Should God's Law be the Law of the Land?

[Derideo_Te]

We'll just have to agree to disagree D.T. I am as convinced of the truth of my statements as you are convinced I'm all wet.

I base my convictions on my experience, what I see and read and hear with my own eyes and my own understanding. I note that for years now, whenever somebody starts a religious thread, the Atheists almost always descend upon it to inform us believers how delusional we are to believe and teach 'fairy tales' and such, how intolerant we are, how bigoted we are, how we are trying to force our religion on others, yadda yadda.

But your experience is based exclusively on the threads where you are only exposed to the vocal subset of Atheists who have strong views and who are responding to their equally vocal counterparts amongst believers. Would it be fair to judge all Christians by the likes of only QW and KG? If not then why are you judging all Atheists by the handful who participate in this forum? Most Atheists are just normal average everyday people who you would never know were Atheists at all.



The Founding Fathers were complaining about corruption in Congress from the very outset. The primary difference is that today corporate welfare is the primary driver of corruption amongst the politicians and it is completely bipartisan.

You can see in recent posts here, that some simply cannot bear to hear this said even though they cannot rebut it with anything authoritative. So they attack me or somebody else making the case.

And so it goes. . .

And now I intend to go put the frosting on an excellent devil's food cake as that is what our local Christians ordered instead of angel food.

Even if there was complete reform of the entire political campaign system to outlaw any connection between contributions and subsequent legislation there would still be corruption. Whenever there is a lot of money involved you will find corruption. Greed is a very powerful motivator.

You are quite right that while I did not intend to infer that ALL Atheists are hostile and uncharitable to the religious, I did not make that unequivocably clear in my previous post. So I will graciously accept your gentle chiding and do wish to make that correction now.

I will stand by my conviction however that you can trace the huge lion's share of corruption and malfeasance in government to self serving politicians and those who depend on them who use our hard earned money to increase their power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes. If we removed that one single ability from them, the unacceptable stuff that would be left would be on such a smaller scale and of so much less consequence that we could recognize it and deal with it more constructively.

And because there would be far less personal gain included in the equation, we would be far more likely to have honorable public servants instead of career politicians running for office.

The hurdle to get over though, is most folks are more than willing to have government benefits and corruption addressed, so long as it doesn't interfere with whatever government benefits they themselves are receiving. And because 50% or more of Americans are now receiving some kind of government benefit, it becomes increasingly more difficult to address the core problem. And I still remain convinced that this is the last generation who will have any chance of doing so.

And you are quite right that there is culpability throughout government regardless of political affiliation. Which is why I made no distinction between political parties in my previous comments.

You are a good honest person, Foxy.

As for government corruption and your figure of 50% of Americans receiving benefits that figure is way too low. Virtually 100% of all taxpayers are receiving the benefit of tax rates that are too low. The same applies for mortgage deductions and then there are the endless loopholes in the tax laws. That only addresses the issue of government income. When it comes to spending the corruption is far, far worse.

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

So which of God's laws do you think we should not enforce...that are being proposed, and are incompatible with the law of the land

And who is trying to force God's laws on the people (in this country), in instances where God's laws are separate and different from the laws of the land?

Specifics, please. Names and legislation.

Did I make such a claim? Perhaps you misunderstood me.

When I said that some people have a problem with others forcing their beliefs on them I was speaking in generalities referring to situations that commonly occur when religious people interact with non-religious people. Living in Utah I have often witnessed firsthand the resentment that can grow when even one member of a religious sect behaves badly when interacting with non-members (or even members of their own sect.) Law did not even have anything to do with that specific thought. It was actually more of a comment on the general tone of resentment or hostility that is often directed towards religious people.

I made no insinuations regarding laws that may or may not be proposed in any jurisdiction. As I said in my first post, I am not well informed of current events. I have been a little too busy trying to keep my head above water for the last few years to pay much attention to anything that was going on in the wider world around me. I know there isn't ever really a good excuse to put your head in the sand, but when stress comes around it can be hard to care what's going on out there.

I have no argument with you Kosher. You may want to try picking a fight with someone who is actually prepared to argue with you. I am no great debater, and I am not supporting the point of view that you seem to have a problem with in any case.

The belligerent attitude you are showing even towards me, a self-described religious person, is a perfect example of why non-religious people are so vocal at times against religious people. The outspoken few who do not even close to represent my own opinions have gotten me labeled as a zealot for expressing a belief in God. It is uncomfortable to be associated with that kind of mentality.

 

[Foxfyre]

I suppose this probably wasn't such a good choice for my first read on this forum. So much for easing my way in...

I come from a religious background. Whether I am "Christian" or not depends on your definition of the term. I don't claim to be an educated person, nor do I presume to instruct you on how to live your life. I don't know a lot about current events, and I am not a scholar of constitutional law. In short, I am human, and full of human flaws. That said, here is my humble opinion on the matter of whether "God's Law" should be the law of the land.

If God has a Law, the purpose of that law is to help us to better ourselves.

The Law of the Land is meant to protect the rights and lives of others.

I would not want to force anyone to live in accordance to God's Law as I see it. That would defeat the purpose. Being forced to do something does not make you a better person. If you only do good because you are forced to do so it does not change who you are. You have to choose something for it to be a real indication of what kind of person you are.

