posted
Foust: If Christians ever decide exactly what constitutes "Christian Principles" I could give you an answer. As it stands, I don't believe the US belongs to Christianity.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
As a whole, these ten amendments were passed to get other straggling states to ratify the Constitution. They were put there because the former colonists were understandably concerned that the new American government could be just as bad as the one they deposed.
The Bill of Rights is essentially a laundry list of things that the British did that made the colonists angry (quartering troops, imprisonment without trial) and protections against anyone preventing an uprising by the ways the colonists organized themselves in the past (assembling meetings and printing pamphlets) just in case the new government did stink.
Christian principles? Not really.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Foust: If Christians ever decide exactly what constitutes "Christian Principles" I could give you an answer. As it stands, I don't believe the US belongs to Christianity.
As a Christian, I'll tell you the principles I've been taught.
Turn the other cheek. Love thy enemy. Forgiveness. Care fore the needy. Those without sin throw the first stone...remove the beam in your eye, etc.
Not a shock that the most religiously free nation on the face of the earth was founded by Christians. Christians know that they are not without sin and accept the sins of others. Today morality has been twisted to political correctness. Even a Christian alcoholic will admit his own sin. Christians do not believe they do no wrong and they forgive those who do wrong against them. Have you ever heard an atheist tell a murderer in court that they have already forgiven them? A society free of christians is a society based upon an "eye for an eye" and "our way or the highway". I admit my own sin so don't tell me I can't identify the sin of others. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Christians understand that no man is perfect but at least have the nerve to point out what is wrong, even within themselves.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Not a shock that the most religiously free nation on the face of the earth was founded by Christians.
From what I understand, in Medieval Spain, whenever the Christians would win back an area previously held by Muslims, they told the local Muslims and Jews living there to "convert or die". Conversely, when the Muslims would take a town back from the Christians, they simply forced the Christians and Jews to pay a tax or convert.
Who looks more open-minded and accepting in that case?
The simple fact is that access to money and information tends to cause open-mindedness, in a general sense, religious and otherwise. When the Silk Road was the main/only way to get things from China/India to Europe and back, the Muslims had much more access to money and information. The Middle East, at that time, was literally "Main Street, Earth". However, when the Silk Road fell into disuse as a result of advances in European shipbuilding and navigation tech/skills, Western Europe became "Main Street, Earth", while the Middle East fell into isolation and ignorance. Over the centuries, The roles became reversed.
To me, this is one of the best arguments against religion...All religions are subject to pointless, dangerous extremism, as proved by the historical facts I just mentioned. Isolate any person or group for long enough, and they turn crazy and fundamentalist.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jake: What experience are you drawning on?
Personal, mostly. I was a Christian for about 20 years. It was probably irresponsible of me to say that they are "the ones most readily" to do so. I was thinking of some specific incidents. But I would not say that I have witnessed more forgiveness within the ranks than without, in practice.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:To me, this is one of the best arguments against religion...All religions are subject to pointless, dangerous extremism, as proved by the historical facts I just mentioned. Isolate any person or group for long enough, and they turn crazy and fundamentalist.
The problem with that argument is that even atheistic belief systems are subject to dangerous extremism - as demonstrated in recent history by several of the Communist movements. It's less an argument against religion, and more an argument against believing strongly in anything.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Using Medieval examples against Christianity? The Catholic church was not only a religion back then, it was a political power. Christians aren't the ones calling for Sharia Law. Our country is free and Christians have a right to express and vote the way their beliefs dictate. Expressing one's moral code is not hate. I'm a Christian and I'm a sinner. Do I hate myself? To a Christian, sin is sin...theft, alcoholism, lying, etc, etc. A true Christian church would no sooner expel a homosexual than a liar or alcoholic. The difference is, the liar and alcoholic don't cry discrimination when someone speaks against their behavior.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Using Medieval examples against Christianity? The Catholic church was not only a religion back then, it was a political power. Christians aren't the ones calling for Sharia Law. Our country is free and Christians have a right to express and vote the way their beliefs dictate. Expressing one's moral code is not hate. I'm a Christian and I'm a sinner. Do I hate myself? To a Christian, sin is sin...theft, alcoholism, lying, etc, etc. A true Christian church would no sooner expel a homosexual than a liar or alcoholic. The difference is, the liar and alcoholic don't cry discrimination when someone speaks against their behavior.
quote:To me, this is one of the best arguments against religion...All religions are subject to pointless, dangerous extremism, as proved by the historical facts I just mentioned. Isolate any person or group for long enough, and they turn crazy and fundamentalist.
The problem with that argument is that even atheistic belief systems are subject to dangerous extremism - as demonstrated in recent history by several of the Communist movements. It's less an argument against religion, and more an argument against believing strongly in anything.
