If We Erase The Christian Basis Of Governance, Then What Do We Unleash?

[Seawytch]

I'm sorry Riku but your OP wasn't very clear. Here's what I got out of it...you are proposing that a secular government will lead to...something because you don't think humans are equal and it is only Christianity that makes us "believe" humans are equal? Is that the gist?

First, go retrieve a cold compress.
The OP's question is based on a what if. That is, what if we abandoned all of our Judeo-Christian principles, then what?
Let's rewrite the laws based on nothing....Then what?

How is that different than what I said?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The notion alone of a 'Christian basis of government' is an example of Christian arrogance and hostility toward Americans who practice a different religion and those free from faith.

Who gives a ****? Reality and history don't get washed away because you want to be appease people's delusions. The Declaration of Independence clearly states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
​

The basis upon which America was established is plainly expressed. The America you know is built upon a Christian foundation of understanding man's place in God's universe.

Now the question before us is what path we take on the question of human equality when God's commands on this factor are erased. Nature SHOWS us that humans are not equal, so on what basis do we continue the pantomime - there's no more appealing to God's commands.

As already correctly noted, the Declaration of Independence is not a document of the law, it's completely devoid of any legal authority and codifies no particular kind of governance.


Its reference to 'god' is rhetorical, common speech of the time, seeking the authority of no deity.


And its reference to 'god' is not that of a Christian 'god' nor the deity of any other faith, hence the ridiculous premise of your thread.

No, no. Without this......"that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", there is no constitution.

 

[ricechickie]

I thought we had a government by the people and for the people.

Not by God and for God.

 

[peach174]

It's not a "Christian" basis of govt, since a good number of founders were deists, not Christians. Rather, it's the notion of a secular state in which laws, which are subject to the BOR's protections for individuals, are premised upon moral norms and reasoning of western Europe, and notably classical liberals.

And I really don't see any evidence we are "abandoning," or considering abandoning, this. We are in a period where the very right sees any compromise as surrender. I won't say there is some justification in their being poed at guys like GWB spending like drunken sailors and going willy nilly off to war. And Obama didn't exactly compromise on universal HC coverage either.

Only three were Deists
Religion of the Founding Fathers of America

Thomas Jefferson	Virginia	Episcopalian (Deist)
Benjamin Franklin	Pennsylvania	Episcopalian (Deist)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Cornelius Harnett

North Carolina

Episcopalian (Deist)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Deism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In the United States, Enlightenment philosophy (which itself was heavily inspired by deist ideals) played a major role in creating the principle of religious freedom, expressed in Thomas Jefferson's letters and included in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. American Founding Fathers, or Framers of the Constitution, who were especially noted for being influenced by such philosophy include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, and Hugh Williamson. Their political speeches show distinct deistic influence.

Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include James Madison, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen,[47] and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout the United States and Europe).

A major contributor was Elihu Palmer (1764–1806), who wrote the "Bible" of American deism in his Principles of Nature (1801) and attempted to organize deism by forming the "Deistical Society of New York".

From our Library of Congress
Religion and the Congress of the Confederation - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic Exhibitions Library of Congress

The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.

The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."

 

[Rikurzhen]

I'm sorry Riku but your OP wasn't very clear. Here's what I got out of it...you are proposing that a secular government will lead to...something because you don't think humans are equal and it is only Christianity that makes us "believe" humans are equal? Is that the gist?

First, go retrieve a cold compress.
The OP's question is based on a what if. That is, what if we abandoned all of our Judeo-Christian principles, then what?
Let's rewrite the laws based on nothing....Then what?

How is that different than what I said?

As a mental exercise, why not pick some non-European society (exclude the ones in Asia which are influenced by the West) and use that as the basis for developing from root beliefs up to advanced beliefs, but make each progression organic. Take an African tribal culture as the root, take Sparta, etc Excise every inkling of Christian worldview and see where we end up.

 

[eflatminor]

Once the foundational beliefs which created the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are shown to be false, ...

The notion that citizens should be free to conduct their own affairs without government meddling unless they infringe on the rights of another is not a false foundation...and hasn't a damn thing to do with Christianity.

How shall we proceed to reform society? Easy. It starts and ends with freedom. Try it sometime!

Why? Why is that good? Where does that silly notion come from?

Silly? Really? If you really find the notion of freedom to be silly, I don't think you can be helped.

Why is it good? Because we have thousands of years of examples demonstrating just how bad totalitarianism can be. Freedom, as envisioned in this country's founding, has proven to be the only cure against the horrors brought on by central planners. That's why.

Central planners weren't around back in 1776.

