Why are you what you are, politically?

[BVS]

you've, again, proved my point exactly -- the government has plenty of space for religious people, but it has no space for any particular religion.

you can do better.

I don't know, I think it's just a reflex for INDY...

 

[anitram]

hence, we are all endowed with certain inalienable rights. it's emminently logical and dripping with reason, not religiosity.

AKA natural law, which is largely what you see espoused in your Constitution. Locke gets a lot of the credit, but it goes as far back as Aristotle, and really has absolutely nothing to do with putting God into pledges of allegiance or prayer in schools or how they greet you in Walmart at Christmas time.

 

[Irvine511]

AKA natural law, which is largely what you see espoused in your Constitution. Locke gets a lot of the credit, but it goes as far back as Aristotle, and really has absolutely nothing to do with putting God into pledges of allegiance or prayer in schools or how they greet you in Walmart at Christmas time.

i don't think Jesus would agree with you.

 

[U2democrat]

mmm a discussion on Locke, Aristotle and reason

I've been studying that a lot in school.

Anitram's right, the founding fathers plagiarized Locke, who got his ideas from Aristotle. It's all about life, liberty, and property...and the gov'ts role with the people (but y'all already knew that).

Socrates is also a good read for government and religion.

Back to Locke, his Letter Concerning Toleration is a great understanding of the role of govt and religion...that the magistrates are not ones to judge what is best for our souls, that's the church's job. Great stuff.

 

[Irvine511]

no question, Aristotle and Socrates were good Christians and strong proponents of Judeo-Christian values.

 

[maycocksean]

For justification I read the words of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Rush, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan...for starters.

Now where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom (2 Cor 3:17).

I asked for Biblical justification. None of the men above qualify, as wise (or canny, in the case of Rush) as they may be.

As to the quote from Corinthians, let's get the context:

"But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; but whenever a man turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit." 2 Corinthians 3:15-18.

This text has nothing to do with a union of Christianity and government, it has everything to do with the theological power of grace to set us free. But let's go ahead, for the sake of argument and rip this phrase about liberty completely out of context and say it implies that only where there is Christianity can there be true political freedom, that still would in no way argue that therefore Christian beliefs etc should be legislated or otherwise given the government seal of approval. Once again, I point out that the government at the time of Paul was the furthest thing from Christian--it was pagan Rome. What is there in Paul's writings or anything else in the NT that suggests that this pagan government should be replaced with one that puts Jesus front and center?

You will have to do better than that.

 

[maycocksean]

The 1st amendment wall separates church and state. Not religion and prayer from politics or public discourse. Jefferson, Franklin, Adams may not have wished to promote a sectarian government but they surely believed in a power above the state.

Indeed. But I don't get the impression they felt this power above the state needed any extra help from the state.

 

[maycocksean]

i don't think Jesus would agree with you.

Prove it.


Actually, I know you're being sarcastic. I just wanted to highlight once again that there just isn't Biblical evidence to support this perspective.

 

[maycocksean]

no question, Aristotle and Socrates were good Christians and strong proponents of Judeo-Christian values.

I find that many conservatives of this stripe often confuse Greco-Roman values with Judeo-Christian values.

It's still more evidence that this type of conservative stance is really about preserving a cultural hegemony--of which nominal Christianity happens to be a part--not about anything that can really be justified as having anything to do with the aims and goals of Jesus Christ.

 

[INDY500]

sorry, still no Jesus to be found. nor Bible citing/thumping. and no mention of Grace, Heaven, the afterlife, etc. you're taking what is strictly a God of reason -- and he's not even really called God; he's called the Creator, a word that i as a secular humanist in the 21th century find entirely appropriate to use when talking about the common origin of human beings, that the shephard is as worthy as the pharoh in the eyes of their Creator --

Well yeah, the idea being that religion should be a unifying force -- an influence but not an authority -- the "God" of public religion to be individually interpreted by one's own private religion or faith. So while the framers were steeped in Bible literacy, you're right, they did purposely avoid Christian symbolism in the constitution.
A tradition that continues to this day.
We acknowledge the Divine, we ask for His blessings and guidance, all the while mindful that we ask for a pluralistic society.

