Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress - 5/22/2009 12:57:26 PM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Actually, the founding fathers were quite explicit that the United States was NOT a Christian nation (and they were quite aware of Islam, for instance). Another poster earlier referred to a letter by Thomas Jefferson, where the term "separation of church and state" originated. In that letter (to a congregation), Jefferson was very explicit that the intent of the First Amendment was to prevent establishing a Christian nation.


Again!  That’s what I said!  Officially, the United States was not founded as a Christian nation.

quote:

The patriarchal principles were cultural at the time, not religious. Of course, Christianity being the predominant European religion, there was little conflict between the two.


A culture arising from the dominating influence Christianity has had upon Western Society.

quote:

The claim that "since they were all Christian, the First Amendment really was only meant to apply to Christians" amounts to saying "the First Amendment was sloppily written".


I’ve made no such claim.

quote:

Given that they debated the exact wording for months - and also given that the founding fathers explicitly voted to remove the word God from the first drafts of the Constitution - that doesn't hold water. There are plenty of letters and notes from those debates that show that they were very much aware that the First Amendment could lead to a "Muselman" (muslim) becoming President.


Since I made no claim about the First amendment only applying to Christians, all this is meaningless.

quote:

So the separation of church and state really is on very solid ground, both historically and by legal precedent.


Yes it is.  Your point?

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to cadenas)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress - 5/22/2009 1:04:49 PM   
cadenas


Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Actually, the founding fathers were quite explicit that the United States was NOT a Christian nation (and they were quite aware of Islam, for instance). Another poster earlier referred to a letter by Thomas Jefferson, where the term "separation of church and state" originated. In that letter (to a congregation), Jefferson was very explicit that the intent of the First Amendment was to prevent establishing a Christian nation.


Again!  That’s what I said!  Officially, the United States was not founded as a Christian nation.


Not just officially, that's the point. It was a very deliberate and explicit decision to make it NOT a Christian nation, but rather one that permits individuals to be Christian. Or Muslim. Or whatever else they wanted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
quote:

The patriarchal principles were cultural at the time, not religious. Of course, Christianity being the predominant European religion, there was little conflict between the two.


A culture arising from the dominating influence Christianity has had upon Western Society.

quote:

The claim that "since they were all Christian, the First Amendment really was only meant to apply to Christians" amounts to saying "the First Amendment was sloppily written".


I’ve made no such claim.


That was more of a general remark, not specifically targeted at you - I think we are mostly in agreement. I think I saw somebody else make that claim further upthread.


(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress - 5/22/2009 1:11:13 PM   
cadenas


Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lronitulstahp
"Separation of church and state" isn't something that can be "violated" actually. It's not a Constitutional law...it's more a theory, or an ideal.


In a way, the whole Constitution is an ideal (I don't use the word theory, since some religion-peddlers have tried to morph it into claims that somehow the "Theory of Gravity" means that Gravity really doesn't exist and next time I drop a piece of bread, I should collect it from the ceiling instead of the floor, or some such).

But that said, the Separation of Church and State is very much Constitutional law. The phrase itself not - that was coined in a personal letter where Thomas Jefferson explained what the First Amendment means. But the underlying concept was upheld time and over by all kinds of Supreme Court decisions, confirming that it really does mean what it means.

Others have already upthread discussed the importance of precedent here.


(in reply to lronitulstahp)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress - 5/22/2009 1:18:45 PM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Not just officially, that's the point. It was a very deliberate and explicit decision to make it NOT a Christian nation, but rather one that permits individuals to be Christian. Or Muslim. Or whatever else they wanted.


Yes, that's the whole point behind freedom of religion.  BUT, at that time, the vast majority of people were Christians and this influnced how they saw the world.  It influenced what laws were considered appropriate and which ones weren't.  Take, for example, abortion.  It was illegal until fairly recently.  Why?  Because most people were against abortion.  Why?  Because the Bible says things like "thou shalt not kill," and "go forth and multiply."   Legally, it may have not been a Christian nation but culturally it was. 

quote:

That was more of a general remark, not specifically targeted at you - I think we are mostly in agreement. I think I saw somebody else make that claim further upthread.


