quote:Well, those who like to pretend the founding fathers sought to establish a Christian nation. That's primarily modern fundamentalists, but it's not exclusive to that group. I certainly know some Mormons who subscribe to that idea.
Heh. Different in interpretation I guess. To me, someone who wants to despite all evidence insist the F.F.s intended to establish a Christian nation is nearly by definition a fundamentalist Christian. I just can't think of any other segment of Christianity that would be so committed to the idea as to ignore the thousands of pages of documents lacking that very specific intent.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry for the delete there. I was going to more graciously concede the point by stating that I'd amend that to "those in modern times who seem most interested in equating the Christian identity of the founding fathers with their own modern Christian identity." ...which is primarily fundamentalists.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
More gracious? *puzzled* I didn't think your previous post was particularly ungraceful. Maybe when you use the word 'pretend'...but since I can't think of another word to use in description of that way of thinking, well...
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I wasn't initially willing to conceded the point, and then I was, which I think is *more* gracious. Not that the initial post was all that ungracious Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, OK. Heh. What does it say about me that I read the original post as a concession, not lacking in grace?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: To me, someone who wants to despite all evidence insist the F.F.s intended to establish a Christian nation is nearly by definition a fundamentalist Christian. I just can't think of any other segment of Christianity that would be so committed to the idea as to ignore the thousands of pages of documents lacking that very specific intent.
I don't even know what it has to do with christianity versus fundamentalist christianity. I mean, you can read the bible as literally as you want; the American revolution still isn't in it. Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't even know what it has to do with christianity versus fundamentalist christianity. I mean, you can read the bible as literally as you want; the American revolution still isn't in it. [Big Grin]
I don't know that it's necessarily a facet of fundamentalist Christianity either-just that I can't ever recall speaking with someone who either identifies as a fundamentalist Christian, or who I would, who didn't believe things like that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Darth_Mauve, there IS a difference. If we officially, as a nation, approve of same-sex marriage, then GOD WILL NOT PREVENT meteorites from striking inhabited regions.
Ron, I am proud that for most people on Hatrack your fear techniques don't work. The American people in general don't respond well to terror attacks, be they Muslim nuts or would-be evangelists.
What is the difference between you saying, "Obey God's law or he'll stop protecting us from WMD Meteors." and Osama Bin Laden's video where he says "Obey God's law or I'll stop protecting you from the bombs of righteous Muslims?"
Your version of God, who relies on fear and terror to keep his people safe from themselves, who tempers their free will with threats and violence that will afflict everyone in the nation, innocent, saved, or sinful is a much weaker and smaller version of God than mine.
My version of God is a better marksman, inflicting justice on individuals, not on nations, for God made the individuals, and the week individuals made the nations.
My version of God teaches not with violence and threat, but with wisdom and patience. These have proven in many studies to be much better and more enduring ways to change behavior, and my version of God is wise enough to know this.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But to say there's no religious basis at all is to deny the writings of the founders, which makes you either ignorant or a liar.
While I have no problem acknowledging that many of the founders were nominally Christian, I don't think many of them would be accepted as Christians by those in modern times that choose the label.
Regardless of their personal beliefs, it's notable that mentions of God are absent from both the Constitution and from the Federalist Papers, the purpose of which was to argue for the passage of the Constitution to a largely Christian populace. When documenting the sources upon which the principles of the Constitution were derived, several previous philosophies and systems of law were cited. Nary a word of the Bible or Jesus. In fact some of the primary opposition to the Constitution was from those who objected to its godlessness.
But don't forget the declaration of independence had the reference to "divine providence" inserted by the congress as an edit at the end without any objection.
Also I just finished rereading McCullough's John Adams, and I get the impression he was religious enough for the whole congress, the man attended church like it was a hobby.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But don't forget the declaration of independence had the reference to "divine providence" inserted by the congress as an edit at the end without any objection.
Sure, but this is by no means a specifically Christian concept and even such muted expression of religious deference is absent once they get down to the business of actually producing and defending the document upon which the government of the nation was established.
quote:Also I just finished rereading McCullough's John Adams, and I get the impression he was religious enough for the whole congress, the man attended church like it was a hobby
Absolutely! Clearly several of the founding fathers were deeply religious men; some of them even devout Christians. This makes the absence of religious references in the Constitution and Federalist Papers all the more conspicuous. It was clearly the intent of these men to create a secular government.