The Law of the Land on the other hand has to be enforced. The Law of the Land is not for your own good. It is for the protection of those around you. I cannot trust you not to exercise your free will in a way that will harm me or those that I love. I would be foolish to trust you thereby risking my life, limb and property or those of my fellow man.

So God's Law and the Law of the Land are and will always be separate. By making God's Law the Law of the Land you would in effect make it not God's Law. By removing the choice and personal accountability you would invalidate it's very purpose. Or by allowing others to act entirely of their own free will you would neglect your responsibility to protect the rights of others.

That said, the Law of the Land has and always will stem from the moral beliefs of the people. What makes it wrong to kill or to steal? There has to be some value that tells us that these things are wrong. For many of us this "moral compass" is inspired by or strengthened by our religious beliefs. For others it may come from an entirely different source of morals. You may not agree with or value the morals of others. Unfortunately because we live in a community you may need to learn to live with them.

A commendable first post, new friend. Kudos and welcome. You did pick an unusually rankorous thread to wade in on.

My take on it isn't that much different from yours as I also believe our sense of right and wrong comes out of our cultural influences, and those cultural influences, for better or worst, have been shaped mostly by the JudeoChristian traditions that were the norm from the time the first settlers arrived at Plymouth Rock and coming forward.

I agree that there is a civil law of the land--one initiated and installed and enforced by humans--and this may or may not be in agreement with God's law. It is this law that generally receives most of our attention.

But from the beginning of this thread, I also say that humans cannot remove themselves from God's law that will be the ultimate law of the land whether or not anybody recognizes it, acknowledges it, or obeys it. God's law is eternal and cannot be escaped. We are subject to both the blessings and consequences of God's law whether or not we choose to be and whether or not we believe it even exists. But that is my opinion and belief, and not one that I am at liberty, either by God or by civil authority, to impose on anybody else.

Thanks. I think I'll try to find the kiddie pool next time instead of diving in way over my head.

So really the only disagreement that you and I seem to have is possibly a matter of definition. When I refer to the Law of the Land I refer only to the "civil law of the land--one initiated and installed and enforced by humans." as you called it. I can only speak from my own understanding, but I believe that was also the meaning intended by the OP.

Anyone who believes in God's Law will certainly believe that law to be supreme and unavoidable. Trying to force others to obey that law is where I think some have a problem.

I have had others try to force their beliefs down my throat. After I bit their hand I politely excused myself from their company. It isn't a pleasant experience, and nothing could prompt me to disagree with you faster or more reflexively than trying to force your point of view on me. I can wholeheartedly understand the plight of the atheist or "non-believer" when faced with an overzealous "believer".

The best way for me to share my point of view with a person is for me to live my life in such a way that they can look at me and say, "now there is an honorable man." Then they might be interested in what I have to say. If not, at least I may have a friend.

Nice to meet you Fox.

Nice to meet you too, and I don't think you'll be needing a kiddie pool or any other beginner's training. You seem to have a pretty good handle on who you are and have more than emotion to anchor you in what you believe. I just hope you brought your flack jacket and a good bullshit detector as both are sometimes needed in these forums.

And we probably don't have any significant differences re civil law. The only place I differ from most in the context of this thread is that though we are all subject to civil law, ordered and enforced by other humans, I am still conscious of God's authority that ultimately will win out over all other whether now or sometime in the future. It's His call.

It was just my wierd way of interpreting the question in the thread title: "Should God's law be the law of the land?" As I see it, we don't have any choice in that. It already is because that's his call and not ours.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Well there is one thing we can't disagree with

Judeo-Christianity does have a marked influence on the US Constitution.

But to say it is based on christiantiy in itself is kind of a reach.

Especially since the Christianity of the last 300 years is in turn based upon Judaism, Greek philosophy, and even some Arab Philosophy and Islam itself.

So the real question is--with all this stuff forming an ideological basis for the US constitution, is there any atheism in it(Deism and pantheism does not count--in a since they too have a god/s even if it is not the same as the christian god)

I think now that most people wish to attack what I just posted. Go ahead, its just an opinion.

Not me. It's a fair and balanced view of history. Whatever basis on Judeo-Christian values that there is in the Constitution is there in an indirect way, since the values of classical liberalism have their influences from the same. There's no stretch in saying that. Any laws since then that were influenced by faith are simply there because of the predominance of the faith amongst Americans. No big mystery there either. Some of them have been determined to be unconstitutional, sometimes for good reason.

The founders set a framework of religious tolerance and specifically tried to avoid a theocracy. A predominant faith is naturally going to flourish under such a framework, such as it did with Christianity. Modern fundamentalists want a return to what they believe was a theocratic framework that really never existed, and now Christianity is falling apart, partly as a result of that, and yes, partly because of efforts by atheists to shut down any influence of faith on politics. That's where we are now. Christians want a theocracy, and atheists don't want religion to have any influence on politics. Neither is really possible under the Constitution. The Constitution forbids a theocracy, while nothing can prevent elected officials from having faith and letting it influence their decisions and voting practices. It is a balance that has always been. Let it be.

Please list the "Christians" calling for a "theocracy". Love how you people just make stuff up to make Christians look bad. Bear false witness, much?

You want a list? Damn.