Fair enough.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to cadenas)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress - 5/22/2009 1:23:48 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

How many people who do not consider themselves Christian – including Deists – believe in a single God as opposed to many Gods?  Why is this?  Even if some of the founders did not believe in the God of the Bible, they were from a culture heavily steeped in Christianity and this led to certain presumptions, certain paradigms, on their part.  That’s my point. 


Marc,

Monotheism FAR predates Christianity, including (then) major religions in ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Persia, not to mention Judaism (also long before Christianity) and Islam (OK, that one came later). Even Hinduism, with its many deities, all comes back to Brahman: the Upanishads open with "Brahman is in all that is; Brahman is in all that is not," and a later chapter describes the God of Fire bragging, but without Brahman, he is unable to set even a straw aflame.

Your reference to the impact of Judeo-Christian thought on our culture is accurate, but hardly evidence for a Christian national foundation. We are also heavily under the influence of Greco-Roman and Germanic thought, but I notice no one's claiming the U.S. was founded as a pagan nation or a Celtic/Norse/Barbarian nation--though those claims would deserve equal merit.



(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress - 5/22/2009 1:37:59 PM   
Crush


Posts: 1031
Status: offline
How about the "Year of the Taxpayer"

_____________________________

"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination." -- Mark Twain

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress - 5/22/2009 1:41:24 PM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Monotheism FAR predates Christianity, including (then) major religions in ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Persia, not to mention Judaism (also long before Christianity) and Islam (OK, that one came later). Even Hinduism, with its many deities, all comes back to Brahman: the Upanishads open with "Brahman is in all that is; Brahman is in all that is not," and a later chapter describes the God of Fire bragging, but without Brahman, he is unable to set even a straw aflame.

Your reference to the impact of Judeo-Christian thought on our culture is accurate, but hardly evidence for a Christian national foundation. We are also heavily under the influence of Greco-Roman and Germanic thought, but I notice no one's claiming the U.S. was founded as a pagan nation or a Celtic/Norse/Barbarian nation--though those claims would deserve equal merit.


Christianity was the latest outlook to come along, adding a new cultural layer to the ones you mentioned.  But that is not the point.

AGAIN!    I am not arguing that it is evidence of a Christian national foundation.

The point I am trying to make (and apparently am not getting across to people) is that it is entirely accurate to refer to the United States (at least until fairly recent times) as a Christian nation in the same sense that it is accurate to refer to Egypt as a Muslim nation or India as a Hindu nation.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress - 5/22/2009 1:47:15 PM   
cadenas


Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Not just officially, that's the point. It was a very deliberate and explicit decision to make it NOT a Christian nation, but rather one that permits individuals to be Christian. Or Muslim. Or whatever else they wanted.


Yes, that's the whole point behind freedom of religion.  BUT, at that time, the vast majority of people were Christians and this influnced how they saw the world.  It influenced what laws were considered appropriate and which ones weren't.  Take, for example, abortion.  It was illegal until fairly recently.  Why?  Because most people were against abortion.  Why?  Because the Bible says things like "thou shalt not kill," and "go forth and multiply."   Legally, it may have not been a Christian nation but culturally it was.


Well, doh. Of course culturally it was. That's kind of like saying that culturally it was a British nation. Yet we fought a revolutionary war. This was one of the reasons for the First Amendment: to ensure that this would never be legally enforced.

I would very strongly disagree with the laws even being based on Christianity. Of course, religion - Christian or otherwise - will usually have the same values as society as a whole. But that's not evidence that the laws are based on Christianity in any way, shape or form. Take murder. It's illegal because it harms society, not because there is a Christian commandment against it. Abortion is no different. In fact, until very recently, it was a non-issue in religious terms, and certainly at the time of the Founding Fathers.


