.

Yes, the Decleration of Independence was a declaration to the King and Parlament, summing up the convictions and political philosophy of the American people. Though it should be noted that Jefferson expressed that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness as self-evident truths. Which adds more to my point of religion not being seperated from government, but rather government seperated from religion, as it's founding principles are clearly informed by biblical truth.

As far as the Constitution being more secular goes, are the theological doctrines of the Bible explicitly woven into our fabric of government? The answer is no. The non-establishment clause of the First Amendment absolutely prohibits such a thing. They did not want an official religion for the entire country. However, was the Biblical view of the world--the existence of God who active in human history, the authority of the Scripture, the inherent sinfulness of man, the existence of absolute objective morality, and God-given transcendent rights--was that the philosophic foundation of the Constitution? The answer is, without question, yes. The American community at that time presumed a common set of values which were principally biblical.

Look let's not rewrite history to relegate those with religious convictions to the sidelines. The privilege of citizenship remains the same for all despite their religious convictions. Everyone gets a voice and everyone gets a vote. But having said that, though, in writing the First Amendment and the non-establishment clause, they did not have in view this current idea of separation--that the state is thoroughly secular and not informed at all by religious values, especially Christian. This view that is popular now was completely foreign, not just to the Founders, but to the first 150 years of American political thought. It's absolutely clear that the Fathers did not try to excise every vestige of Christian religion, Christian thought, and Christian values from all facets of public life. In fact, they were friendly to religion in general, and to Christianity in particular, and encouraged its education and expression.

Copernicus · « **Reply #72 on:** December 07, 2007, 01:59:22 PM »

Quote from: End Bringer on December 07, 2007, 12:33:45 PM

End Bringer, are you intentionally misreading what Dicoll said? The first amendment does ban government meddling in religion...

No, but I see you're misreading mine. It says Congress shall not make a law respecting an establishment. The First Amendmant did not make the establishments illegal, but were rather designed to ban those laws respecting those establishments. It says nothing about prohibiting the establishments themselves. In fact, the second part of that sentence clearly says for no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If it's public property than it belongs to the public, does it not? Religious people are part of the public, are they not? Preventing the public to freely exercise their freedom of religion and speech in public property or with public resources, violates their First Amendmant rights more than upholding it.

The usual interpretation of the First Amendment is that the government should not legislate on religious matters. Period. In fact, the government does this quite a bit, but the amendment still stands as a roadblock to the use of government to promote religious opinion. The public also includes atheists, but religion advocates would go into a frenzy if they started erecting signs on courthouse lawns declaring that belief in God was wrong. Your wording above shows your clear intent--that government property be used to advertise religious opinion. That is a violation of the amendment. It does not suppress freedom of religious expression for the government to stay out of religion.

Quote

As far as Jefferson's letter goes, in what context did he make that statement? Many people rattle off Jefferson's wall of seperation between church and state as a well worn phrase, but give no decent arguement behind it.

Did you not notice my reference to the Baptists? I am perfectly well aware of the context. The Baptists were influential in helping to establish secular government. I wish that modern Baptists were better informed of the concerns of their predecessors.

Quote

But here let me help you. Jefferson's letter was written to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802. The Baptists were afraid that Congress might pass a law establishing a state religion. Jefferson wrote back and said there is a wall of seperation between church and state. In other words, the state could not break down the wall and establish a state religion (you'll notice the First Amendment addresses what Congress shall make no law for). The wall was for the state, not the religion.

Again, are you intentionally misreading what I and others have said? We are in violent agreement that the government cannot meddle in religious matters. That is not the issue. The issue is that people with a religious agenda want to use the government to get free advertising and official endorsement for their faith. That is why we have references to "God" on our money--an endorsement that appeared only decades after the ratification of the Bill of Rights--and mention of "God" in our Pledge of Allegiance--an endorsement that only appeared in the 1950s. The 1796 Treaty of Tripoli, which was ratified by Congress, went out of its way to declare that the US was not a "Christian" nation. Article 11 of that treaty begins: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.... That is not to say that the vast majority of Americans are not Christian. It is to say that their government is not a Christian government. It is a secular government. Jefferson, Madison, and others took a laissez faire approach to religion. (Madison even felt that prayers before the opening of Congress were unconsitutional.)

