Separation of Church and State?

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
That was before the rise of the religious right in American. Before, religion was in the background, which is as it should be. Now, religion is being dragged to the forefront and touted as America's route to salvation. And it's not.

I suggest you brush up on your history. Religion was NEVER in the background in this country. Not in 1775 and not now. Not in between either.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
What is the salvation of America? Communism and appeasement?

Reason and a rational approach to the world around us. Not the bible-thumping jingoism of Dubbyuh and his merry band.

 

[Bullypulpit]

...Merely a Christian nation. It is a nation of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Jainas, Sikhs, and followers of about any other religion one would care to name as well as atheists. But who's right? They can't all be right...Can they? Yes, they can. The path one follows is the proper one them. It is an individual thing, and not meant to be forced on another.

But the religious right in America doesn't understand that. Their view is that their is but one true path, and all should follow that path. Poor deluded fools that they are. There are as many names for, and paths to, God as there are humans upon the face of the earth. To claim that one path is fit for all is an act of hubris, driven by the egos of a few self-proclaimed messengers of God who have twisted Christ's message beyond all recognition to suit their own desires.

Follow whatever path to God that you choose, or don't. But if that path should advocate, or lead t, the harm or forced conversion of others., then it's time to get off that path.

 

[Hobbit]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
To claim that one path is fit for all is an act of hubris, driven by the egos of a few self-proclaimed messengers of God who have twisted Christ's message beyond all recognition to suit their own desires.

Follow whatever path to God that you choose, or don't. But if that path should advocate, or lead t, the harm or forced conversion of others., then it's time to get off that path.

First off, Christ himself said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6, NIV). The Bible clearly states the Christainity IS the only way, and that's why we believe it. As a person who tries to emulate Jesus rather than just interperet his words, I refuse to attempt to force Christianity on anybody, but don't call me arrogant for thinking it's the only way, because Jesus, the center of my entire religious belief system, said it is the only way.

Second, once again, those who truly follow Jesus will not try to forcefully convert someone. Such a conversion a) goes against Jesus' teachings of pacifism b) cause opposition to your cause and c) are almost never genuine and are merely faked to prevent torture/death.

The problem with Christianity now is that we oppose many ideals that the elite media holds as sacred, such as homosexuality and abortion. Even for these things, words are twisted and facts spun to make Christians look worse. The media depicts clinic bombers and homocidal homophobes. However, the teachings of Christ require that we submit to the government. "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God." Romans 13:1, which means no clinic bombings or murders of homosexuals. Even if murder was somehow allowable, the belief is that homosexuality actions are sin, much like lieing, stealing, coveting, and many other actions that we have all committed. Romans 3:23 reads "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," meaning that they are in no way "less than human" and should be treated like everyone else whose actions we disagree with. Much in the same way you can't call Islam as a whole violent because many Muslims believe God wants them to blow themselves up to kill innocents, you cannot call Christianity as a whole oppressive because a few Christians believe God wants them to blow up abortion clinics or treat homosexuals as less than human. Well, technically, you can call Christianity a war-like religion that believes aliens from Mars will come down and blast all pro-choicers and homosexuals with their ray guns, but that doesn't make it true.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Hobbit
First off, Christ himself said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6, NIV). The Bible clearly states the Christainity IS the only way, and that's why we believe it. As a person who tries to emulate Jesus rather than just interperet his words, I refuse to attempt to force Christianity on anybody, but don't call me arrogant for thinking it's the only way, because Jesus, the center of my entire religious belief system, said it is the only way.

Second, once again, those who truly follow Jesus will not try to forcefully convert someone. Such a conversion a) goes against Jesus' teachings of pacifism b) cause opposition to your cause and c) are almost never genuine and are merely faked to prevent torture/death.