One nation, under God. That is our character, that is our heritage.

So why is it being attacked or denied? That would be my question.

 

[A_Wanderer]

That attitude wouldn't make me feel welcome at all - and believe it or not atheists pay taxes as well and shouldn't be forced to pay for your belief.

Removing state promotion of religious belief is not persecuting religious belief; playing the victim card when America has a long history of religious freedoms that exist to this day (thanks to secularism) is a silly angle to take.

 

[INDY500]

That attitude wouldn't make me feel welcome at all - and believe it or not atheists pay taxes as well and shouldn't be forced to pay for your belief.

Removing state promotion of religious belief is not persecuting religious belief; playing the victim card when America has a long history of religious freedoms that exist to this day (thanks to secularism) is a silly angle to take.

Acknowledging God is not promoting religion. Of coarse, if you read the Humanist Manifesto it speaks of itself as a religion and was even ruled as much by the United States Supreme Court in 1961.

So I guess, by your definition, ignoring God would be promoting religion as well. Paid for by theists no less.

 

[BVS]

One nation, under God. That is our character, that is our heritage.

Yeah for the last 50 years. Is that really a heritage?

 

[BVS]

Acknowledging God is not promoting religion. Of coarse, if you read the Humanist Manifesto it speaks of itself as a religion and was even ruled as much by the United States Supreme Court in 1961.

So I guess, by your definition, ignoring God would be promoting religion as well. Paid for by theists no less.

Where's the logic in this post? I see none.

I still haven't seen any biblical justification either.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Acknowledging God is not promoting religion. Of coarse, if you read the Humanist Manifesto it speaks of itself as a religion and was even ruled as much by the United States Supreme Court in 1961.

So I guess, by your definition, ignoring God would be promoting religion as well. Paid for by theists no less.

How is humanism (a philosophy) being promoted by not having the state have any part in promoting or persecuting religious belief. Acknowledging that God exists is promoting theism, saying that God doesn't exist is promoting atheism but not even having the state enter that realm and leaving it to individuals is secularism - it protects your right to worship as much as it does ones right to not worship.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yeah for the last 50 years. Is that really a heritage?

It is if it proves a point (America is no place for Godless Communists!)

 

[INDY500]

I asked for Biblical justification. None of the men above qualify, as wise (or canny, in the case of Rush) as they may be.

As to the quote from Corinthians, let's get the context:

"But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; but whenever a man turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit." 2 Corinthians 3:15-18.

This text has nothing to do with a union of Christianity and government, it has everything to do with the theological power of grace to set us free. But let's go ahead, for the sake of argument and rip this phrase about liberty completely out of context and say it implies that only where there is Christianity can there be true political freedom, that still would in no way argue that therefore Christian beliefs etc should be legislated or otherwise given the government seal of approval. Once again, I point out that the government at the time of Paul was the furthest thing from Christian--it was pagan Rome. What is there in Paul's writings or anything else in the NT that suggests that this pagan government should be replaced with one that puts Jesus front and center?

You will have to do better than that.

I'm not sure what you're asking. What we now call the Judeo-Christian world-view, by questioning the authority of the State; from the Reformation, to the American revolution, to raising women from 2nd class status, to abolishing slavery, to civil rights, to protecting the unborn -- has sought to be on the side of the Just. And God is always on the side of Justice correct?

You can find scripture in Peter, Matthew and Romans about Christians submitting to governing bodies. But, we are told in Roman 13 "The authorities that exist have been established by God." In other words, the state, any state, is a delegated authority, not autonomous, and the order is:

God
Caesar

or later on:

God
King

But what to do when the state strays from God's Law and becomes unjust? Is it rex lex or lex rex?

 

[A_Wanderer]

And God is always on the side of Justice correct?