Quote

Jefferson's letter had nothing to do with keeping religion out of government. Like I pointed out earlier most of the Founding Fathers were deeply religious men. If you read more of Jefferson's writings you'll find many places were he encourages the free exercise of religion. It's just the opposite of what you are saying.

Not only do you distort what I said, but you totally misrepresent Jefferson. He was a deist, who obsessed over what he considered false information in the Bible. He went so far as to construct a version of the Bible in which he removed all of the statements that he considered false and absurd. He belonged to no church, and he was widely criticized for it. I suggest that you do some further reading of Jefferson's writings, and you ought to start with this list of quotations.

Quote

Quote
That all men are created equal." sounds more attuned to the Christian view than the Atheistic, don't it?

You've misread the context, which was language intended to send a pointed message to the King and the Parliament. They deliberately used wording from John Locke, who had written a famous treatise on when rebellion against a government would be justified. The Constitution was more influenced by Hume, who was not as religious as Locke. Hence, there was no mention of "God" anywhere in that secular document.

Yes, the Decleration of Independence was a declaration to the King and Parlament, summing up the convictions and political philosophy of the American people. Though it should be noted that Jefferson expressed that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness as self-evident truths. Which adds more to my point of religion not being seperated from government, but rather government seperated from religion, as it's founding principles are clearly informed by biblical truth.

Nothing you say here contradicts my point--that you misread the real message of that wording. The language of the Declaration was not an endorsement of religious belief, but a message that pointedly used wording of Locke and others to justify rebellion. Locke did give a religious spin to so-called "natural law", but other philosophers of that school of thought, particularly Hume, were strong skeptics of religion. The Constitution was more strongly influenced by Hume's thinking than Locke's.

Quote

As far as the Constitution being more secular goes, are the theological doctrines of the Bible explicitly woven into our fabric of government? The answer is no. The non-establishment clause of the First Amendment absolutely prohibits such a thing. They did not want an official religion for the entire country. However, was the Biblical view of the world--the existence of God who active in human history, the authority of the Scripture, the inherent sinfulness of man, the existence of absolute objective morality, and God-given transcendent rights--was that the philosophic foundation of the Constitution? The answer is, without question, yes. The American community at that time presumed a common set of values which were principally biblical.

That is a non-sequitur. The fact that the majority of ratifiers of the Constitution held religious faith in Christianity does not mean that the Constitution was founded on Christian principles. In fact, one of the major philosophical influences on the Constitution was David Hume, who quite explicitly rejected Christianity. Notice that I am not taking the position that the Constitution therefore rejects Christianity. Far from it, the Constitution, as amended, forbids the government from doing anything to promote or inhibit religion. It is supposed to remain strictly neutral.

Quote

Look let's not rewrite history to relegate those with religious convictions to the sidelines...

What is happening here is that you are rewriting history to relegate religious convictions to the forefront, where they do not belong.

Quote

...The privilege of citizenship remains the same for all despite their religious convictions. Everyone gets a voice and everyone gets a vote...

Actually, this is not always true for atheists. None other than GW's father has endorsed the opinion that atheists are not true citizens. Religious belief is a de facto litmus test for office, although the Constitution explicitly prohibits it as de jure. We now have to listen to presidential candidates make loud public endorsements of religion as a condition of their gaining a serious nomination for office. Church property is not taxed, which means that public money subsidizes the protection of church property by fire and police departments, not to mention a wide range of other services. The laws prohibiting religious organizations from engaging in political activities are seldom enforced, even though they are quite often violated.

Quote

But having said that, though, in writing the First Amendment and the non-establishment clause, they did not have in view this current idea of separation--that the state is thoroughly secular and not informed at all by religious values, especially Christian....