When I hear evangelicals referring to the U.S. as a "Christian nation," which is often, I know they are not merely talking about it being the predominant faith, there is almost always a political context. If they are so focused on the U.S. as a Christian nation, I take this as an endorsement of a theocracy, or at the very least that they wouldn't mind it much. And since the title of the thread asked if God's Law should be the law of the land, it seems fairly relevant.

Also, I confess I am using the word theocracy pretty loosely. For that I apologize.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not me. It's a fair and balanced view of history. Whatever basis on Judeo-Christian values that there is in the Constitution is there in an indirect way, since the values of classical liberalism have their influences from the same. There's no stretch in saying that. Any laws since then that were influenced by faith are simply there because of the predominance of the faith amongst Americans. No big mystery there either. Some of them have been determined to be unconstitutional, sometimes for good reason.

The founders set a framework of religious tolerance and specifically tried to avoid a theocracy. A predominant faith is naturally going to flourish under such a framework, such as it did with Christianity. Modern fundamentalists want a return to what they believe was a theocratic framework that really never existed, and now Christianity is falling apart, partly as a result of that, and yes, partly because of efforts by atheists to shut down any influence of faith on politics. That's where we are now. Christians want a theocracy, and atheists don't want religion to have any influence on politics. Neither is really possible under the Constitution. The Constitution forbids a theocracy, while nothing can prevent elected officials from having faith and letting it influence their decisions and voting practices. It is a balance that has always been. Let it be.

Please list the "Christians" calling for a "theocracy". Love how you people just make stuff up to make Christians look bad. Bear false witness, much?

You want a list? Damn.

When I hear evangelicals referring to the U.S. as a "Christian nation," which is often, I know they are not merely talking about it being the predominant faith, there is almost always a political context. If they are so focused on the U.S. as a Christian nation, I take this as an endorsement of a theocracy, or at the very least that they wouldn't mind it much. And since the title of the thread asked if God's Law should be the law of the land, it seems fairly relevant.

Also, I confess I am using the word theocracy pretty loosely. For that I apologize.

The flaw in your argument though is that it was mostly devoutly Christian men who forged the Constitution and determined that no pope or any other religious authority would have any power over the people that they did not seek and choose, nor would the government have any authority over what they chose to seek, believe, and profess. But according to their writings, letters, notes, transcripts of speeches that they left for us, they to a man agreed with the concept of natural/God given rights that no government nor religious authority would have the ability to take away.

And no nation has been founded on a principle of freedoms, including religious liberty as was the United States founded.

But it was their Christian faith that informed them of what must go into the Constitution and what must be left out. It was their Christian faith that pushed them to establish a nation based on self governance rather than orders of a monarch, despot, dictator, pope, feudal lord, or other authoritarian government.

And while there was no religious test for any immigrant to America or to hold high office, from the Mayflower and Plymouth Rock and Jamestown, the USA has been a predominantly Christian nation. It was Christians who mostly settled or tamed the towns, built the churches, built the schools, built the hospitals, built the universities, and forced social change to correct great inequities. It has been mostly Christians who have accepted positions of leadership to guide the process. We have had no President and only one or two governors of any state who did not profess some aspect of the Christian faith.

Would the USA have become the great nation is became without all that Christian influence? Or did it become the great nation it has become in spite of it? We can argue that until the cows come home. But no honest student of history can deny that the Chrsitian influence has been the primary influence in the process.

And so, if you are a believer, has the USA been specially blessed because it has better kept God's law? Is it losing that blessing because we are getting more and more away from God's law? That also is a powerful concept for a good debate for those willing to have it.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Please list the "Christians" calling for a "theocracy". Love how you people just make stuff up to make Christians look bad. Bear false witness, much?

You want a list? Damn.

When I hear evangelicals referring to the U.S. as a "Christian nation," which is often, I know they are not merely talking about it being the predominant faith, there is almost always a political context. If they are so focused on the U.S. as a Christian nation, I take this as an endorsement of a theocracy, or at the very least that they wouldn't mind it much. And since the title of the thread asked if God's Law should be the law of the land, it seems fairly relevant.

Also, I confess I am using the word theocracy pretty loosely. For that I apologize.

The flaw in your argument though is that it was mostly devoutly Christian men who forged the Constitution and determined that no pope or any other religious authority would have any power over the people that they did not seek and choose, nor would the government have any authority over what they chose to seek, believe, and profess. But according to their writings, letters, notes, transcripts of speeches that they left for us, they to a man agreed with the concept of natural/God given rights that no government nor religious authority would have the ability to take away.

And no nation has been founded on a principle of freedoms, including religious liberty as was the United States founded.

But it was their Christian faith that informed them of what must go into the Constitution and what must be left out. It was their Christian faith that pushed them to establish a nation based on self governance rather than orders of a monarch, despot, dictator, pope, feudal lord, or other authoritarian government.

And while there was no religious test for any immigrant to America or to hold high office, from the Mayflower and Plymouth Rock and Jamestown, the USA has been a predominantly Christian nation. It was Christians who mostly settled or tamed the towns, built the churches, built the schools, built the hospitals, built the universities, and forced social change to correct great inequities. It has been mostly Christians who have accepted positions of leadership to guide the process. We have had no President and only one or two governors of any state who did not profess some aspect of the Christian faith.