To the suggestion that the intent of the establishment clause was that the government would merely be restricted from supporting any specific denomination, I'd point out that the following phrasing of that clause was proposed and rejected:
quote:Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination in preference to another
EDIT: I came across a John Adams quote which I think many Mormons may appreciate - "The Calvinist, the Athanasian divines ... will say I am no Christian. I say they are no Christians, and there the account is balanced."
quote:Clearly several of the founding fathers were deeply religious men; some of them even devout Christians. This makes the absence of religious references in the Constitution and Federalist Papers all the more conspicuous. It was clearly the intent of these men to create a secular government.
quote:Originally posted by Grinwell: Separation of church and state is very wise, but so is acknowledging a moral center (like the nation's fathers) when deciding what is best for society collectively. If we act under the assumption that "what is right is whatever works for you", then we will have a society where there is no good or evil, right or wrong, truth or falsehood. Rabbi Miller recently spoke about this attitude and its frightening effect on the rising generation. He doesn't touch on gay marriage, but raises fascinating questions about the place of God in society and the consequences of rejecting divine authority.
Any "rabbi" who spoke at an interfaith center isn't much of a rabbi.
Why?
I'm curious to hear why as well.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Absolutely! Clearly several of the founding fathers were deeply religious men; some of them even devout Christians. This makes the absence of religious references in the Constitution and Federalist Papers all the more conspicuous. It was clearly the intent of these men to create a secular government.
I don't buy that. Not referring to any religion or specific set of beliefs in particular is one thing--that's basically going for the lowest common denominator, not putting any set of beliefs at the forefront in hammering out the Constitution. Calling it secular, at least in the way secular tends to be defined today, is another thing. Secular is deliberately non-religious, a removal of any religious motivation from the picture. That's different than a careful lack of specificity in religious beliefs. I think it was a wise decision not to let the Constitution sponsor any particular beliefs, obviously, but I don't think that equates to secular.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to interject that for Mormons the idea of the United States as a "Christian Nation" is close to a theological absolute. I understand the irony of that considering many of the Christians who hold the same ideas reject Mormonism as Christian, but there it is. Much like Ron, the de-Christianizing of the United States represents the sign of the end of the world and the beginning of the Wrath of God. There are differences of destruction methods such as meteors (wars, chaos, invasion, etc. instead), but the results are the same. When this country rejects God and specifically Jesus Christ, then God will reject it and withdraw His protection.
I believe that and therefore will do what I can to keep that from happening in my generation as best as I can. If the secularists don't like it they can lump it. Making this nation secularist is to make this nation hopeless and not worthy of protection.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional: The craziness of that is the Mormons know first hand what a stupid idea it is to let a religious majority push around a minority.
That's what killed Joseph Smith, that's why they had to move to Utah and that's why they had to change their religion to dump polygamy.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I just want to interject that for Mormons the idea of the United States as a "Christian Nation" is close to a theological absolute.
I don't agree, Occasional. Do you have any scriptural references?
The closest I can come is Mosiah 29:27
quote:And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.
There is definitely a subculture within the Mormon church that agrees that it is essential for the US to remain a "Christian Nation," but to ascribe that attitude as even close to a theological absolute is, to my understanding of LDS doctrine, incorrect.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Making this nation secularist is to make this nation hopeless and not worthy of protection.
So does that mean, if we continue to keep the country secular and make it more secular where it has stopped being so, we'll encourage the extremely religious to leave?
Because I can get behind that.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think advice for robots is right - "secular" is not the right word for what the founding fathers intended. "Neutral towards religion" would be a better way to describe it. I definitely don't think the founding fathers ever intended for the government to exclusively act as if it were assuming atheism to be true, which is essentially what "secularism" has come to mean.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: which is essentially what "secularism" has come to mean.
Thanks to those who don't want the country to be biased towards religion. Anything other than that, even secularism (which is neutral) would obviously seem 'pro-atheism' to them.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I just want to interject that for Mormons the idea of the United States as a "Christian Nation" is close to a theological absolute ... Much like Ron, the de-Christianizing of the United States represents the sign of the end of the world and the beginning of the Wrath of God. There are differences of destruction methods such as meteors (wars, chaos, invasion, etc. instead), but the results are the same. When this country rejects God and specifically Jesus Christ, then God will reject it and withdraw His protection.
OK. Mormons ~= Ron - meteors + other random destruction
Got it.
quote: Making this nation secularist is to make this nation hopeless and not worthy of protection.
And we're clear that the United States is a special case with this odd divine handicap. Interesting.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Secular is deliberately non-religious, a removal of any religious motivation from the picture. That's different than a careful lack of specificity in religious beliefs.
There are no general allusion to religious beliefs present in those documents either. What sort of religious motivations do you believe were intended, and how and where are those intentions documented?
