Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-05-2009, 10:11 AM
 
Location: Arizona
13,778 posts, read 9,640,437 times
Reputation: 7485

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
There is a reason why Beck prefers to call himself Christian, and not Mormon. Mormons are not Christians, so the only reason for him to say he is Christian is to appease his audience. Of course if you asked him, he'd admit he is Mormon, but he would add that he is also Christian. Well, he can't be both.
I wish people would realize that he is an entertainer first and foremost. He will say anything he thinks his audience wants to hear. A wh*re to the weekly ad polls. If his ratings dropped he would be relegated to doing the weather in Tucson, Az. Same with Limbaugh, Hannity and Moore.

Sorry I'm off topic a little but elevating any of these hacks to positions of prophet or spokespersons is the equivalent of Caligula making his horse a senator.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-05-2009, 10:13 AM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,928,755 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly View Post
Umm.... a country is not defined by its majority, but rather by how well its minority population is treated.

99% could define themselves as Christian and this would still not be a Christian nation. The only reason it is that way is because that particular religion moved from the Roman Empire to western Europe to the United States as economic / political empires shifted.

The key is that in the founding documents (which were, btw, created by many Deists) it was explicitly stated that people would have freedom to pursue any religious or spiritual path of their choosing. Therein lies the beauty of this country. I went to a Christian school growing up and even I learned that one!

It's rather infuriating the propaganda being spread by the far religious right to rewrite our own country's history as if it were some religious experiment rather than political experiment in freedom of choice. It's either willful ignorance or blatant distortion of truth (lying) and a violation of their own religious laws.
The argument can be made for "some" being deist, though to which that claim is made varies in support of the claim. Jefferson, sure the argument can be soundly made, though not completely and it depends on how one defines "deist" as its meaning is different now than it was back then. Washington being as such is a stretch that ignores supporting evidence of his personal writings as well as writings and statements by his family and those that knew him privately. The Treaty of Tripoli is only sound when one ignores the context of the time and the events related.

Someone mentioned not a "Christian Nation" and in the context that it was not a nation designed to govern by doctrinal law (like Muslim nations) I would agree, that it is a nation founded on Christian Tradition which takes all of the core aspects of its beliefs and applied the fruits of that thinking to its development.

Is the federal government secular? Yes, in its ability to function in authority, it is so. It was designed not to regulate through religion or institute any policy based on such doctrinal establishment. basically, it has no power to make any declaration of such be it for or against. It is out of its hands.

That said and without even needing to establish which founder was or was not a Christian, the majority of them spoke very highly of Christian beliefs and stressed the importance of a moral and virtuous society. Even Jefferson who is likely the best argument made for a deist believed the teachings of Christ to be of the utmost importance to the success of the nation to which he was a key supporter to their addition to the educational instruction in our school systems early on.

I think the biggest issue with this debate centers around the difference between how "Christian Nation" is defined. One may intend its meaning to be that similar to Muslim or other religiously dictated nations. The other simply of a traditional concept to which the fruits of such a systems belief establishes. It seems evident that the latter is the case when we evaluate the Treaty of Tripoli and the historical context of it. England represented the former definition, rather a nation driven by the religion and beholden to the very doctrines it established. The latter as explained to the Barbary nations is that of a nation to which is not mandated by doctrinal pursuit. So, as this nation was not founded in any way by the Christian religion (held to doctrinal establishment as was England and others in europe and the reason the Barbary nations were leery of us), they had no concern of us partaking in holy wars against them as a national stance.

It seems that the founders believed through their official statements and private writings that we were in fact a nation built on the traditions and beliefs of Christianity to which they believed were important to nurture a moral and virtuous society to which the essence of individual freedom required.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2009, 11:05 AM
 
11,155 posts, read 15,681,234 times
Reputation: 4209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
The argument can be made for "some" being deist, though to which that claim is made varies in support of the claim. Jefferson, sure the argument can be soundly made, though not completely and it depends on how one defines "deist" as its meaning is different now than it was back then. Washington being as such is a stretch that ignores supporting evidence of his personal writings as well as writings and statements by his family and those that knew him privately. The Treaty of Tripoli is only sound when one ignores the context of the time and the events related.