Would the USA have become the great nation is became without all that Christian influence? Or did it become the great nation it has become in spite of it? We can argue that until the cows come home. But no honest student of history can deny that the Chrsitian influence has been the primary influence in the process.

And so, if you are a believer, has the USA been specially blessed because it has better kept God's law? Is it losing that blessing because we are getting more and more away from God's law? That also is a powerful concept for a good debate for those willing to have it.

No. The flaw in my argument was my liberal us of the word "theocracy." I wasn't even talking about the founders when I said that most Christians would not have a problem with a Christian theocracy, nor was I suggesting that we have been or are a theocracy now. It was observational based on my experience with most Christians. What do the founders have to do with that observation?

Further, the "devoutness" of the founders is something that is important to fundamentalists, but is far from certain. The reality is that most of them had Christian affiliations, AND that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were influenced significantly by classical liberalism and The Enlightenment. Are these important details? They are to extremist atheists and theists who have to bicker endlessly about whether we are a "Christian nation" or a "secular nation." We're both. We are are predominantly Christian nation by faith, but with a secular government, as it should be. We are NOT a theocracy. My point is that, based on my experiences with most Christians and their dogged insistence on the U.S. "Christian nation," that they would welcome a Christian theocracy. I'm not convinced I'm wrong about that.

 

[laughinReaper]

Many who believe in the absolute truth of the Christian faith seem to believe that God's Laws should be the law or basis of the law in the US.

What think you?

Christians can follow Gods laws without imposing them on others.

Paying the Imperial Tax to Caesar, Mathew 22

15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a] to Caesar or not?”

18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”


Jesus didn't call for them to over throw the Roman Government but to co exsist with it, so while for a Christian living in a Christian Goverment might be Ideal but the reality is it's not necessary. Then you go into who's version of Christanity should be adopted and it becomes a big mess.

So my answer is the US government should be influenced by Judeo/Chrisitanity IE. Thou shalt not Kill and other basic truths but should not require strict adherence to Christianity. I don't even think the founding fathers wanted a 100% Christian country.

 

[Katzndogz]

God's law IS the law of the land. We just choose to violate it. It doesn't change the law any. There is a law against promiscuity and immorality. The punishment is disease and death. We are trying to weaken the effects of that law, but it's there and we haven't done a thing to change it either.

 

[Foxfyre]

You want a list? Damn.

When I hear evangelicals referring to the U.S. as a "Christian nation," which is often, I know they are not merely talking about it being the predominant faith, there is almost always a political context. If they are so focused on the U.S. as a Christian nation, I take this as an endorsement of a theocracy, or at the very least that they wouldn't mind it much. And since the title of the thread asked if God's Law should be the law of the land, it seems fairly relevant.

Also, I confess I am using the word theocracy pretty loosely. For that I apologize.

The flaw in your argument though is that it was mostly devoutly Christian men who forged the Constitution and determined that no pope or any other religious authority would have any power over the people that they did not seek and choose, nor would the government have any authority over what they chose to seek, believe, and profess. But according to their writings, letters, notes, transcripts of speeches that they left for us, they to a man agreed with the concept of natural/God given rights that no government nor religious authority would have the ability to take away.

And no nation has been founded on a principle of freedoms, including religious liberty as was the United States founded.

But it was their Christian faith that informed them of what must go into the Constitution and what must be left out. It was their Christian faith that pushed them to establish a nation based on self governance rather than orders of a monarch, despot, dictator, pope, feudal lord, or other authoritarian government.

And while there was no religious test for any immigrant to America or to hold high office, from the Mayflower and Plymouth Rock and Jamestown, the USA has been a predominantly Christian nation. It was Christians who mostly settled or tamed the towns, built the churches, built the schools, built the hospitals, built the universities, and forced social change to correct great inequities. It has been mostly Christians who have accepted positions of leadership to guide the process. We have had no President and only one or two governors of any state who did not profess some aspect of the Christian faith.

Would the USA have become the great nation is became without all that Christian influence? Or did it become the great nation it has become in spite of it? We can argue that until the cows come home. But no honest student of history can deny that the Chrsitian influence has been the primary influence in the process.

And so, if you are a believer, has the USA been specially blessed because it has better kept God's law? Is it losing that blessing because we are getting more and more away from God's law? That also is a powerful concept for a good debate for those willing to have it.

No. The flaw in my argument was my liberal us of the word "theocracy." I wasn't even talking about the founders when I said that most Christians would not have a problem with a Christian theocracy, nor was I suggesting that we have been or are a theocracy now. It was observational based on my experience with most Christians. What do the founders have to do with that observation?

Further, the "devoutness" of the founders is something that is important to fundamentalists, but is far from certain. The reality is that most of them had Christian affiliations, AND that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were influenced significantly by classical liberalism and The Enlightenment. Are these important details? They are to extremist atheists and theists who have to bicker endlessly about whether we are a "Christian nation" or a "secular nation." We're both. We are are predominantly Christian nation by faith, but with a secular government, as it should be. We are NOT a theocracy. My point is that, based on my experiences with most Christians and their dogged insistence on the U.S. "Christian nation," that they would welcome a Christian theocracy. I'm not convinced I'm wrong about that.