In my view, secularity is a position of neutrality. It means the government takes no position on religious matters - it doesn't mean the government forbids religious expression, merely that the government itself should not be the source of any such expression.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax: What would be wrong with the government acting as if atheism was correct, as long as free exercise of religion is protected?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I definitely don't think the founding fathers ever intended for the government to exclusively act as if it were assuming atheism to be true, which is essentially what "secularism" has come to mean.
This is only what it has come to mean in the mind of those who want the government to facilitate the promotion of their preferred religion and who are frustrated by the inability to compel the government to do so. It is just as illegal for a school teacher to say "there is no God" as it is for a school teacher to lead a prayer in class.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Tresopax: What would be wrong with the government acting as if atheism was correct, as long as free exercise of religion is protected?
Meteors b****. Thats whats wrong.
Or according to Occasional, Mormons should expect destruction not in meteor form. I would guess we should be looking for hurricanes destroying cities, massive failures in war, financial collapses, epidemics of disease ... oh crap. Mormonism is true! Run away from the States!
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I definitely don't think the founding fathers ever intended for the government to exclusively act as if it were assuming atheism to be true, which is essentially what "secularism" has come to mean.
This is only what it has come to mean in the mind of those who want the government to facilitate the promotion of their preferred religion and who are frustrated by the inability to compel the government to do so.
posted
No Matt, that's not quite true either. There are certainly people who think that 'secular' should mean/must mean 'atheism is correct'. They're no less real than the fundamentalists who believe we were founded as a Christian nation, though they are just as wrong.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: No Matt, that's not quite true either. There are certainly people who think that 'secular' should mean/must mean 'atheism is correct'. They're no less real than the fundamentalists who believe we were founded as a Christian nation, though they are just as wrong.
Granting this, do you want to take a stab at my question to Tresopax? What would be wrong with the government acting as if this was true?
I tend to think the government acting in a neutral secular fashion is probably the same as the government acting in an atheistic fashion as long as the 1st amendment sticks.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally,l would prefer an agnostic government. "Atheism" carries too much certainty. I don't want a government that is certain about anything religious. In fact, I would like a government that avoids the question. Like a secular government. Which is what I continue to pray we will continue to have.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Granting this, do you want to take a stab at my question to Tresopax? What would be wrong with the government acting as if this was true?
Legally? I don't know if anything would be wrong with it. My personal preference for my government, though, is for it to take a strictly neutral stance towards everything. 'Atheism is correct' is completely at odds with that desire...especially since having the government committed to secularism in fact as well as in name is a core element of our government.
I mean, look at how things have gone in the United States. Committed to secularism in name but not so much in fact, and stuff starts to creep into our laws, First Amendment being an imperfect shield in the long run.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm hoping for a specific example of what an "atheist" government would do that would be bad, as long as the 1st amendment continues to exist.
Other than inviting the wrath of God. (thanks Mucus).
Edit: thanks Rakeesh. I'm not proposing that we enact a law or pass an amendment that says "Atheism is correct." that'd be wrong. I'm just trying to get to the core of Tresopax's concern that secularists won't be satisfies unless the government is acting as if atheism is correct. I want to know which acts in particular would indicate this belief in particular. I don't think there are any. I think neutral secularism would express itself the same way.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't think offhand of anything specific right now. It's about attitude. Like I said, look at the history of Christianity in this country, versus say Judaism or Buddhism or what have you.
I believe that if the unspoken attitude of 'but Christianity is right' hadn't (and still continues to be, of course, though not nearly as much as it once was) been so prevalent in our culture and our government, the history of the First Amendment would look different.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I'm rather ignorant, so any explication of the relevant history that you can provide or refer me to would be sincerely appreciated. Not that it's your job to educate me.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I just want to interject that for Mormons the idea of the United States as a "Christian Nation" is close to a theological absolute. I understand the irony of that considering many of the Christians who hold the same ideas reject Mormonism as Christian, but there it is. Much like Ron, the de-Christianizing of the United States represents the sign of the end of the world and the beginning of the Wrath of God. There are differences of destruction methods such as meteors (wars, chaos, invasion, etc. instead), but the results are the same. When this country rejects God and specifically Jesus Christ, then God will reject it and withdraw His protection.
I believe that and therefore will do what I can to keep that from happening in my generation as best as I can. If the secularists don't like it they can lump it. Making this nation secularist is to make this nation hopeless and not worthy of protection.
Do you actually believe this load of crap? This is what I would expect from the ramblings of a crazy paranoid lunatic.
Do you think Canada is gonna be destroyed to in a blaze of fire and death since "we" accepted these things decades ago.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: What a horrendous message.
quote: Pointless, dangerous, and unnecessary – those should be enough reasons for avoiding interfaith dialogue.
