Traditional Values Defined

musicman said:
No - they came here to escape religious persecution and oppression from government. Ultimately, their system of government protected religious freedom FROM government - government being recognized as the danger. As badly as the concept of "separation of church and state" has been mangled by agenda-wielding secularists, its true purpose has always been the protection of religious freedom.

The government run by the church run by the government if you must quibble. It amounts to the same thing. Oppression of Christians, by Christians.

Unfortunately, persecution managed to stow away on the ships coming to America and had quite a following in the colonies. It took the likes of Williams to end the madness.

http://www.religiousfreedoms.org/articles/article_williams.htm

Williams summarized the system of government that he advocated as follows:

“Liberty of our persons: No Life no Limbe taken from us: No Corporall punishment no Restraint, but by knowne Lawes & agreements of our owne making.

“Libertie of our Estates, Howse, Catle, Lands, goods and not a penny to be taken by any rate from us, without every man’s free debate by his Deputies, chosen by himself and sent to the General Assembly.

“Libertie of Societie or Corporation, of sending or being sent to the General Assembly, of choosing and being chosen to all offices, and of making or repealing all Lawes and Constitutions among us.”

He also very succinctly summarized what should be the relationship between government and the governed - in words very similar to those Thomas Jefferson would later use in the Declaration of Independence:

“The soveraigne, originall, and foundation of civill power lies in the people whom they must needs meane by the civil power distinct from the Government set up. And if so, that a People may erect and establish what forme of Government seems to them most meet for their civil condition: it is evident that such Governments as are by them erected and established, have no more power, nor for no longer time, then the civil power or people consenting & agreeing shall betrust them with. This is cleare not only in Reason, but in the experience of all common-weales, where the people are not deprived of their natural freedome by the power of Tyrants.

It was a radically new idea to totally separate government from religion and religion from government while allowing unfettered freedom of religion that became the cornerstone of our success. The Constitution is the agreement whereby we citizens give our freedom to each other.
 
LuvRPgrl said:
You confuse Christian Ideals with Christians actions. You use the "actions" of some self proclaimed Christians to mis represent what the Christian Ideal teaches. Please show me in Christian doctrine where it tells us to go kill people in the name of Christ.
To quote a line from a very good movie, "stupid is as stupid does". In other words, are you going to believe what I tell you, or what I do?


LuvRPgrl said:
Now, the freedom of speech most certainly is given to us through religous ideals. "We hold these truths to be self evident,... ...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these... ....And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

Have any verses from the bible where freedom of speech is touted?

LuvRPgrl said:
You simply cannot seperate this document from the Constitution, because it states clearly the legal basis for the Constitution. The Constitution is merely the day to day details of how the rights given to us by our Creator will be sustained in the legal parlours of the govt.

Baloney! The writers of the Constitution included a preamble to explain its purpose. The words "creator", "God", "deity" are all conspicuously absent. It was clearly an intentional omission.
 
is that while you espouse Bible-based traditional values, you also despise gun control. I think it's pretty clear where Jesus would stand on gun control--he'd turn Colts into plowshares.

What you're really talking about is an American evangelical interpretation of Christianity, spiced with some Wild West gunslinging. That hardly speaks for all Christians, and certainly doesn't speak for all traditionalists.

Mariner.
 
There are places in the Old Testament where pre-Christians are told to kill in the name of their God. Did their God change when the New Testament began, or is there some cultural continuity that might explain violent explosions like the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, or burning poor scientists like Giordano Bruno at the stake?

Mariner.
 
Mariner said:
is that while you espouse Bible-based traditional values, you also despise gun control. I think it's pretty clear where Jesus would stand on gun control--he'd turn Colts into plowshares.

What you're really talking about is an American evangelical interpretation of Christianity, spiced with some Wild West gunslinging. That hardly speaks for all Christians, and certainly doesn't speak for all traditionalists.

Mariner.

all opinion. I think otherwise. Jesus did say he came with a sword to divide.

Regarding your questions in the next link. They arent serious questions. You have dialogued this topic before. You would then go on to the next question, and I would be wasting my time with you. If you want answers, go find a good theology school. You think you are the first to ask these questions? You dont think someone as brilliant as Newton, Washington, Davinci or CS Lewis asked these questions and were given satisfactory answers?

WHen you can prove to me you have as much intellligence as one of Newtons farts, then get back to me. By the way, he probably was the most intelligent person who ever lived.
 
MissileMan said:
To quote a line from a very good movie, "stupid is as stupid does". In other words, are you going to believe what I tell you, or what I do?




Have any verses from the bible where freedom of speech is touted?



Baloney! The writers of the Constitution included a preamble to explain its purpose. The words "creator", "God", "deity" are all conspicuously absent. It was clearly an intentional omission.