I have to admit, it really does bug me when people take the complicated topic of groups of people doing terrible things and reduce it to simple, stupid statements like "It's because of strong belief." (edit:) or "Religious people believe things that aren't true and can believe anything."{/edit)
I mean, I get it. People don't really care about it for its own sake and are instead trying to use it as an attack/defense of religion. I just think this is a shame, because I think that this question (and the partial answers we have come up with) is much more important than this kinda pointless attack/defense.
posted
I'm not going to deny the wrongs committed by Christians five hundred years ago. I won't deny the evil committed against slaves two centuries ago. We need to decide, are we going to be like the middle east and fight forever over wrongs committed against our ancestors?
The eternal "chicken and the egg" is Jew vs Muslim. The same scenario justifies the never ending gang murders in our cities. Justice is never served. One side's justice is the other side's injustice. The Christian ideal of forgiveness is the only thing that can stop this downward spiral.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ironic thing about this to me is that many of the concepts of individual liberty and suspicion of the government that went into the founding of our country were firmly grounded in The Enlightenment, a movement that was in many ways directly opposed to and by the religious of the day. And a large spur for the development of the Enlightenment ideas is how terrible mainstream Christians historically were.
The discovery of the New World and shifting of the trade routes away from the Silk Road definitely played a huge part, but I've often wondered if one of the reasons why the Islamic world never had their Enlightenment (which I think is one of the big reasons it is so troubled now) is because Muslim rulers and clergy were nowhere near as awful and evil and Christian ones.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I mean, I get it. People don't really care about it for its own sake and are instead trying to use it as an attack/defense of religion. I just think this is a shame, because I think that this question (and the partial answers we have come up with) is much more important than this kinda pointless attack/defense.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying there's something besides the "isolation causes ignorance which allows the rise of fundamentalist extremism which is a breeding ground for hate which is a breeding ground for violence" process? It all starts with isolation and ignorance, I think.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not going to deny the wrongs committed by Christians five hundred years ago. I won't deny the evil committed against slaves two centuries ago.
I quite agree. You can't use history to define what you are doing or who we are today. On the other hand I'm not one of the people trying to define our nation as "A Christian Nation because all of our founding fathers were Christians."
You can't have your cake and eat it to. You can't say "Christians of the past don't matter, except for those Christians in the past that matter."
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I mean, I get it. People don't really care about it for its own sake and are instead trying to use it as an attack/defense of religion. I just think this is a shame, because I think that this question (and the partial answers we have come up with) is much more important than this kinda pointless attack/defense.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying there's something besides the "isolation causes ignorance which allows the rise of fundamentalist extremism which is a breeding ground for hate which is a breeding ground for violence" process? It all starts with isolation and ignorance, I think.
Yes, of course I am. There are isolated groups that don't develop into violent, hate filled murderers. There are extreme fundamentalists that are peaceful. Saying something is a breeding ground isn't really much of an explanation.
We've had many exchanges where someone noting the fact that some religious groups have done terrible things is responded to by someone else saying that non-religious (or often "atheist") groups have done terrible things, and it doesn't seem to go much further beyond that. It seems all about attack and defense and very little about actually understanding it.
If you look at groups that do these things, you very often find striking similarities in the nature and structure of their beliefs and organizational structures as well as the character of their members. Many of these things are lacking from groups who don't do these terrible things.
This is by no means a clear cut issue and can't be done justice outside of a complex analysis, but, ignoring all that, if I had to point to what I think is the single biggest commonality (in a western cultural context), it would be a lack of tolerance for uncertainty/ambiguity.
This almost always extends far from the obvious doctrinal areas of whatever their beliefs are and is a general trait of their character. In separate, even trivial, situations, they are frustrated with ambiguity and will KNOW things that they have no way of knowing. Interestingly enough, you can often find cases where people will actually reject parts of the doctrine they profess to follow in favor of getting rid of any ambiguity or uncertainty.
This is one of the reasons why I try to dispute the abuses of epistemology that some of the evangelical atheists routinely commit when they attack religious belief. The ability to say "I don't know." in cases where it is warranted is an extremely valuable trait to promote and, conversely, the drive to KNOW things that you do not and often cannot is something to oppose.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you really want to know what modern moral intolerance is, Google "ask god what your grade is"
This student was shut down for reading the Webster's Dictionary definition of marriage. Apparently, Websters is hate speech. The self described tolerant are the most intolerant. Christians created a nation of free speech rights. Even Websters can't keep up with the politically correct terms of the day. Speech can be banned if it is considered "offensive" to a "protected minority".
The constitution grants you the right to speak freely, it doesn't protect you from someone else's "hate speech".
quote:The self described tolerant are the most intolerant.