I don't think it's horrendous. The religion doesn't allow for the possibility of betterment through theological dialogue with other faiths. That's not the same as saying "don't talk to those of other faiths." It's about deliberate, formal exchange of religious ideas. Doesn't preclude harmonious co-existence.
Anyway, all you have to do is observe Lisa's conversations with Ron to validate the "pointless" part. Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not thinking so much of great big events. Just an amalgam of all sorts of news stories I've heard over the years, especially on the local level, particularly involving schools and school prayer and the like.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got a very close friend who works for a non-for-profit interfaith and community service group, and she fights every day against this "Nope! I've got nothing to learn from you!" attitude. She fights it to the point of nervous breakdowns, from time to time.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Anyway, all you have to do is observe Lisa's conversations with Ron to validate the "pointless" part.
Do you really think that everyone is ike that? There is a great deal of common ground in many religions and I have seen many instances of interfaith groups doing very good work on poverty, violence, education and so forth.
ETA: Or more snarkily, it would be such a bad thing for us to understand each other better? Perhaps with a bit more interfaith dialogue, Mr. Rosenblum would know that "Unlike rabbis, the Pope has the power to enunciate new doctrine" is not exactly the case.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think Canada is gonna be destroyed to in a blaze of fire and death since "we" accepted these things decades ago.
'Decades'? If memory serves, hasn't it been about one decade since Canadian same-sex couples were able to enjoy most of the legal rights of marriage?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Technically, Occasional said "When this country rejects God and specifically Jesus Christ." It is indeterminate when precisely that moment occurred in Canada, but I think it is fair to say that if it is happening in the US "now," it probably did happen decades ago in Canada.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Anyway, all you have to do is observe Lisa's conversations with Ron to validate the "pointless" part.
Do you really think that everyone is ike that? There is a great deal of common ground in many religions and I have seen many instances of interfaith groups doing very good work on poverty, violence, education and so forth.
ETA: Or more snarkily, it would be such a bad thing for us to understand each other better? Perhaps with a bit more interfaith dialogue, Mr. Rosenblum would know that "Unlike rabbis, the Pope has the power to enunciate new doctrine" is not exactly the case.
No, not everyone. perhaps that was the wrong place to try to make a joke.
And no, *I* don't think it would be bad for religions to try to understand each other better. But I don't think "horrendous" is the right way to describe the view that Lisa was relating. "Mistaken" I would not have objected to.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Occasional: The craziness of that is the Mormons know first hand what a stupid idea it is to let a religious majority push around a minority.
That's what killed Joseph Smith, that's why they had to move to Utah and that's why they had to change their religion to dump polygamy.
"Dump" is not a good verb for it. The church has never said Joseph Smith was wrong for instituting it, just like I've yet to hear a Christian say Abraham, Israel, and David were all living in sin with their multiple wives. Currently it is not mandatory for it to exist right now, just as we don't live the law of consecration.
I think the heart of this debate is what secularism means. Joseph Smith promoted a very secular society in that he believed Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc should all be welcome to live amongst the Mormons, and that their laws should be decided upon together. Some people think that secularism means a sort of null hypothesis approach to God, in that we start with no God in all decisions, and if God wants us to do something He personally can make us all observe it.
I don't necessarily agree with Occassional that secularism is slowly removing God's protection from the US. But I do believe that if the day comes that those who believe in God are treated like they are on crazy pills, that we will reap what we sow. I don't think we are there yet, or even close to it, but it is disheartening for people to wish that religion would just die as they have concluded it is of no value.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: I've got a very close friend who works for a non-for-profit interfaith and community service group, and she fights every day against this "Nope! I've got nothing to learn from you!" attitude. She fights it to the point of nervous breakdowns, from time to time.
Well, maybe she should find something more productive to do with her time. Judaism has nothing to learn from any religion. Granted, they have much to learn from us, but that's monologue; not dialogue.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't necessarily agree with Occassional that secularism is slowly removing God's protection from the US. But I do believe that if the day comes that those who believe in God are treated like they are on crazy pills, that we will reap what we sow. I don't think we are there yet, or even close to it, but it is disheartening for people to wish that religion would just die as they have concluded it is of no value.
Then fewer religious people should act like they are on crazy pills and, instead, do things that are of value.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: But I do believe that if the day comes that those who believe in God are treated like they are on crazy pills, that we will reap what we sow.
Meaning they are treated that way by a large amount of the population, or treated that way as government policy?
I also think that "reaping what you sow" to be how the world should (and mostly does) work. If we do good things, we reap the benefits. If we do bad things, we take responsibility. I'd prefer not to be protected from such things.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