The 'devoutness' of the Founders is uncertain only if you believe the documents, letters, notes, speech transcripts, etc. that they left were forged or that the Founders lied. It is those documents that inform me and other serious students of history. Most anti-religionist, most especially anti-Christians seem desperate to believe that the Founders were mostly a-religious or Deists. While some held some Deist views--many Christians have over the ages--they were not Deists.

And I think you are dead wrong that Christians then or now want a theocracy. If they did, the small theocracies that existed and flourished in the some of the colonies would not have voluntarily disbanded and ceased to exist within a few years of the ratification of the Constitution. Where there had been some completely legal and rigidly enforced theocracies, there were none by the end of the Eighteenth Century. And nothing was required to accomplish that other than the dictates of the consciences of the Christians who disbanded them.

Nor have any new theocracies been proposed or initiated since. They are never necessary or important to have when our unalienable rights are secure and we are otherwise free to belive, live, think, speak, and choose.

That Christians sometimes cite their religious beliefs when proposing or lobbying for variious legislation or policy is no more sinister than Atheists or pro-abortionists or pro-gay rights or pro environmentalists or pro-education or pro-breast cancer research advocates or anybody else who proposes or lobbies for various legislation. And only the most narrow minded, prejudiced, and bigoted would say Christians who petition their govrnment have wrong motives or are forcing their beliefs on others while everybody else is okay.

 

[laughinReaper]

God's law IS the law of the land. We just choose to violate it. It doesn't change the law any. There is a law against promiscuity and immorality. The punishment is disease and death. We are trying to weaken the effects of that law, but it's there and we haven't done a thing to change it either.

Yes you're right, but that is unwritten law, I took the question to mean written law of the USA. Even if the government tries to weaken Gods Law, the Chrisian can still follow Gods law in their everyday lives by not doing things that offend God such as abortion. Even If we made the USA a Chrisitan Theocracy, we couldn't please every Chrisitan because there are so many denominations it wouldn't work.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

The flaw in your argument though is that it was mostly devoutly Christian men who forged the Constitution and determined that no pope or any other religious authority would have any power over the people that they did not seek and choose, nor would the government have any authority over what they chose to seek, believe, and profess. But according to their writings, letters, notes, transcripts of speeches that they left for us, they to a man agreed with the concept of natural/God given rights that no government nor religious authority would have the ability to take away.

And no nation has been founded on a principle of freedoms, including religious liberty as was the United States founded.

But it was their Christian faith that informed them of what must go into the Constitution and what must be left out. It was their Christian faith that pushed them to establish a nation based on self governance rather than orders of a monarch, despot, dictator, pope, feudal lord, or other authoritarian government.

And while there was no religious test for any immigrant to America or to hold high office, from the Mayflower and Plymouth Rock and Jamestown, the USA has been a predominantly Christian nation. It was Christians who mostly settled or tamed the towns, built the churches, built the schools, built the hospitals, built the universities, and forced social change to correct great inequities. It has been mostly Christians who have accepted positions of leadership to guide the process. We have had no President and only one or two governors of any state who did not profess some aspect of the Christian faith.

Would the USA have become the great nation is became without all that Christian influence? Or did it become the great nation it has become in spite of it? We can argue that until the cows come home. But no honest student of history can deny that the Chrsitian influence has been the primary influence in the process.

And so, if you are a believer, has the USA been specially blessed because it has better kept God's law? Is it losing that blessing because we are getting more and more away from God's law? That also is a powerful concept for a good debate for those willing to have it.

No. The flaw in my argument was my liberal us of the word "theocracy." I wasn't even talking about the founders when I said that most Christians would not have a problem with a Christian theocracy, nor was I suggesting that we have been or are a theocracy now. It was observational based on my experience with most Christians. What do the founders have to do with that observation?

Further, the "devoutness" of the founders is something that is important to fundamentalists, but is far from certain. The reality is that most of them had Christian affiliations, AND that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were influenced significantly by classical liberalism and The Enlightenment. Are these important details? They are to extremist atheists and theists who have to bicker endlessly about whether we are a "Christian nation" or a "secular nation." We're both. We are are predominantly Christian nation by faith, but with a secular government, as it should be. We are NOT a theocracy. My point is that, based on my experiences with most Christians and their dogged insistence on the U.S. "Christian nation," that they would welcome a Christian theocracy. I'm not convinced I'm wrong about that.

The 'devoutness' of the Founders is uncertain only if you believe the documents, letters, notes, speech transcripts, etc. that they left were forged or that the Founders lied. It is those documents that inform me and other serious students of history. Most anti-religionist, most especially anti-Christians seem desperate to believe that the Founders were mostly a-religious or Deists. While some held some Deist views--many Christians have over the ages--they were not Deists.

And I think you are dead wrong that Christians then or now want a theocracy. If they did, the small theocracies that existed and flourished in the some of the colonies would not have voluntarily disbanded and ceased to exist within a few years of the ratification of the Constitution. Where there had been some rigidly enforced, there were none by the end of the Eighteenth Century.

Nor have any new theocracies been proposed or initiated since.