(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress - 5/22/2009 1:56:21 PM   
CruelNUnsual


Posts: 624
Joined: 9/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mezrem

First off it's a vulgar waste of time for the congress to have this on the agenda. There are not enough problems with every thing going on to keep these idiots busy? One point I would like to make is this though... There is no constitutional basis for the separation of church and state as interpreted by the majority today. Such a separation is an interpretation of some other documents one of them being a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist Minister.


^^^ This.

There is an anti-establishment clause, but no "separation of church and state". Too bad too. If there were a Federal church we could bring back the wonderful word "antidestablishmentarianism" into mainstream use. (Not to mention driving the NYT further toward bankruptcy from the ink used to print it a few million times.)

(in reply to Mezrem)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress - 5/22/2009 2:01:34 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
<fast reply>

It might be helpful to distinguish the descriptive statement that the U.S. is demographically a largely Christian nation from the prescriptive view that our polity should be explicitly rooted in Christian teachings.

< Message edited by dcnovice -- 5/22/2009 2:02:51 PM >


_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to CruelNUnsual)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress - 5/22/2009 2:02:14 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

The point I am trying to make (and apparently am not getting across to people) is that it is entirely accurate to refer to the United States (at least until fairly recent times) as a Christian nation in the same sense that it is accurate to refer to Egypt as a Muslim nation or India as a Hindu nation.


Then you are wrong, as this discussion deals with the legal/Constitutional issues, not our cultural heritage.

India does not base its democracy on Hinduism, and Egypt doesn't turn to the Koran to run its courts.

The repeated claim that this is a Christian nation in a legal context is irrevelant--and selective at best.

[and dcnovice makes a good point]

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 5/22/2009 2:03:26 PM >

(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress - 5/22/2009 2:13:55 PM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Well, doh.


Well,  to you too.

quote:

Of course culturally it was. That's kind of like saying that culturally it was a British nation. Yet we fought a revolutionary war. This was one of the reasons for the First Amendment: to ensure that this would never be legally enforced.


And because of that cultural/religious heritage, the laws still reflected a Christian outlook as opposed to a Muslim or Hindu outlook.

quote:

I would very strongly disagree with the laws even being based on Christianity. Of course, religion - Christian or otherwise - will usually have the same values as society as a whole.


And vice-versa.

quote:

But that's not evidence that the laws are based on Christianity in any way, shape or form.


Some of them are if the people passing those laws are Christian.

quote:

Take murder. It's illegal because it harms society, not because there is a Christian commandment against it.  Abortion is no different. In fact, until very recently, it was a non-issue in religious terms, and certainly at the time of the Founding Fathers.


Why was it a non-issue?  Why was it considered such a given that abortion was wrong and should therefore be illegal?

< Message edited by Marc2b -- 5/22/2009 2:14:42 PM >


_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to cadenas)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress - 5/22/2009 2:14:24 PM   
CruelNUnsual


Posts: 624
Joined: 9/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

The point I am trying to make (and apparently am not getting across to people) is that it is entirely accurate to refer to the United States (at least until fairly recent times) as a Christian nation in the same sense that it is accurate to refer to Egypt as a Muslim nation or India as a Hindu nation.


Then you are wrong, as this discussion deals with the legal/Constitutional issues, not our cultural heritage.

India does not base its democracy on Hinduism, and Egypt doesn't turn to the Koran to run its courts.

The repeated claim that this is a Christian nation in a legal context is irrevelant--and selective at best.

[and dcnovice makes a good point]


You are the one that is wrong. We DID base our democracy on Judaeo-Christian principles since it is primarily derived from British  "common law" which in turn was based on those principles. Assuming you are correct about India and Egypt, it is *more* appropriate to call the US a Christian nation.

< Message edited by CruelNUnsual -- 5/22/2009 2:16:43 PM >

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress - 5/22/2009 2:15:04 PM   
Cagey18


Posts: 662
Joined: 9/7/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lronitulstahp

"Separation of church and state" isn't something that can be "violated" actually. It's not a Constitutional law...