Someone mentioned not a "Christian Nation" and in the context that it was not a nation designed to govern by doctrinal law (like Muslim nations) I would agree, that it is a nation founded on Christian Tradition which takes all of the core aspects of its beliefs and applied the fruits of that thinking to its development.

Is the federal government secular? Yes, in its ability to function in authority, it is so. It was designed not to regulate through religion or institute any policy based on such doctrinal establishment. basically, it has no power to make any declaration of such be it for or against. It is out of its hands.

That said and without even needing to establish which founder was or was not a Christian, the majority of them spoke very highly of Christian beliefs and stressed the importance of a moral and virtuous society. Even Jefferson who is likely the best argument made for a deist believed the teachings of Christ to be of the utmost importance to the success of the nation to which he was a key supporter to their addition to the educational instruction in our school systems early on.

I think the biggest issue with this debate centers around the difference between how "Christian Nation" is defined. One may intend its meaning to be that similar to Muslim or other religiously dictated nations. The other simply of a traditional concept to which the fruits of such a systems belief establishes. It seems evident that the latter is the case when we evaluate the Treaty of Tripoli and the historical context of it. England represented the former definition, rather a nation driven by the religion and beholden to the very doctrines it established. The latter as explained to the Barbary nations is that of a nation to which is not mandated by doctrinal pursuit. So, as this nation was not founded in any way by the Christian religion (held to doctrinal establishment as was England and others in europe and the reason the Barbary nations were leery of us), they had no concern of us partaking in holy wars against them as a national stance.

It seems that the founders believed through their official statements and private writings that we were in fact a nation built on the traditions and beliefs of Christianity to which they believed were important to nurture a moral and virtuous society to which the essence of individual freedom required.
Nice, well thought out post. Thank you for being the rare individual capable of elevating the level of discourse on this forum.

The only thing I would say is that the notion of a "moral and virtuous society", while absolutely an underpinning of the founding documents and intentions (thus why they saw religion as an important compliment to a free government), can be acquired through any spiritual tradition or lack thereof. I don't think it takes adherence to a savior to know that it's wrong to kill, steal, rape, etc...

We must keep in mind that the founders lived in a much more closed society at the time with a worldview concentrated on Europe. They didn't even know what was west of the Mississippi. It really wasn't until we became a globally mobile society in the second half of the twentieth century that we were confronted with integrating different worldviews into our traditional ones on a scale that didn't involve simply overtaking indigenous peoples. So, their adherence to Christianity as a foundation of morality says more of their limited scope of the world than any fundamental, universal truth.

Keep in mind that the very structures of our government were borrowed from the Iroquois.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2009, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 24,342,306 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
The argument can be made for "some" being deist, though to which that claim is made varies in support of the claim. Jefferson, sure the argument can be soundly made, though not completely and it depends on how one defines "deist" as its meaning is different now than it was back then. Washington being as such is a stretch that ignores supporting evidence of his personal writings as well as writings and statements by his family and those that knew him privately. The Treaty of Tripoli is only sound when one ignores the context of the time and the events related.

Someone mentioned not a "Christian Nation" and in the context that it was not a nation designed to govern by doctrinal law (like Muslim nations) I would agree, that it is a nation founded on Christian Tradition which takes all of the core aspects of its beliefs and applied the fruits of that thinking to its development.

Is the federal government secular? Yes, in its ability to function in authority, it is so. It was designed not to regulate through religion or institute any policy based on such doctrinal establishment. basically, it has no power to make any declaration of such be it for or against. It is out of its hands.

That said and without even needing to establish which founder was or was not a Christian, the majority of them spoke very highly of Christian beliefs and stressed the importance of a moral and virtuous society. Even Jefferson who is likely the best argument made for a deist believed the teachings of Christ to be of the utmost importance to the success of the nation to which he was a key supporter to their addition to the educational instruction in our school systems early on.