That Christians sometimes cite their religious beliefs when proposing or lobbying for variious legislation or policy is no more sinister than Atheists or pro-abortionists or pro-gay rights or pro environmentalists or pro-education or pro-breast cancer research advocates or anybody else who proposes or lobbies for various legislation. And only the most narrow minded, prejudiced, and bigoted would say Christians who petition their govrnment have wrong motives or are forcing their beliefs on others while everybody else is okay.

Well, I appreciate your input more than most. At least you are not assuming me to be an atheist with an accompanying agenda like most do. I am not anti-religious, I am simply NOT religious.

As for the devoutness of our founders, what I mostly see are theologians or atheists contending one or the other, I rarely see any actual documentation that tells me the founder were devout Christians or were a-religious. I simply don't care. The fact is they set up a secular government, and Christianity in America flourished because it was the predominant faith and they had religious freedom. Fine. Good deal then. Atheists in turn can attempt to remove that all they want. I'm fine with that too, actually. So, I understand why theists and atheists are at each others' throats on this board and elsewhere. It doesn't really bother me.

Now, whatever documents that you are referring to that prove the founders were devout Christians guided by God I will happily consider, mostly because it doesn't change anything for me. When I learned that the Treaty of Tripoli signed by John Adams in 1797 said expressly that we are NOT a Christian nation, it didn't change anything for me either. The founders were guided by a lot of things, and I have no doubt that for some of them, maybe most of them, a belief in God guided them to varying degrees. It is only theists and atheists with an agenda who have insist that it was overwhelmingly Christian belief or overwhelmingly secular belief that guided them. Only one thing matters to me, that they were acting in a moment of political genius that provided the world far more good than ill.

I take the influences of that moment into serious consideration, such as their spiritual beliefs, and the influence on some of their most prominent by The Enlightenment. But make no mistake, the movers and shakers, the ones that made the Revolution a reality, were on an Enlightenment mindset, and embraces deism to varying degrees, i.e. Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and a few others. As deist as they were, they recognized that Protestant Christian beliefs were a part of the American identity. Even Paine, perhaps the most influential deist among them, considered this, and not necessarily as a negative.

Anyway, please take my winded reply in a complimentary way. Surely we're not going to see eye-to-eye on many things, but I certainly appreciate your input. I'm used to people simply assuming I am an atheist who hates religion and arguing with me as such. You did not do that, and I appreciate it.

 

[Foxfyre]

But your experience is based exclusively on the threads where you are only exposed to the vocal subset of Atheists who have strong views and who are responding to their equally vocal counterparts amongst believers. Would it be fair to judge all Christians by the likes of only QW and KG? If not then why are you judging all Atheists by the handful who participate in this forum? Most Atheists are just normal average everyday people who you would never know were Atheists at all.



The Founding Fathers were complaining about corruption in Congress from the very outset. The primary difference is that today corporate welfare is the primary driver of corruption amongst the politicians and it is completely bipartisan.



Even if there was complete reform of the entire political campaign system to outlaw any connection between contributions and subsequent legislation there would still be corruption. Whenever there is a lot of money involved you will find corruption. Greed is a very powerful motivator.

You are quite right that while I did not intend to infer that ALL Atheists are hostile and uncharitable to the religious, I did not make that unequivocably clear in my previous post. So I will graciously accept your gentle chiding and do wish to make that correction now.

I will stand by my conviction however that you can trace the huge lion's share of corruption and malfeasance in government to self serving politicians and those who depend on them who use our hard earned money to increase their power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes. If we removed that one single ability from them, the unacceptable stuff that would be left would be on such a smaller scale and of so much less consequence that we could recognize it and deal with it more constructively.

And because there would be far less personal gain included in the equation, we would be far more likely to have honorable public servants instead of career politicians running for office.

The hurdle to get over though, is most folks are more than willing to have government benefits and corruption addressed, so long as it doesn't interfere with whatever government benefits they themselves are receiving. And because 50% or more of Americans are now receiving some kind of government benefit, it becomes increasingly more difficult to address the core problem. And I still remain convinced that this is the last generation who will have any chance of doing so.

And you are quite right that there is culpability throughout government regardless of political affiliation. Which is why I made no distinction between political parties in my previous comments.

You are a good honest person, Foxy.

As for government corruption and your figure of 50% of Americans receiving benefits that figure is way too low. Virtually 100% of all taxpayers are receiving the benefit of tax rates that are too low. The same applies for mortgage deductions and then there are the endless loopholes in the tax laws. That only addresses the issue of government income. When it comes to spending the corruption is far, far worse.

We are getting too far off the rails here with this discussion. If you have no objection, I am going to use your paragraph here and move it to its own thread in the Politics Forum. The title will be: Corruption in government: Is it too late to stop it?

 

[varelse]

Jesus didn't call for them to over throw the Roman Government but to co exsist with it

the FF were terrible Christians, fighting against the rulers whom God had chosen to rule them

 

[newpolitics]

The answer is, fuck no. The Ten Commandments don't belong to Christianity, so even if our natural human morality (secular) is approximated by the Ten Commandments, such Don't murder and don't steal, this is no way means that even a secular moral system with these tenets is "borrowing" from any religion. It is common sense that, if we want to survive as a species, we should not kill each other. I don't need a fucking book to tell me that. If anything, religion simply codified common moral sense, and now you have idiots claiming this is "christian" morality, when, at best, it is a jewish system. Should we also not wear mixed-fabric clothing? Didn't think so.