Actually it is part of Constitutional law, once it is interpreted so by the Supreme Court.   Which it did, first in 1878,[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#cite_note-3][/link] and then in a series of cases starting in 1948:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

(in reply to lronitulstahp)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress - 5/22/2009 2:20:33 PM   
CruelNUnsual


Posts: 624
Joined: 9/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

quote:

ORIGINAL: lronitulstahp

"Separation of church and state" isn't something that can be "violated" actually. It's not a Constitutional law...

Actually it is part of Constitutional law, once it is interpreted so by the Supreme Court.   Which it did, first in 1878,[/link] and then in a series of cases starting in 1948:
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state




If youre going to be a nit I'll be more of a nit. It is not part of Constitutional law since SCOTUS interpretations do not require amendments to be reversed. Anything that can be changed by 9 justices "on a whim" is not part of the law. The law is what it says in plain English.

(in reply to Cagey18)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress - 5/22/2009 2:27:27 PM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline
You are wrong, based upon your own logic, as we are ultimately a Human Nation, as all of our behavior, world wide, derives from being human. See how that works? It is still not relevant to the Constitutionality of whether this Bible bill is legal or not.


quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

You are the one that is wrong. We DID base our democracy on Judaeo-Christian principles since it is primarily derived from British  "common law" which in turn was based on those principles. Assuming you are correct about India and Egypt, it is *more* appropriate to call the US a Christian nation.


_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to CruelNUnsual)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress - 5/22/2009 2:27:38 PM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Then you are wrong, as this discussion deals with the legal/Constitutional issues, not our cultural heritage.


How can you possibly discuss legal/Constitutional issues without discussing the cultural heritage such things arise from?

quote:

India does not base its democracy on Hinduism, and Egypt doesn't turn to the Koran to run its courts.


But the people passing the laws and running the courts have cultural heritages that influence how they think such things should be done.  For example, are divorce laws the same in Muslim nations as they are in the United States?  If not, why not?   

quote:

The repeated claim that this is a Christian nation in a legal context is irrevelant--and selective at best.

I’ve made no such claim. 

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress - 5/22/2009 2:28:11 PM   
Cagey18


Posts: 662
Joined: 9/7/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

quote:

ORIGINAL: lronitulstahp

"Separation of church and state" isn't something that can be "violated" actually. It's not a Constitutional law...

Actually it is part of Constitutional law, once it is interpreted so by the Supreme Court.   Which it did, first in 1878,[/link] and then in a series of cases starting in 1948:
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state




If youre going to be a nit I'll be more of a nit. It is not part of Constitutional law since SCOTUS interpretations do not require amendments to be reversed. Anything that can be changed by 9 justices "on a whim" is not part of the law. The law is what it says in plain English.

Wow, the Supreme Court Justices change things on a "whim" now?  News to me.  And to them, I'm sure.

Sadly for your argument, SCOTUS precedents do indeed have the force of law.  Hence the reason SC cases are cited repeatedly in lower courts, and often in SC rulings themselves.  (You have heard of SC rulings being cited thus, yes?)

(in reply to CruelNUnsual)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress - 5/22/2009 2:31:39 PM   
Cagey18


Posts: 662
Joined: 9/7/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Then you are wrong, as this discussion deals with the legal/Constitutional issues, not our cultural heritage.


How can you possibly discuss legal/Constitutional issues without discussing the cultural heritage such things arise from?


Pretty easily, actually.  The Supreme Court does it all the time.

(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress - 5/22/2009 2:31:44 PM   
CruelNUnsual


Posts: 624
Joined: 9/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

You are wrong, based upon your own logic, as we are ultimately a Human Nation, as all of our behavior, world wide, derives from being human. See how that works? It is still not relevant to the Constitutionality of whether this Bible bill is legal or not.


quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

You are the one that is wrong. We DID base our democracy on Judaeo-Christian principles since it is primarily derived from British  "common law" which in turn was based on those principles. Assuming you are correct about India and Egypt, it is *more* appropriate to call the US a Christian nation.



Being a Human Nation doesnt preclude it from being a Christian Nation. Christianity is a subset of human principles, not all of which are the same.
Need a Venn diagram?

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.292