You know, I just bought a car. At the end of the contract, there is a page, a seperate page, called a legal disclaimer. I had to sign it. NOWHERE on it did it mention, "car" , "vehicle" "truck" etc. I guess it had nothing to do with my car contract then eh?

You CANNOT seperate the DOI from the COTUS. Without the DOI the cotus doesnt exist. The DOI gives the COTUS its authority, and it describes WHERE that authority comes from. Until you answer that, everything else is icing on the cake. But the cake has been baked, its standing, and it says CHRISTIAN
 
MissileMan said:
The government run by the church run by the government if you must quibble. It amounts to the same thing. Oppression of Christians, by Christians.

Well, hell, man - it was Christian Europe! You couldn't swing a cat without hitting a Christian. Christians trimmed your meat, baked your bread, and made your candles. How could it have been anything BUT "oppression of Christians, by Christians"? Believe me, MissileMan - I wouldn't DREAM of quibbling with you. I am humbled in your prescence; you are truly the quibble-master.

What we have to try to understand, though, is that man's grasp of the true nature of Christianity - particularly vis-a-vis temporal government - was an evolving thing, even after the Reformation. It all seems so clear to us now; let's try to remember that we didn't have to live it in real time.

MissileMan said:
Unfortunately, persecution managed to stow away on the ships coming to America and had quite a following in the colonies. It took the likes of Williams to end the madness...
...It was a radically new idea to totally separate government from religion and religion from government while allowing unfettered freedom of religion that became the cornerstone of our success.

I'm actually with you up to this point. Where you lose me is the place at which I believe your blind spot takes over. You seem determined to force a square peg into a round hole by trying to present the Constitution as a secular document. It is nothing of the kind. It is the nuts-and-bolts implementation of a refined Christian worldview (by "refined", I mean that Christianity itself didn't change; rather, man's UNDERSTANDING of its fundamental principles - as they relate to matters such as temporal government - improved).

Governments - being the creations of imperfect men - are inherently and necessarily flawed. As such, they must be severely limited. Man's free agency is supreme; his relationship with God is his own business. This is a basis for governance that could only have been set by Christians, and it's hard to quarrel with the results.

MissileMan said:
The Constitution is the agreement whereby we citizens give our freedom to each other.

You would twist your limbs into pretzel-eights, dash yourself to pieces on the sidewalk, and die in fire before you'd admit that our founders considered our fundamental, inalienable rights God-given. I wonder why.
 
Missle man, your contention that our rights are given to each other, then by your thinking, first, slavery wasnt immoral.

Second, you need to read the Dec of Ind. Its specifically states that some of the rights are God given and unalienable. Go read it. You can find all kinds of stuff that makes it "appear" its secular, but all I need is one piece of evidence to prove its Christian basis and you will be wrong with eveerything else you throw at the arguement.

"We hold these truths to be self evident...God given rights, among these.."
 
LuvRPgrl said:
Missle man, your contention that our rights are given to each other, then by your thinking, first, slavery wasnt immoral.

Second, you need to read the Dec of Ind. Its specifically states that some of the rights are God given and unalienable. Go read it. You can find all kinds of stuff that makes it "appear" its secular, but all I need is one piece of evidence to prove its Christian basis and you will be wrong with eveerything else you throw at the arguement.

"We hold these truths to be self evident...God given rights, among these.."

Please understand that I'm not - by any means - calling the Declaration irrelevant to this discussion, LuvRPgrl; it is anything but that. It was the impetus of the Constitution; it is who our founders were.

What I AM saying, though, is that it is not necessary to cite the Declaration as proof that the Constitution is, in fact, the brass-tacks implementation of an enlightened Christian worldview - particularly as regards the matter of temporal government. The Constitution's own singularity in all of human history is ample proof of that - all by itself. :beer:
 
LuvRPgrl said:
You know, I just bought a car. At the end of the contract, there is a page, a seperate page, called a legal disclaimer. I had to sign it. NOWHERE on it did it mention, "car" , "vehicle" "truck" etc. I guess it had nothing to do with my car contract then eh?

You CANNOT seperate the DOI from the COTUS. Without the DOI the cotus doesnt exist. The DOI gives the COTUS its authority, and it describes WHERE that authority comes from. Until you answer that, everything else is icing on the cake. But the cake has been baked, its standing, and it says CHRISTIAN

You couldn't be any more wrong if you tried. There very easily could have been a declaration of war without a DoI. And at the conclusion of the war, a government would have been established.

The DoI and COTUS are two separate and unrelated documents, each capable of standing on their own. There isn't a single reference to the other in either.
 
There are so many countries we could name that were founded on no religious basis. Perhaps anyone who hates the idea of the US being founded on Judeo-Christian principles would be happier living in one of those countries? For the rest of us, we think it is working quite well on that foundation.
 
musicman said:
Well, hell, man - it was Christian Europe! You couldn't swing a cat without hitting a Christian. Christians trimmed your meat, baked your bread, and made your candles. How could it have been anything BUT "oppression of Christians, by Christians"? Believe me, MissileMan - I wouldn't DREAM of quibbling with you. I am humbled in your prescence; you are truly the quibble-master.