The problem with Christianity now is that we oppose many ideals that the elite media holds as sacred, such as homosexuality and abortion. Even for these things, words are twisted and facts spun to make Christians look worse. The media depicts clinic bombers and homocidal homophobes. However, the teachings of Christ require that we submit to the government. "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God." Romans 13:1, which means no clinic bombings or murders of homosexuals. Even if murder was somehow allowable, the belief is that homosexuality actions are sin, much like lieing, stealing, coveting, and many other actions that we have all committed. Romans 3:23 reads "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," meaning that they are in no way "less than human" and should be treated like everyone else whose actions we disagree with. Much in the same way you can't call Islam as a whole violent because many Muslims believe God wants them to blow themselves up to kill innocents, you cannot call Christianity as a whole oppressive because a few Christians believe God wants them to blow up abortion clinics or treat homosexuals as less than human. Well, technically, you can call Christianity a war-like religion that believes aliens from Mars will come down and blast all pro-choicers and homosexuals with their ray guns, but that doesn't make it true.

Unfortunately the Bible, while it does provide some sound moral guidance, is not the absolute authority on the matter that some would have it be. It is, after all, the product of human intellect. As such it is burdened with the prejudices, misconceptions, ignorance, short-sightedness and, yes, wisdom of the writers. It shares the same limitations and strengths as its writers and translators over the centuries. And its mythos draws heavily from that of pre-Christian civilizations.

So, you see, it is not so simple, black-and-white, and absolute as so many wish it were.

 

[Hobbit]

Once again, according to the Christian religion, the Bible is the inspired word of God, not man. Sure, we know there are a few translation errors and some words can't be properly translated, which is why so many new Bibles feature footnotes pointing out these errors. However, the teachings of our religion say that the Bible is the word of God himself, so we believe it. Once again, you are criticizing people for actually believing their own religion. Personally, I'd rather be criticized for believing my own relgion that be criticized for picking and choosing which parts I'd like to believe.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Hobbit
Once again, according to the Christian religion, the Bible is the inspired word of God, not man. Sure, we know there are a few translation errors and some words can't be properly translated, which is why so many new Bibles feature footnotes pointing out these errors. However, the teachings of our religion say that the Bible is the word of God himself, so we believe it. Once again, you are criticizing people for actually believing their own religion. Personally, I'd rather be criticized for believing my own relgion that be criticized for picking and choosing which parts I'd like to believe.

Regardless of the claimed source of inspiration, the Bible is solely the product of human perceptual and conceptual activity. Thus it is subject to the limitiations of said activity. A question never answered to my satisfaction is, "How does anyone <b>know</b> what God wants?" It seems to me that anyone can claim a direct pieline to the divine, but what makes their version of God's word more correct than anyone else's. It is a purely subjective experience with no basis in objective, empirical reality.

As for "picking and choosing" what parts to believe, or are useful in justifying a particular view, that is the hallmark of a hypocrite. Walk the walk...Don't just talk the talk.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Reason and a rational approach to the world around us. Not the bible-thumping jingoism of Dubbyuh and his merry band.

Appeasement is not reasonable. Explain how it is. If we're nice maybe everyone will like us? Was your ass kicked everyday at school?

 

[Hobbit]

Now, you've said over and over that the Bible was solely written by man with no divine inspiration as if it was a fact and ask Christians to prove God had anything to do with it. You've been stating it as if those it was divinely decreed and absolute truth and that you couldn't possibly be wrong about it. I ask you, however, to prove that it was not inspired by God. I can't prove it was. You can't prove it wasn't. Just because you think your answer is more believable doesn't mean it's true.

Now, as for Christians having to prove God to you, just think of this. You say God doesn't exist because you can't see, hear, touch, taste, or smell him. Well, I make this challenge to you. Have you ever seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled your brain? No? Then how do you know you have one? The truth is that you don't [know]. However, what you have experienced in your lifetime has led you to believe that you do, in fact, have a brain. I could make conjectures all day about how you might be able to function without one, but until we dissect you, nobody can be absolutely sure whether or not you have a brain. This is just like God. Nobody can find direct evidence of the existence of God, so skeptics come up with theories to explain how the universe functions (and mainly how it came to be) without the intervention of God, but until we die, we cannot be absolutely sure that there is or is not a God.