 

[koshergrl]

When I see a post like that, I actually feel pity for the unsaved. It's so dark, so narrow, and conflicts directly with every good thing that man is or could ever hope to be.

No you don't need a book to survive. You need the book, however, to live beyond the scope of your sadly restricted mind and your sinful, depraved and decaying body.

You're so blind, though, you don't even realize how pathetic man is, when he is without God. Without God, man is no better than an animal, and man has no redeeming characteristics.

 

[Hollie]

When I see a post like that, I actually feel pity for the unsaved. It's so dark, so narrow, and conflicts directly with every good thing that man is or could ever hope to be.

No you don't need a book to survive. You need the book, however, to live beyond the scope of your sadly restricted mind and your sinful, depraved and decaying body.

You're so blind, though, you don't even realize how pathetic man is, when he is without God. Without God, man is no better than an animal, and man has no redeeming characteristics.

Here we see the self-loathing that so often defines the hyper-religious.

From the rational point of view, the fundie cannot withstand a world wherein humans are the final owners of our destiny, that acts need to be watched over and adjudicated by the gods, and that human progress is inherently evil, base, hindered, impossible to be moral without guidance of the father figure. The fundie is in a psychological dilemma of superiority/inferiority -- they are so vaunted by their gods that the entire realm of existence was created exclusively for them, but they are so unworthy that they are but garbage in the sight of their deities. That is a prescription for a maldjusted personality, and again, it's evident by the seething passions that theistic belief has whipped up time and time again.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

When I see a post like that, I actually feel pity for the unsaved. It's so dark, so narrow, and conflicts directly with every good thing that man is or could ever hope to be.

No you don't need a book to survive. You need the book, however, to live beyond the scope of your sadly restricted mind and your sinful, depraved and decaying body.

You're so blind, though, you don't even realize how pathetic man is, when he is without God. Without God, man is no better than an animal, and man has no redeeming characteristics.

Here we see the self-loathing that so often defines the hyper-religious.

From the rational point of view, the fundie cannot withstand a world wherein humans are the final owners of our destiny, that acts need to be watched over and adjudicated by the gods, and that human progress is inherently evil, base, hindered, impossible to be moral without guidance of the father figure. The fundie is in a psychological dilemma of superiority/inferiority -- they are so vaunted by their gods that the entire realm of existence was created exclusively for them, but they are so unworthy that they are but garbage in the sight of their deities. That is a prescription for a maldjusted personality, and again, it's evident by the seething passions that theistic belief has whipped up time and time again.

It's a nice thought, and I agree that human beings can and should be owners of their own destiny. However, the whole of human history demonstrates humanity of being capable of tremendous evil and inhumanity that thus far seems inescapable. As a premise that man is inherently sinful, history supports the Christians fairly well in that regard.

The U.S. has proven to be a shining light to the rest of the world in many ways throughout most of our history. It's no surprise that theists and atheists alike want credit for all that good shit. There is a psychological need being served by placing so much importance on the Christian "guided-by-God" founders pushed by the evangelicals vs. the deist, Enlightenment inspired founders pushed by the atheists. Both influenced the founders and it's high time we accept it and move on with our lives.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Well there is one thing we can't disagree with

Judeo-Christianity does have a marked influence on the US Constitution.

But to say it is based on christiantiy in itself is kind of a reach.

Especially since the Christianity of the last 300 years is in turn based upon Judaism, Greek philosophy, and even some Arab Philosophy and Islam itself.

So the real question is--with all this stuff forming an ideological basis for the US constitution, is there any atheism in it(Deism and pantheism does not count--in a since they too have a god/s even if it is not the same as the christian god)

I think now that most people wish to attack what I just posted. Go ahead, its just an opinion.

Not me. It's a fair and balanced view of history. Whatever basis on Judeo-Christian values that there is in the Constitution is there in an indirect way, since the values of classical liberalism have their influences from the same. There's no stretch in saying that. Any laws since then that were influenced by faith are simply there because of the predominance of the faith amongst Americans. No big mystery there either. Some of them have been determined to be unconstitutional, sometimes for good reason.

The founders set a framework of religious tolerance and specifically tried to avoid a theocracy. A predominant faith is naturally going to flourish under such a framework, such as it did with Christianity. Modern fundamentalists want a return to what they believe was a theocratic framework that really never existed, and now Christianity is falling apart, partly as a result of that, and yes, partly because of efforts by atheists to shut down any influence of faith on politics. That's where we are now. Christians want a theocracy, and atheists don't want religion to have any influence on politics. Neither is really possible under the Constitution. The Constitution forbids a theocracy, while nothing can prevent elected officials from having faith and letting it influence their decisions and voting practices. It is a balance that has always been. Let it be.

Please list the "Christians" calling for a "theocracy". Love how you people just make stuff up to make Christians look bad. Bear false witness, much?

Us people? What people am I a part of in your perception?