I think the biggest issue with this debate centers around the difference between how "Christian Nation" is defined. One may intend its meaning to be that similar to Muslim or other religiously dictated nations. The other simply of a traditional concept to which the fruits of such a systems belief establishes. It seems evident that the latter is the case when we evaluate the Treaty of Tripoli and the historical context of it. England represented the former definition, rather a nation driven by the religion and beholden to the very doctrines it established. The latter as explained to the Barbary nations is that of a nation to which is not mandated by doctrinal pursuit. So, as this nation was not founded in any way by the Christian religion (held to doctrinal establishment as was England and others in europe and the reason the Barbary nations were leery of us), they had no concern of us partaking in holy wars against them as a national stance.

It seems that the founders believed through their official statements and private writings that we were in fact a nation built on the traditions and beliefs of Christianity to which they believed were important to nurture a moral and virtuous society to which the essence of individual freedom required.

I would argue that our government wasn't founded on anything that resembles Christianity.

Actually, our nations system of government is more closely tied to the Roman Republic, and the Greek Democracy. Both of which weren't Christian.

Until the time of the United States, I don't remember a single Democratic Republic that was primarily Christian. All of the "Christian nations" were either Monarchies, or out and out dictatorships.

As far as Jefferson, he liked Christs ideals of helping your neighbor, loving your brother as yourself, and treating everyone equally. I would argue that the Christian religion as a whole, is pretty far from their Gods morals in this aspect. The same morals can also be found in almost every religion in the world BTW.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2009, 11:49 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,767,183 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Someone mentioned not a "Christian Nation" and in the context that it was not a nation designed to govern by doctrinal law (like Muslim nations) I would agree, that it is a nation founded on Christian Tradition which takes all of the core aspects of its beliefs and applied the fruits of that thinking to its development.
Good post overall. But, what do you mean by Christian tradition? Is it different from Jewish or Muslim traditions, or even Buddhist/Hindu? An example or two would help.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2009, 03:43 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,928,755 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly View Post
Nice, well thought out post. Thank you for being the rare individual capable of elevating the level of discourse on this forum.

The only thing I would say is that the notion of a "moral and virtuous society", while absolutely an underpinning of the founding documents and intentions (thus why they saw religion as an important compliment to a free government), can be acquired through any spiritual tradition or lack thereof. I don't think it takes adherence to a savior to know that it's wrong to kill, steal, rape, etc...
I won't argue that this may be true, but consider that the majority of those who populated our early society were varying doctrines of Christianity. In fact, much of the disputes between them, more specifically the very letters to which Jefferson attended to the Danbury Congregation and the very issue to which Mason dealt with concerning Virginia's bill of rights was due to the issues of doctrinal conflict. The founders spoke excessively on the topic of Christianity and believed in its true form, a perfect compliment to a free society. My point is that while your argument may be sound, their mention was consistently to that of Christianity as it was the primary core of the people at that time regardless of how they differed in their application of doctrine.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly View Post
We must keep in mind that the founders lived in a much more closed society at the time with a worldview concentrated on Europe. They didn't even know what was west of the Mississippi. It really wasn't until we became a globally mobile society in the second half of the twentieth century that we were confronted with integrating different worldviews into our traditional ones on a scale that didn't involve simply overtaking indigenous peoples. So, their adherence to Christianity as a foundation of morality says more of their limited scope of the world than any fundamental, universal truth.
I would disagree as to their understanding and experience of differing world views and as for the indigenous peoples, the historical facts within such functions are clouded with much differing views and out of context claims. I do not attempt to argue that injustice or irresponsible actions did not occur, rather historical accuracy concerning these topics vary depending on the sources to which weight is placed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly View Post
Keep in mind that the very structures of our government were borrowed from the Iroquois.
This also is a contested theory as some could argue the structures development based on biblical structure as noted in some scripture (references to the trinity and position of judicial, executive, and legislative branches) as well as other aspects which lend to such a position.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2009, 04:10 PM
 
Location: California
37,097 posts, read 42,098,467 times
Reputation: 34962
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
Sorry I'm off topic a little but elevating any of these hacks to positions of prophet or spokespersons is the equivalent of Caligula making his horse a senator.
Horrible comparison! Horses are noble creatures! But seriously yes, I agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2009, 04:14 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,928,755 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
I would argue that our government wasn't founded on anything that resembles Christianity.