As for knowing what God wants us to do, it's not always clear cut, but I typically refer back to the classic "WWJD" axiom. Jesus' three main points were 'love one another,' 'forgive those who transgress against you,' and 'go forth and preach the word.' The goal of a Christian is (or should be) to become more like Christ. Much of the other actions I see are just twisting the words of the Bible to fit an agenda or excuse someone's actions. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and everything else I've seen that involves killing or torturing people because they're not Christians are all examples of twisting the words to fit an agenda. This isn't unique to Christianity, however, as politicians have been twisting the words of the Constitution for at least decades.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
...Merely a Christian nation. It is a nation of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Jainas, Sikhs, and followers of about any other religion one would care to name as well as atheists. But who's right? They can't all be right...Can they? Yes, they can. The path one follows is the proper one them. It is an individual thing, and not meant to be forced on another.

But the religious right in America doesn't understand that. Their view is that their is but one true path, and all should follow that path. Poor deluded fools that they are. There are as many names for, and paths to, God as there are humans upon the face of the earth. To claim that one path is fit for all is an act of hubris, driven by the egos of a few self-proclaimed messengers of God who have twisted Christ's message beyond all recognition to suit their own desires.

Follow whatever path to God that you choose, or don't. But if that path should advocate, or lead t, the harm or forced conversion of others., then it's time to get off that path.

Bully, I will agree that America is not a Christian nation, in the sense that Christianity is not the national religion, and that we are granted freedom to worship as we please. That's a great part of this country and one that I would not want to give up.

I disagree, however, with the follwoing quote:

But who's right? They can't all be right...Can they? Yes, they can. The path one follows is the proper one them. It is an individual thing, and not meant to be forced on another.

How can two religions (or more) both be right if they have contradictory teachings? For example, the Western religions teach in the existence of heaven and hell. Eastern religions teach no such thing. Either there is a heaven or there is not. Which is correct? Either there is reincarnation (as Hinduism teaches) or there is not - which is correct? Either there is one Creaotr God over the universe (as the Western religons teach) or there is not (as hinduism/Buddhism/paganism teach). Which is correct?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Bully, I will agree that America is not a Christian nation, in the sense that Christianity is not the national religion, and that we are granted freedom to worship as we please. That's a great part of this country and one that I would not want to give up.

I disagree, however, with the follwoing quote:



How can two religions (or more) both be right if they have contradictory teachings? For example, the Western religions teach in the existence of heaven and hell. Eastern religions teach no such thing. Either there is a heaven or there is not. Which is correct? Either there is reincarnation (as Hinduism teaches) or there is not - which is correct? Either there is one Creaotr God over the universe (as the Western religons teach) or there is not (as hinduism/Buddhism/paganism teach). Which is correct?

Hinduism holds that Bramha is the source from which all things spring, so one could impute a "Creator God" from that. Some schools of Buddhism hold that there is a permanent, eternal underlying reality from which all else is a reflection. This is similar to the Noumena/Phenomena posited by Immanuel Kant.

The problem associated with assuming the existence of some permanent and eternal wellspring of creation, be it God or Bramha or the alaya vijnyana, is that such a thing is unavailable to human experience. We rationally deduce their existence, but those deductions have no objective or empirical evidence to support them. Thus the conclusions reached provide us with no genuinely useful information.

So, any system positing the existence of a permanent, eternal creator or reality are, at best, speculation. At their worst, they grow into religions which constantly bicker over things of which we can have no knowledge. My answer to your question then is, "Neither are correct."

 

[NewGuy]

Well, let's just take the vagueness and theoretical complexity out of this whole thing.

Christians believe the Bible is the literal word of God as dictated by the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. The only Biblical version to follow this which linguistically kept all of the original wording and text without CHANGING it was the Authorized King James Version of 1611. (AV1611) Others were before and after, but they were not held to the same standard. Modern translations have changed and differed the entire meaning. If one wants to get into that discussion, the whole thing is very analytically spelled out and compared as to not leave any room for doubt at another website : www.av1611.com

Now, that being said, lets throw the whole Bible thing out the window.

For a Christian to be saved, in reality, a relationship or "knowing" Christ as their personal lord and savior is involved. Unless someone is saved seconds before death, there must be a point in time they have a relationship WITH Him. For ANYONE to claim they are a Christian WITHOUT this relationship is false according to the Bible.