It wasn't oppression by individual Christians, but by the Christian establishment. You seem reluctant to admit that persecution was a part of the doctrine of the time, as was coercion.

And I'm sure you are going to disagree, but IMO, freedom of religion IS a secular ideal. And, here's the basis for that statement. There is a certainty of "right" that comes with faith. Even among the different denominations of Christianity, there is disagreement about the "how's, why's, right's, wrong's", etc. Given the power to do so, any religion would seek to impose it's sense of "right" on everyone, if for no other reason than to save everyone from themselves. A religion-run government would most assuredly become as tyrannical as a government-run religion. That is why our secular government, with clear boundaries separating church and state has endured.
 
MissileMan said:
It wasn't oppression by individual Christians, but by the Christian establishment. You seem reluctant to admit that persecution was a part of the doctrine of the time, as was coercion.

And I'm sure you are going to disagree, but IMO, freedom of religion IS a secular ideal. And, here's the basis for that statement. There is a certainty of "right" that comes with faith. Even among the different denominations of Christianity, there is disagreement about the "how's, why's, right's, wrong's", etc. Given the power to do so, any religion would seek to impose it's sense of "right" on everyone, if for no other reason than to save everyone from themselves. A religion-run government would most assuredly become as tyrannical as a government-run religion. That is why our secular government, with clear boundaries separating church and state has endured.

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: The concept of freedom of religion, as we know it, does not legitimize or acknowledge other religons other than Christianity. It only offers the freedom to worship whatever we want without persection. It is not and never has been a secular idea.
 
MissileMan said:
It wasn't oppression by individual Christians, but by the Christian establishment. You seem reluctant to admit that persecution was a part of the doctrine of the time, as was coercion.

There is no "Christian doctrine" as such - there is only the Word of God. Admittedly, man's ability to understand God's principles - and apply them to temporal governance - took a while to evolve, even after the Reformation. It did, though, and the happy result was the U.S. Constitution.

MissileMan said:
And I'm sure you are going to disagree, but IMO, freedom of religion IS a secular ideal.

I do disagree. In the first place, religion is the means by which we attempt to understand the transcendant - that which exists outside ourselves. By that definition, secularism - particularly as practiced by the modern-day American Left - is most assuredly a religion. In the second place, this modern-day, self-worshipping socialist wolf in sheep's clothing is the most brutally intolerant worldview in history. Trust me, MM - there's no room for dissent in the Brave New World. There'll be no freedom of religion if secularists have their way.

MissileMan said:
And, here's the basis for that statement. There is a certainty of "right" that comes with faith. Even among the different denominations of Christianity, there is disagreement about the "how's, why's, right's, wrong's", etc. Given the power to do so, any religion would seek to impose it's sense of "right" on everyone, if for no other reason than to save everyone from themselves.

I believe you are wrong, sir - and I offer America as proof. A Christian theocracy could not exist; it is a contradiction in terms. By violating Christianity's bedrock principle of man's free agency, it would cease to be Christian. By respecting it, it would cease to be a theocracy.

MissileMan said:
A religion-run government would most assuredly become as tyrannical as a government-run religion.

I believe that you are right. At the precise moment the U.S. Constitution became the law of the United Christian States of America, it would cease to be grounded in Christian principle.

MissileMan said:
That is why our secular government, with clear boundaries separating church and state has endured.

Man's understanding of Christian principle in temporal governance was slow in coming, but I think our founders managed nicely. No other worldview in history has regarded government so severely - as a necessary evil, and a potentially dangerous enemy - to be kept on a short, jealously-guarded leash. This is a uniquely Christian mindset, grounded in the Biblical certainty of man's essentially corrupt nature. Contrast this with the utopian pipe-dream of socialism: man as somehow "perfectible"; a workers' paradise here on earth. It can't be. Man isn't built for it.

The clear boundaries you speak of recognize government - the creation of corruptible man - as the enemy. They protect freedom of worship from the state - period.
 
LuvRPgrl said:
The first amendment also had nothing NOTHING to do with seperation of church and state. It was written so the INDIVIDUAL STATES COULD DECIDE THEIR OWN STATE RELIGIONS.

OMG So much bullshit.

First amendment has nothing to do with separation between church and state?

I guess you must know more about the issue than THOMAS JEFFERSON, who coined the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," in 1802, or James Madison (father of the Bill of Rights) who said “Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States.”

Yeah, I guess you must know more than both of them :rolleyes:

Not only did you get their intentions wrong, but you're also 100% legally wrong.