Holly crap! Did you really just write that?! Get thee to a library and read up on the past several thousand years of history. We called them Kings, Queens, Pharaohs, Dictators...all kinds of names for those that were central planners. As always, they were just SURE they knew what was best for everyone else. The freedom experiment that was the United States proved that free people making voluntary decisions is the antidote to the central planners, whatever you call them.

"As for totalitarianism, how do you propose we deal with the liberals? An equality based system which grants one man, one vote, can result in totalitarian liberals coming together and voting in their totalitarian hell. How's that freedom working for you?"

Excellent point. But not an example of freeedom. We are NOT a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. We deal with the liberals by returning the notion of limited government per the Constitution, which disallows central planning beyond a few enumerated powers...which no vote short of a Constitutional amendment can overturn. At least that the way it's supposed to work.

"I'm going to guess that you're a libertarian." Yes, a Classical Liberal.

"If so, then your libertarian vision is anchored on the social values created in the Christian West." Nope, the vision is anchored in freedom. Nothing more.

"How do you imagine libertarianism is going to play out, that respect for freedom, if we drop it into Papua New Guinea or into the Democratic Republic of the Congo?" Don't know, don't care. If the people of those countries are ready to embrace freedom, limited government and personal responsibility, I suspect they'll thrive just like we did.

 

[ricechickie]

No, no. Without this......"that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", there is no constitution.

Of course there is. But if anyone insisted, it can be rewritten (clumsily) as "The majority of Americans agree that we have certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

 

[peach174]

I thought we had a government by the people and for the people.

Not by God and for God.

We don't even have that any longer.
We have a Government by the Government and for the Government.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm just curious when Right Wingers are going to listen to Jesus' admonition to help the poor, give up wealth and treat people the way you want to be treated.

dear, we eliminated poverty in America with capitalism. China just switched to capitalism and eliminated 40% of the worlds poverty.

A liberal's IQ will be so incredibly low as to make it impossible for him to understand that capitalism does infinitely more for the poor then welfare!!

 

[LordBrownTrout]

No, no. Without this......"that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", there is no constitution.

Of course there is. But if anyone insisted, it can be rewritten (clumsily) as "The majority of Americans agree that we have certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

It wouldn't be our constitution in minorities were left out.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Once the foundational beliefs which created the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are shown to be false, ...

The notion that citizens should be free to conduct their own affairs without government meddling unless they infringe on the rights of another is not a false foundation...and hasn't a damn thing to do with Christianity.

How shall we proceed to reform society? Easy. It starts and ends with freedom. Try it sometime!

Why? Why is that good? Where does that silly notion come from?

Silly? Really? If you really find the notion of freedom to be silly, I don't think you can be helped.

Why is it good? Because we have thousands of years of examples demonstrating just how bad totalitarianism can be. Freedom, as envisioned in this country's founding, has proven to be the only cure against the horrors brought on by central planners. That's why.

Central planners weren't around back in 1776.

Holly crap! Did you really just write that?! Get thee to a library and read up on the past several thousand years of history. We called them Kings, Queens, Pharaohs, Dictators...all kinds of names for those that were central planners. As always, they were just SURE they knew what was best for everyone else. The freedom experiment that was the United States proved that free people making voluntary decisions is the antidote to the central planners, whatever you call them.

"As for totalitarianism, how do you propose we deal with the liberals? An equality based system which grants one man, one vote, can result in totalitarian liberals coming together and voting in their totalitarian hell. How's that freedom working for you?"

Excellent point. But not an example of freeedom. We are NOT a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. We deal with the liberals by returning the notion of limited government per the Constitution, which disallows central planning beyond a few enumerated powers...which no vote short of a Constitutional amendment can overturn. At least that the way it's supposed to work.

"I'm going to guess that you're a libertarian." Yes, a Classical Liberal.

"If so, then your libertarian vision is anchored on the social values created in the Christian West." Nope, the vision is anchored in freedom. Nothing more.

"How do you imagine libertarianism is going to play out, that respect for freedom, if we drop it into Papua New Guinea or into the Democratic Republic of the Congo?" Don't know, don't care. If the people of those countries are ready to embrace freedom, limited government and personal responsibility, I suspect they'll thrive just like we did.

Thank you for your response but I'm not interested in going down a libertarian argument in this thread, I want to explore another point, so I'm going to disengage from our discussion.

 

[ricechickie]

I thought we had a government by the people and for the people.

Not by God and for God.

We don't even have that any longer.
We have a Government by the Government and for the Government.