If this is the case, how can religion play a background role? I just posted above the clip from the "Articles of Confederation". For anyone to have a relationship with Christ like any other friendship or spousal relationship, it would be impossible to put that in your pocket and then make decisions to the contrary. -This can be done for a short time with ugly consequences, but will not happen long term.

Bullypulpit, the main problem here is that non-Christians do not and cannot understand the true effect upon a Christian's life when they can talk to the maker of all that is on a regular basis and recieve direction and guidance as required. The ability to squelch that and place into a category of "religious PRACTICE" is impossible.

A relationship is not a religion.

 

[acludem]

To establish the idea that the founding father intended for church and state to remain separate one need only look at the records of these men. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison successfully thwarted efforts by Patrick Henry and others in Virigina to give preferential treatment to Christian clergy. Jefferson's epitaph mentions that he was "author of Virginia's statue for religious freedom" and he used the word "creator" in the declaration, but not "God". Thomas Jefferson was a Deist. He did not believe in an active God. James Madison was also a Deist. It was Madison who insisted on the Bill of Rights and steered it to passage in the first Congress. Madison firmly believed in the separate of church and state. If you read the Constitution, there are only two mentions of religion, the first is in the date, "In the Year of Our Lord Seventeen Hundred and Eighty-Nine" the other is in the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." That's it. If those who formulated our government had wanted religion to play a part in government they would have said so. They did not. In fact they implicitly left it out. This should tell you something.

A little more history as it relates to the pledge of allegience. The original pledge did NOT have the words "under God" in the text. The pledge was written by a Baptist minister, who, according to his daughter and others who knew him, would've been aghast to have "under God" inserted into his text. The words "under God" were inserted during the Red scare of the 1950s. They should never have been in the pledge, they do not belong there. Michael Newdow's case is weak, I admit. I'm not sure of the harm to his child, but I do agree with him that "under God" should be removed from the pledge, and that is tantamount to the government establishing that every American be part of a monotheistic "God" based religion. In God We Trust should be removed from currency as well, for reasons best laid out by Theodore Roosevelt, a devout Dutch Reformed Christian, having that phrase on money is both unconstitutional and sacriligious.

acludem

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Well, let's just take the vagueness and theoretical complexity out of this whole thing.

Christians believe the Bible is the literal word of God as dictated by the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. The only Biblical version to follow this which linguistically kept all of the original wording and text without CHANGING it was the Authorized King James Version of 1611. (AV1611) Others were before and after, but they were not held to the same standard. Modern translations have changed and differed the entire meaning. If one wants to get into that discussion, the whole thing is very analytically spelled out and compared as to not leave any room for doubt at another website : www.av1611.com

Now, that being said, lets throw the whole Bible thing out the window.

For a Christian to be saved, in reality, a relationship or "knowing" Christ as their personal lord and savior is involved. Unless someone is saved seconds before death, there must be a point in time they have a relationship WITH Him. For ANYONE to claim they are a Christian WITHOUT this relationship is false according to the Bible.

If this is the case, how can religion play a background role? I just posted above the clip from the "Articles of Confederation". For anyone to have a relationship with Christ like any other friendship or spousal relationship, it would be impossible to put that in your pocket and then make decisions to the contrary. -This can be done for a short time with ugly consequences, but will not happen long term.

Bullypulpit, the main problem here is that non-Christians do not and cannot understand the true effect upon a Christian's life when they can talk to the maker of all that is on a regular basis and recieve direction and guidance as required. The ability to squelch that and place into a category of "religious PRACTICE" is impossible.

A relationship is not a religion.

Firstly, the King James translation is named so because translators kept working at it until it satisfied King James and his purposes.

As for talking "to the maker of all that is on a regular basis", that is a profoundly subjective experience, and valid for that individual alone. There is no objective or empirical correlate. Thus to interpret that experience as absolutely true and valid for all is erroneous.

The same applies to "a relationship or "knowing" Christ as their personal lord and savior"...It is a personal sand subjective experience with no empirical correlate, and thus it is an error to assume that it is absolutely true and valid for all people in all places and in all times.