The supremacy clause dictates that no state or local law can ever trump the constitution, therefore all STATES are BANNED from establishing a religion.

But hey, you keep making shit up. Maybe nobody else will notice.
 
Max Power said:
OMG So much bullshit.

First amendment has nothing to do with separation between church and state?

I guess you must know more about the issue than THOMAS JEFFERSON, who coined the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," in 1802, or James Madison (father of the Bill of Rights) who said “Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States.”

Yeah, I guess you must know more than both of them :rolleyes:

Not only did you get their intentions wrong, but you're also 100% legally wrong.

The supremacy clause dictates that no state or local law can ever trump the constitution, therefore all STATES are BANNED from establishing a religion.

But hey, you keep making shit up. Maybe nobody else will notice.

The 14th Amendment was what made it so States could not legally establish a religion, or make laws in violation of Federal Rights.
 
You brought up Newton. Do you know that he had to hide his religious beliefs because they were not acceptable to surrounding Christian society? At the time, hair-splitting between Trinitarians and others was heresy.

Newton's religious situation is just another reason to support a complete separation of church and state, and even to wonder whether so-called "Christian" colleges make sense at all.

I do agree with you that Newton was likely the smartest person in history. I've always considered the calculus to be mankind's most beautiful invention. So why did an overly conformist Christian society force him to hide his religious beliefs?

You also mentioned da Vinci. An interesting person to bring in a "traditional values" thread, since he is believed to have been gay.

Both da Vinci and Newton would have been far better off--and more productive--in a secular humanist society than a Christian-dominant one.

Mariner.
 
Mariner said:
You brought up Newton. Do you know that he had to hide his religious beliefs because they were not acceptable to surrounding Christian society? At the time, hair-splitting between Trinitarians and others was heresy.

Newton's religious situation is just another reason to support a complete separation of church and state, and even to wonder whether so-called "Christian" colleges make sense at all.

I do agree with you that Newton was likely the smartest person in history. I've always considered the calculus to be mankind's most beautiful invention. So why did an overly conformist Christian society force him to hide his religious beliefs?

You also mentioned da Vinci. An interesting person to bring in a "traditional values" thread, since he is believed to have been gay.

Both da Vinci and Newton would have been far better off--and more productive--in a secular humanist society than a Christian-dominant one.

Mariner.

Has there ever been a real secular humanist society? NO! So how would you know? Of course there are those who have persecuted all religions to achieve this nonsensical dream, is that what you want? What is your problem exactly? No one's going to force you to become christian, or outlaw hindusism; that is all our constitution provides. What more do you want? Why does the faith of others bother you so much?
 
religions, e.g. the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, and Mao, might have been "secular," but by definition they were not "humanist."

Yes, we had a more secular humanist society before Bush became president than after. We had a more secular humanist society before we added "under God" to our coins and to the pledge of allegiance than after.

I have absolutely nothing against religion, per se. I do have a problem with defining "traditional values" based on one particular religion or with making one religion more primary in some way than others. I also have a problem with excessive religious involvement in government. For example, I am strongly against a variety of things most Republicans support in this regard, e.g. using public vouchers for religious schooling, providing government funding for 'faith-based' aid organizations, school prayer, or faith-based abstinence-only sex education rather than science-based real, effective sex education. I also oppose the Bush policy of withholding funding from international agencies that teach sex ed or provide contraception. These are all real-world problems where I believe Bush's fundamentalist Christianity would be better replaced by a secular humanist philosophy.

Secular humanism can be thought of as pro-religion, not anti. It promotes everyone being able to practice his/her religion equally and comfortably--it just keeps it out of the schools, government buildings, and government policies.

Mariner.
 
Mariner said:
religions, e.g. the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, and Mao, might have been "secular," but by definition they were not "humanist."

Yes, we had a more secular humanist society before Bush became president than after. We had a more secular humanist society before we added "under God" to our coins and to the pledge of allegiance than after.

I have absolutely nothing against religion, per se. I do have a problem with defining "traditional values" based on one particular religion or with making one religion more primary in some way than others. I also have a problem with excessive religious involvement in government. For example, I am strongly against a variety of things most Republicans support in this regard, e.g. using public vouchers for religious schooling, providing government funding for 'faith-based' aid organizations, school prayer, or faith-based abstinence-only sex education rather than science-based real, effective sex education. I also oppose the Bush policy of withholding funding from international agencies that teach sex ed or provide contraception. These are all real-world problems where I believe Bush's fundamentalist Christianity would be better replaced by a secular humanist philosophy.

Secular humanism can be thought of as pro-religion, not anti. It promotes everyone being able to practice his/her religion equally and comfortably--it just keeps it out of the schools, government buildings, and government policies.

Mariner.

You're so confused. I don't know where to begin. You don't even realize the horror you lend your considerable intellect to; that's what's really sad.
 

Forum List

Back
Top