But you've already insisted that you're more tolerant than any of us. Does that mean you're more or less tolerant, really?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sala: Malanthrop, that google was very, very interesting.
It ought to be. The student won the first case and its been appealed to the federal court. If it isn't upheld it'll go to the US Supreme court. Of course, it's only a minor story. It is an important court case you aren't hearing about. They are going to decide if "hate speech" is free speech. What shocks me is pornography and the KKK have already won their cases. A Christian quoting the Websters definition of marriage has to go through the same process as Larry Flynt and the head of the Arian Brotherhood. Free speech sucks...you don't have the right not to be offended.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Do we have free speech in classrooms now? When did that happen?
We've been castigating our teachers for so long it was inevitable that kids would go to class one day and be able to say anything without any sort of disciplinary response.
edit: While I was attending Utah Valley Univeristy, in my constitutional law class, one of the students started discussing a question and then somehow started to bear his testimony. To non-Mormons that is a affirmative statement of ones beliefs in God, the church, the scriptures, etc. The teacher who was a Mormon and also a judge cut him off and while he didn't threaten him in anyway, he indicated that what the student was doing could not be permitted in the classroom. Several of the students took issue with the teacher, and it turned into a sort of class debate between the teacher and a handful of the other students. I was the only student in the class who vocally sided with the teacher. The teacher didn't really need my help much, all I ended up doing was cementing my reputation as not much of a rightest to the kids in the class.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Do we have free speech in classrooms now? When did that happen?
We've been castigating our teachers for so long it was inevitable that kids would go to class one day and be able to say anything without any sort of disciplinary response.
I don't know what kind of environment you think our primary schools are, but this isn't even remotely true right now.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I am concerned, if my college professers can spout off anything they want be it truth or fiction, a student can do the same damn thing. I had a political science professor in college who's sole purpose was to try and convince us to vote for John Kerry. Every day we had another video or news article about how evil Bush was and how good of a person John Kerry is. I challenged him every day and on every point he made, mostly because everyone else just nodded and agreed without researching themselves.
Truth be told, I'm fine with him doing that. I got into heated arguments with the professor, but we treated each other with respect. I got an A in the class, and I suspect it was because I challenged him instead of just accepting everything he told us.
Differing views can create opportunities to learn. I respect what atheists believe. I like to think that atheists respect religious beliefs. Often however it just turns into religion bashing. I can understand the desire to convert atheists to religion, as those in religion want to "save" them. I don't understand the desire of some atheists to get others to not believe in God. I come from a religious background so it is difficult for me to understand that.
That isn't to say one side is more justified or even right in doing it. While I was a missionary I spoke to everyone I could. If someone did not want to listen or speak to me, I respected that. My philosophy was that I did not want to try and convert someone who did not want to convert. I was in many situations in which ministers and priests from other religions would invite us into a home posing as someone they were not. When we arrived all they wanted to do was bible bash. Well, they weren't going to change my mind and I wasn't going to change theirs, so I would just get up and leave.
And look, it is true that religious people have committed atrocities in the past, but you are looking at people, not teachings. I don't see anywhere in the teachings of Christ where he tells his followers to go out and kill non believers, treat them differently, or perform violent acts. To go out and state "religion is bad because of X" is ridiculous. The teachings are good, the people who say they follow them many not be.
Whether you believe Jesus was a messiah, a savior, or just a philosopher, you cannot deny that his teachings on treating your fellow man ,if followed, would make the world a better place.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:As far as I am concerned, if my college professers can spout off anything they want be it truth or fiction, a student can do the same damn thing.
You have, perhaps, missed the difference between a student and a professor.
I'm not saying that you are required to believe everything your professors tell you, mind you -- but they are not required to give you equal time to voice your own opinions on any given subject. In fact, a moment's thought should reveal why that's sort of a ridiculous expectation.
quote:I come from a religious background so it is difficult for me to understand that.
Try asking an atheist.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp: I of course could be wrong, I do not pretend to be an expert, just a man with an opinion. From what I hear from folks, some of them teachers, they are often stuck in a frustrating environment where kids are obstructive and disrespectful, and teachers can do nothing but send the really bad trouble makers to the principle office, for fear of getting involved in litigation. The kids are undisciplined at home, and a teacher does not have the options a parent does.
edit: But I'm just somebody who went to a preppy private school where I had fantastic teachers, but also teachers that had a type of relationship I haven't encountered here from my exposure to people.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Oh, I know. I'm not speaking to the specific instance at all; the professor in question sounds like a petty jerk, although of course we have no idea how much of an enfant terrible the student had been up to that point. I'm saying that, in general, the idea that students are justified in voicing their opinions because professors are permitted to do so reflects a misunderstanding of the collegiate dynamic.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