 

[NewGuy]

If you read the Constitution, there are only two mentions of religion, the first is in the date, "In the Year of Our Lord Seventeen Hundred and Eighty-Nine" the other is in the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." That's it. If those who formulated our government had wanted religion to play a part in government they would have said so. They did not. In fact they implicitly left it out. This should tell you something.

Actually, you are PART right. They wanted no national religion. They made a Constitutional statement making it illegal for a law to be passed in favor or against any SANTIFIED practice of religion. This would mean that if a muslim wanted to put a Koran on his wall in his courtroom as he may be a judge, he is allowed to do so. It also means the Government cannot rule in favor of that same individual for making someone else follow his beliefs as a judgement. The law protects EVERYONES right to religion as an individual one, not governmentaly sanctified. Also, it means nobody such as Newdow can say things need to be removed from view or practice. -The law would be prohibiting practice of religion that way.

As far as how this Christianity plays a part, the founding fathers collectively believed God GAVE us our laws and freedoms. It was intended the Christianity in their lives be the basis for the formation of our Constitution as would be apparent in many of these other documents. Take a look again at the Constitution. You claim that the ammendment regarding freedom of religion to be all that there was to say. You forget one other point:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Want to define "blessings"?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Firstly, the King James translation is named so because translators kept working at it until it satisfied King James and his purposes.

If you want to debate this I suggest another thread because you will need a whole lot more than that to prove your point, and I am well prepared for that discussion.

As for talking "to the maker of all that is on a regular basis", that is a profoundly subjective experience, and valid for that individual alone. There is no objective or empirical correlate. Thus to interpret that experience as absolutely true and valid for all is erroneous.

Yes, you are right. There IS not evidence to corellate if you choose to ignore such proof such as Biblical prophecy. There has never been any other text written that is 100% accurate in fortelling future events so literally and completely naming cities and such. I am well prepared for this discussion as well, so feel free to open another thread.

The same applies to "a relationship or "knowing" Christ as their personal lord and savior"...It is a personal sand subjective experience with no empirical correlate, and thus it is an error to assume that it is absolutely true and valid for all people in all places and in all times.

The only error is that you choose NOT to have that relationship, and therefore have no basis to prove your stand. If you have no knowledge of the experience, you cannot say it is merely personal, therefore suggesting different for all, nor can you say it is not true nor valid.

If you want to go this path as well, I am more than willing. -Although the funny thing is that all you have to do is accept Him into your life as well, and you will have all the evidence you need. After all, are you desiring to be right? -or do you just want to be stubborn? Given you will only live a hundred or so years here, and much more somewhere else, you had better be right.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by NewGuy

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Want to define "blessings"?

In this case, I believe "...a special favor, mercy or <b>benefit</b>..." is the most appropriate definition.

 

[NewGuy]

In this case, I believe "...a special favor, mercy or <b>benefit</b>..." is the most appropriate definition.

You have just chosen to redefine our Constitution by word substitution. If "benefit" was what they wanted, it would have been said. With these people being well educated, some in law, you have a very weak point at best if we only talk about this particular document, and no case when discussing the other drafted documents.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Yes, you are right. There IS not evidence to corellate if you choose to ignore such proof such as Biblical prophecy. There has never been any other text written that is 100% accurate in fortelling future events so literally and completely naming cities and such. I am well prepared for this discussion as well, so feel free to open another thread.

"100% accurate in fortelling future events"? I doubt it. One can parse the Bible and find whatever predictions one might wish to find. It is written so vaguely that the prophecies contained therein may be interpreted in any manner one might wish.

As for an after life, I may...or may not...be reborn to take up my work where I left off. It's not something I've any worries about.

 

[NewGuy]

"100% accurate in fortelling future events"? I doubt it. One can parse the Bible and find whatever predictions one might wish to find. It is written so vaguely that the prophecies contained therein may be interpreted in any manner one might wish.

This illustrates my point. You doubt rather than KNOW. Reading the entire Bible in context puts things in perspective. Until we can both come to the table with having read it in its entirety and in context, we would be having an unbalanced discussion of such things.