If God is always on the side of justice

and God is on the side of the state

Then the state is always on the side of justice.

And that is the totalitarianism of theocracy.

 

[BVS]

But, we are told in Roman 13 "The authorities that exist have been established by God." In other words, the state, any state, is a delegated authority, not autonomous, and the order is:

Yeah, that's been tried and shot down.

 

[BVS]

And God is always on the side of Justice correct?

Was he there when we had slaves, I mean people used scripture to justify it, so he had to have been there.

And he's definately here now creating 2nd class citizenship for homosexuals.

 

[A_Wanderer]

No. whenever evil things are done in the name of God people are mistaken in understanding the scripture since by definition the true will of God is benevolent and good (please ignore the ethnic cleansing and murder that God committed way back).

It's brilliant circular logic - God in good, God's principles leading government is good, if anything bad happens as a result it's because people weren't properly following those principles so lets get more of God's principles in government.

If only nations were formed from enlightnment values that argued for liberty on the basis of maintaining a civil society and protecting individualism. That acknowledged that individuals shouldn't be persecuted by the state for their beliefs and made a clear seperation so that the state would never become a tool to enforce one belief over another. I think that it would be fitting if eventually these people got their wish and there was more God in government (abolish the second amendment) - a few short years of opressive religion would make more secularists than any measure of reason.

 

[INDY500]

Yeah for the last 50 years. Is that really a heritage?

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

The reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States. Finalized in 1782. The eye of Providence over a 13 step pyrimid with the motto: Annuit Coeptis -- “God has favored our undertakings”

You get the picture.

 

[A_Wanderer]

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

You get the picture

 

[BVS]

You get the picture.

I was speaking of the Pledge not a speech.

But I guess you aren't going to address the rest of the posts?

 

[financeguy]

The reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States. Finalized in 1782. The eye of Providence over a 13 step pyrimid with the motto: Annuit Coeptis -- “God has favored our undertakings”

You get the picture.

Is that the all seeing eye of Freemasonry I see before me?

 

[anitram]

If God is always on the side of justice

and God is on the side of the state

Then the state is always on the side of justice.

And that is the totalitarianism of theocracy.

I get what you're trying to show. But you're using faulty logical reasoning. If A = B and A = C that does not mean that B = C.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Then the state isn't always on the side of justice

Your lying because if God is good and having God in government makes the government good.

(and I am aware that it is faulty logic but I dont think there is any reasoned and logical reason for arguing for the promotion of religion / influence of religion on the machinations of government)

 

[INDY500]

How is humanism (a philosophy) being promoted by not having the state have any part in promoting or persecuting religious belief. Acknowledging that God exists is promoting theism, saying that God doesn't exist is promoting atheism but not even having the state enter that realm and leaving it to individuals is secularism - it protects your right to worship as much as it does ones right to not worship.

You speak like the form of government that allows religious freedom and respects the rights of the individual is common place. It's not, it's unique to governments borne out of the Reformation in Northern Europe. No other. Didn't spring from Persia, Greece, Rome, Egypt or China.

They make possible the free exercise of religion (including Humanism), not the other way around, because Humanism is a closed system. By definition, anything purporting to be an absolute can not exist where the only standard is Man.

 

[INDY500]

You get the picture

So our 200 year old plus Great Seal is unconstitutional? Well, you'll love our national motto.

"In God We Trust"

 

[A_Wanderer]

Those freedoms and the principles of secular governance are not the product of a Christian God they are born from the ideas of men in response to the shackles of theocracy, the groundwork for the liberal democracy extends furthur back than the reformation and it is the clear seperation of church and state (spelled out loud and clear in the US constitution) that came later on.

You are confusing secularism with the philosophy of secular humanism. One is a set of rules to live a life by (if you want to waste your time with a Godless religion) and the other is a seperation of Church and State. It is absurd to declare that a secular state is not condusive to religious freedom (look to the free secular countries - your own included) when it is that very state that will never be able to stop people from believing or forcing beliefs upon them.