Do I have to continue to explain that I have made an observation based on inference? Keep asking for a list of people who specifically are calling for a "theocracy" and you miss the point. Evangelicals are very keen on the "Christian nation" premise. They talk about it frequently. The U.S. is a Christian nation, we have always been a Christian nation, and so on. This suggests that evangelical Christians would welcome and be right at home in a Christian theocracy, and that is exactly what I base my observation on. You are perfectly at liberty to disagree with that observation.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not me. It's a fair and balanced view of history. Whatever basis on Judeo-Christian values that there is in the Constitution is there in an indirect way, since the values of classical liberalism have their influences from the same. There's no stretch in saying that. Any laws since then that were influenced by faith are simply there because of the predominance of the faith amongst Americans. No big mystery there either. Some of them have been determined to be unconstitutional, sometimes for good reason.

The founders set a framework of religious tolerance and specifically tried to avoid a theocracy. A predominant faith is naturally going to flourish under such a framework, such as it did with Christianity. Modern fundamentalists want a return to what they believe was a theocratic framework that really never existed, and now Christianity is falling apart, partly as a result of that, and yes, partly because of efforts by atheists to shut down any influence of faith on politics. That's where we are now. Christians want a theocracy, and atheists don't want religion to have any influence on politics. Neither is really possible under the Constitution. The Constitution forbids a theocracy, while nothing can prevent elected officials from having faith and letting it influence their decisions and voting practices. It is a balance that has always been. Let it be.

Please list the "Christians" calling for a "theocracy". Love how you people just make stuff up to make Christians look bad. Bear false witness, much?

Us people? What people am I a part of in your perception?

Do I have to continue to explain that I have made an observation based on inference? Keep asking for a list of people who specifically are calling for a "theocracy" and you miss the point. Evangelicals are very keen on the "Christian nation" premise. They talk about it frequently. The U.S. is a Christian nation, we have always been a Christian nation, and so on. This suggests that evangelical Christians would welcome and be right at home in a Christian theocracy, and that is exactly what I base my observation on. You are perfectly at liberty to disagree with that observation.

Thanks for your reasonable approach to discussion of this topic, your civility, and for being pretty likable.

But here, I believe your perception and inferences drawn from it are in serious error. When I say that the USA was founded on Christian principles, I mean that the 'secular' government the Founders gave us was nevertheless based on those Christian principles; i.e. that our rights come from God and no church authority (Pope) or civil authority (monarch or other authoritarian government) would have any ability to take those away from us.

In earlier posts you 'inferred' that the Founders were not especially religious. Perhaps you see them more as yourself. And yet we have a lot of evidence that they were devout believers and most were convinced the Constitution and the new nation would survive only in the care of other believers who lived their Christian faith. Many Christians today hold that same opinion; not because the Founders taught that principle, but because their faith informs them of that truth as they see it.

And more than a few believe that when we dismiss or reject God's law as the way we should conduct our government, our busineses, and our personal lives, that we also reject God's help and protection. We ignore God's law at our peril.

And not one of these--nor any of these concepts--suggests that we have or should be a theocracy in the USA. In fact a theocracy would negate the whole concept.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Please list the "Christians" calling for a "theocracy". Love how you people just make stuff up to make Christians look bad. Bear false witness, much?

Us people? What people am I a part of in your perception?

Do I have to continue to explain that I have made an observation based on inference? Keep asking for a list of people who specifically are calling for a "theocracy" and you miss the point. Evangelicals are very keen on the "Christian nation" premise. They talk about it frequently. The U.S. is a Christian nation, we have always been a Christian nation, and so on. This suggests that evangelical Christians would welcome and be right at home in a Christian theocracy, and that is exactly what I base my observation on. You are perfectly at liberty to disagree with that observation.

Thanks for your reasonable approach to discussion of this topic, your civility, and for being pretty likable.

But here, I believe your perception and inferences drawn from it are in serious error. When I say that the USA was founded on Christian principles, I mean that the 'secular' government the Founders gave us was nevertheless based on those Christian principles; i.e. that our rights come from God and no church authority (Pope) or civil authority (monarch or other authoritarian government) would have any ability to take those away from us.

In earlier posts you 'inferred' that the Founders were not especially religious. Perhaps you see them more as yourself. And yet we have a lot of evidence that they were devout believers and most were convinced the Constitution and the new nation would survive only in the care of other believers who lived their Christian faith. Many Christians today hold that same opinion; not because the Founders taught that principle, but because their faith informs them of that truth as they see it.

And more than a few believe that when we dismiss or reject God's law as the way we should conduct our government, our busineses, and our personal lives, that we also reject God's help and protection. We ignore God's law at our peril.

And not one of these--nor any of these concepts--suggests that we have or should be a theocracy in the USA. In fact a theocracy would negate the whole concept.

You're pretty likable yourself.

Your idea that I see the founders as like myself is interesting. I don't exactly feel that way. I admire the founders as well beyond myself, but I think I get your point. It feeds into another post I made earlier in either this thread or another going on with a similar theme.

While I understand that they were influenced by a number of things, to include things like their faith and The Enlightenment and classical liberalism, it seems theists and atheists alike find it exceedingly important to attach their beliefs to the founders. I think I understand why. In the scope of human history, the U.S. has been a shining light to the world in many ways. It's only natural to want to be a part of all that good shit. I think there is a psychological need being served that is not dissimilar to pride in one's cultural heritage.

I don't doubt that somebody will ask me for some kind of link or evidence to this observation, but I suspect you will take it in the spirit in which it is intended.