Actually, our nations system of government is more closely tied to the Roman Republic, and the Greek Democracy. Both of which weren't Christian.

Until the time of the United States, I don't remember a single Democratic Republic that was primarily Christian. All of the "Christian nations" were either Monarchies, or out and out dictatorships.

As far as Jefferson, he liked Christs ideals of helping your neighbor, loving your brother as yourself, and treating everyone equally. I would argue that the Christian religion as a whole, is pretty far from their Gods morals in this aspect. The same morals can also be found in almost every religion in the world BTW.
All of those points can be argued from the Christian Tradition position as well. Be it the structure of the government to the focus of purpose and condition to which it represented. There are numerous volumes of the founders official and private writings on various topics concerning morality, virtue, and Christianity.

Jefferson is an interesting subject and while it can be questioned if he was a christian, his disdain was more commonly for that of the leaders who he believed did not hold to the teachings as they should.

As for commonality among other religions, yes to an "extent" but there are strong differences between many in some subjects and subtle but key ones in others.

For instance, the differences between the golden rule and the silver rule. At first glance, they seem similar yet one is a proactive stance and the other is not. One submits the action of doing good while the other holds to doing no wrong. Subtle in wording, though very different in practice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2009, 04:18 PM
 
Location: Florida
77,012 posts, read 47,481,489 times
Reputation: 14806
Actually George Washington and John Adams said US is not a Christian Nation. See part of Treaty of Tripoli.



It is true the founders often mentioned God in their writings, but it says a lot that they hardly ever said words Jesus, or Christ. How come? Back then, it was believed that kings ruled people under the authority of God, but the Declaration If Independence put an end to it, by declaring the authority belonges to the people, We, the People. And of course they made sure that the words Jesus, God, Christ or Bible were not mentioned in the Constitution at all. Instead they said this: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3).

Consider this: if the founders had been firm believers in the Bible, then they would never have rebelled against the authority of the king of England.

"For rebellion as is the sin of witchcraft." 1 Samuel, 15:23

Romans 13 - Submission to the Authorities

1 Peter 2:13: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."


Paul wrote in Romans 13:1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resist authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."



Quotes by Thomas Jefferson


In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." - to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814


]"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."[/ - "Notes on Virginia"


"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787


"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests."[/ - to John Adams, 1803


"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."[/ - to Baron von Humboldt, 1813


"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind - to Carey, 1816


"Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself."[/ -in his private journal, Feb. 1800

"It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism, he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it" - to Carey, 1816


"The priests of the superstition, a bloodthirsty race, are as cruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel. That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore." - to Story, Aug. 4, 1820

Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 10-05-2009 at 04:32 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2009, 04:22 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,928,755 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Good post overall. But, what do you mean by Christian tradition? Is it different from Jewish or Muslim traditions, or even Buddhist/Hindu? An example or two would help.
The majority of the population was of Christian decent. They differed in doctrine from one belief to the next, but all shared similar roots of the Bible and its teachings.

Keep in mind that many were fleeing the oppression of dictation by religious rule. The Churches had been the center of all that was delegated to the people. Henry the VIII placed himself above the church so he could implement change to doctrine to allow his divorce. The churches history was rocky with abuse as it manipulated scripture to suit its dominance over the people. As it was found that people could commune with God on their own (no longer required the church to do so), this spun off many different doctrinal systems of interpretation and in order to escape persecution, many fled to the colonies.

When I say "Christian Tradition" I mean that most of the people worshiped in one form or another through Christianity and while they differed in doctrine, they understood the foundation to which they shared and that was a binding to which influenced the countries directions. Other religions existed, but they were much smaller in numbers. It is only natural that the cultural influence would be one of a Christian foundation being that its population was predominately so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:15 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top