And yet we the people still get a vote and a say.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.
We have a Government by the Government and for the Government.

if so a candidate for president would not have to spend $1 billion on advertising at election time

Also, if govt is too big then we must elect conservatives who are by nature for freedom from govt.

 

[ricechickie]

No, no. Without this......"that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", there is no constitution.

Of course there is. But if anyone insisted, it can be rewritten (clumsily) as "The majority of Americans agree that we have certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

It wouldn't be our constitution in minorities were left out.

Well, it would be foolhardy and inaccurate to say that everyone agrees. But I think most everyone agrees.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm sorry Riku but your OP wasn't very clear. Here's what I got out of it...you are proposing that a secular government will lead to...something because you don't think humans are equal and it is only Christianity that makes us "believe" humans are equal? Is that the gist?

First, go retrieve a cold compress.
The OP's question is based on a what if. That is, what if we abandoned all of our Judeo-Christian principles, then what?
Let's rewrite the laws based on nothing....Then what?

How is that different than what I said?

As a mental exercise, why not pick some non-European society (exclude the ones in Asia which are influenced by the West) and use that as the basis for developing from root beliefs up to advanced beliefs, but make each progression organic. Take an African tribal culture as the root, take Sparta, etc Excise every inkling of Christian worldview and see where we end up.

What? It must be later where you are....

 

[Rikurzhen]

No, no. Without this......"that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", there is no constitution.

Of course there is. But if anyone insisted, it can be rewritten (clumsily) as "The majority of Americans agree that we have certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Why would they do something so silly? The world before them shows them that this isn't so. Unalienable? Where would that notion find origin?

 

[ricechickie]

No, no. Without this......"that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", there is no constitution.

Of course there is. But if anyone insisted, it can be rewritten (clumsily) as "The majority of Americans agree that we have certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Why would they do something so silly? The world before them shows them that this isn't so? Unalienable? Where would that notion find origin?

We could rewrite it even more clumsily as most people agreeing that those rights are unalienable.

That's what the Constitution really means, anyway. If it had some basis in God, then the Supreme Court would consult the Bible for their decisions.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The notion alone of a 'Christian basis of government' is an example of Christian arrogance and hostility toward Americans who practice a different religion and those free from faith.

Who gives a ****? Reality and history don't get washed away because you want to be appease people's delusions. The Declaration of Independence clearly states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
​

The basis upon which America was established is plainly expressed. The America you know is built upon a Christian foundation of understanding man's place in God's universe.

Now the question before us is what path we take on the question of human equality when God's commands on this factor are erased. Nature SHOWS us that humans are not equal, so on what basis do we continue the pantomime - there's no more appealing to God's commands.

As already correctly noted, the Declaration of Independence is not a document of the law, it's completely devoid of any legal authority and codifies no particular kind of governance.


Its reference to 'god' is rhetorical, common speech of the time, seeking the authority of no deity.


And its reference to 'god' is not that of a Christian 'god' nor the deity of any other faith, hence the ridiculous premise of your thread.

No, no. Without this......"that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", there is no constitution.

Utter nonsense!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The problem with merely appealing to the Religion of Liberalism is that it's unmoored from independently derived higher principles -."

yes, this is exactly where Hitler Stalin and Mao came from!! They were free of religion and so free to recreate the world as they saw fit.

Lets never forget that our liberals spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb, and elected Obama.

 

[norwegen]

The notion alone of a 'Christian basis of government' is an example of Christian arrogance and hostility toward Americans who practice a different religion and those free from faith.

Who gives a ****? Reality and history don't get washed away because you want to be appease people's delusions. The Declaration of Independence clearly states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
​

The basis upon which America was established is plainly expressed. The America you know is built upon a Christian foundation of understanding man's place in God's universe.

Now the question before us is what path we take on the question of human equality when God's commands on this factor are erased. Nature SHOWS us that humans are not equal, so on what basis do we continue the pantomime - there's no more appealing to God's commands.

As already correctly noted, the Declaration of Independence is not a document of the law, it's completely devoid of any legal authority and codifies no particular kind of governance.


Its reference to 'god' is rhetorical, common speech of the time, seeking the authority of no deity.


And its reference to 'god' is not that of a Christian 'god' nor the deity of any other faith, hence the ridiculous premise of your thread.

"Divine Providence" refers to God (note the proper name (capitalized G)). The term has foundations in Calvinism/Protestantism, i.e., covenant theology, and also in Rabbinic thought.

The "Supreme Judge of the World" is also a term with Jewish roots, such as in Genesis 18:25, when Abraham calls God the Judge of all the earth.