This is a total distortion of what secular government means. It doesn't mean that you throw your values out the door when making laws. It means that you must show that a law is in the public interest, not just in the interest of your religious viewpoint. Everyone can see why it makes sense to pass laws that prohibit violent behavior and theft of property. You don't need to consult scripture to understand their practical value for society. But it is a different matter to pass laws that govern whether we can eat meat on Friday, shave facial hair, or wear fancy clothing.

Quote

This view that is popular now was completely foreign, not just to the Founders, but to the first 150 years of American political thought. It's absolutely clear that the Fathers did not try to excise every vestige of Christian religion, Christian thought, and Christian values from all facets of public life. In fact, they were friendly to religion in general, and to Christianity in particular, and encouraged its education and expression.

But not always legally. You are right that the government does have a strong pro-Christian bias, and it has been an uphill battle to keep our secular freedoms from being trampled by the religious majority. Sadly, most of organized religion in modern America has lost the insight that the Baptists had at the time the Constitution was being ratified.

Tomtheironmongoose · « **Reply #73 on:** December 07, 2007, 05:56:14 PM »

Copernicus, I do believe there is an issue that you are missing. The more politically active, alarmist even, elements of the larger and conservative denominations have been looking at Europe (and to a lesser degree, that I know of). Seperation of Church of State is being used in such a way that when pastors preach on morality, like homosexuality for example (it was the only example I could think of), they are liable to hate crimes.
I personally lean in the direction of Principled Pluralism as described by Richard Land.

End Bringer · « **Reply #74 on:** December 07, 2007, 08:18:33 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on December 07, 2007, 01:59:22 PM

The usual interpretation of the First Amendment is that the government should not legislate on religious matters. Period. In fact, the government does this quite a bit, but the amendment still stands as a roadblock to the use of government to promote religious opinion. The public also includes atheists, but religion advocates would go into a frenzy if they started erecting signs on courthouse lawns declaring that belief in God was wrong.

Much like how athiests go crazy over every little public expression of religion because they find it offensive? And it's the usual interpretation I'm using to illistrate my point. The First Amendment restricts the government, not the people. Any religious person, any religious organization, any religious conviction has its place in the public debate. It

Dicoll · « **Reply #75 on:** December 08, 2007, 09:03:36 AM »

End Bringer, what an ominous name!

I hope that you are not a lawyer because you seem to be able to distort the most basic of statements into a convoluted, self-serving argument.

Quote

Yep, goes back to what I've said about religion having free reign to influence the government, but a one-way wall for the government not to influence religion.

A magical wall! How convenient. The first amendment clearly states:

End Bringer · « **Reply #76 on:** December 08, 2007, 12:46:38 PM »

Quote from: Dicoll on December 08, 2007, 09:03:36 AM

End Bringer, what an ominous name!

I hope that you are not a lawyer because you seem to be able to distort the most basic of statements into a convoluted, self-serving argument.

Please don't be upset Kettle. It's nothing personal, but your hue is just too unsettling.

Quote

Quote
Yep, goes back to what I've said about religion having free reign to influence the government, but a one-way wall for the government not to influence religion.
A magical wall! How convenient. The first amendment clearly states:

Dicoll · « **Reply #77 on:** December 09, 2007, 11:03:08 AM »

Quote

In what part of the Amendment does it say that? (

End Bringer · « **Reply #78 on:** December 09, 2007, 01:46:21 PM »

Quote from: Dicoll on December 09, 2007, 11:03:08 AM

Quote
In what part of the Amendment does it say that? (

Dicoll · « **Reply #79 on:** December 09, 2007, 02:22:40 PM »

Quote

If it's ultimately considered illegal than we will have to violate the law. Just as the first Christians violated the law and became martyrs. Which comes back to the very beginning of this thread. Christians can be "good (insert country)", but only as long as that country doesn't violate the principles Christians are called upon to uphold. The government isn't the ultimate authority, and sometimes it is moral to violate a government law. I know you believe this, given how you seem to think government suppression of atheism is wrong.

I think you are making my point with this statement.

Author Topic: Can a Christian be a good American? (Read 12171 times)