Are religious freedom advocates 'Christian Supremacists'?

[imind]

He didn't say that Christianity was completely on its own. But it did have the largest role in the building of the United States.

i am interested to know how you are quantifying these roles...please explain.

and i very much believe he meant to suggest that it was only christians...he can correct me if so.

 

[pdudgeon]

oh please, they were hardly the only ones. christianity on its own had nothing to do with with what makes this country great.

sorry, but i beg to differ.
Christianity had a great deal to do with setting the foundations of the government as well as sustaining the Pilgrims through the early years.
It's hard not to appreciate what they went through, the illness and death that nearly wiped Plymouth out, all the delays that they faced in just getting there to the new Land.....those were determined people.

 

[thecolorsblend]

oh please, they were hardly the only ones. christianity on its own had nothing to do with with what makes this country great.

He didn't say that Christianity was completely on its own. But it did have the largest role in the building of the United States.

To be fair, what I said was Christians built this country. And they did. Why this is so controversial is quite completely beyond me. But I comfort myself with the knowledge that it's also beyond debate.

Btw, have I just missed all your posts lately, LWU? Or have you been away for a while? Seems like it's been a while since I've seen one of your posts.

 

[imind]

sorry, but i beg to differ.

i of course invite your disagreement in the hope that we might both learn something through discussion, but you haven't provided much reasoning in opposition to my statement.

Christianity had a great deal to do with setting the foundations of the government as well as sustaining the Pilgrims through the early years.

it may have, but this statement is so vague that it is meaningless to this discussion.

It's hard not to appreciate what they went through, the illness and death that nearly wiped Plymouth out, all the delays that they faced in just getting there to the new Land.....those were determined people.

indeed, i cannot even begin to imagine how difficult this time was...very few people alive today, in this country, can.

To be fair, what I said was Christians built this country. And they did. Why this is so controversial is quite completely beyond me. But I comfort myself with the knowledge that it's also beyond debate.

nobody will disagree with the statement that christians built this country...but its an incomplete statement.

this is what i did today:
1. i went to the store to buy lettuce.
2. i was also at home for several hours reading.

its irrefutable to say that i was not at home reading today (and i take comfort in knowing this is beyond debate) but its dishonest to say that i did not also go to the store to buy lettuce. that is of course, if i am asked to provide a full accounting of my day.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Btw, have I just missed all your posts lately, LWU? Or have you been away for a while? Seems like it's been a while since I've seen one of your posts.

I've been around, so I think it's that you missed all my posts lately.

 

[pdudgeon]

i of course invite your disagreement in the hope that we might both learn something through discussion, but you haven't provided much reasoning in opposition to my statement.


it may have, but this statement is so vague that it is meaningless to this discussion.


indeed, i cannot even begin to imagine how difficult this time was...very few people alive today, in this country, can.


nobody will disagree with the statement that christians built this country...but its an incomplete statement.

this is what i did today:
1. i went to the store to buy lettuce.
2. i was also at home for several hours reading.

its irrefutable to say that i was not at home reading today (and i take comfort in knowing this is beyond debate) but its dishonest to say that i did not also go to the store to buy lettuce. that is of course, if i am asked to provide a full accounting of my day.

ok, in the interest of full disclosure-- and only because you asked for an accounting--
William Bradford, the first Governor of the Plymouth Colony, was my ancestor.

there is a book authored by Nathaniel Philbrick titled "Mayflower" that you might be interested in reading.
it was awarded "One of the 10 best books of the year 2006" by the New York Times Book Review,
one of Amazon's top 50 books of 2006,
and named as one of the best books of the year by Newsweek, The Washington Post, the Boston Globe,
Denver Post, Publishers Weekly, etc.

of the company on the Mayflower, 50 died during the first year of the colony.
and yet they persevered when they had good reason not to for their own welfare.
I'm glad that they did.

 

[LoAmmi]

To be fair, what I said was Christians built this country. And they did. Why this is so controversial is quite completely beyond me. But I comfort myself with the knowledge that it's also beyond debate.

I think it's the implication that ONLY Christians built this country in many statements like the one you've made. I don't know if you meant it that way or not. Others made significant contributions. For example, a Jewish man loaned and helped raise about 650,000 dollars to the Continental Congress and the American war chest to aid in the revolution. He, sadly, was never paid back. Most of the Jewish men in the country at the time fought for the Americans against the British. It was small, but it was a contribution. When we look at arts and entertainment, the Jewish contribution to Vaudeville and Hollywood are undeniable. Do I need to mention science and technology? Christians were the majority and they did the bulk of the work as a result which is something I would never deny, but they had help and it's disappointing to hear people thump their chest and crow about how great the work was but not acknowledge the fact that they got help and needed it desperately at many points in time.

If that's not what you mean that's fine, but I've seen plenty of other people mean exactly that as if nobody else was in the country.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Okay, fair enough, Christians built 99% of the country while Miscellaneous built the rest.

 

[Fantine]

Your assertion that Christians built America still doesn't give them the right to lord it over everyone else or impose their culture over everyone else.

After all, the Christians built their culture on Native Americans' lands--and 250 years later they are struggling mightily just to keep a small part of what they have left from being despoiled by oil profiteers.

London recently elected a Muslim mayor--because London's demographics had changed, and the primary cultures that had built and developed London no longer held as large a position.

The only way Christians can keep their "supremacy" is by occupying the moral high ground and convincingly inspiring everyone else of its superiority.

When I look around at the predominantly evangelical culture in my part of the country, they are doing a deplorably pitiful job of doing this! If they want to keep their supremacy, let them earn it by their goodness (I'm not holding my breath).

 

[MikeK]

If Christians deserve the credit for the good things that America accomplished then they also deserve the blame for the grave evils she took part in.

 

[imind]

William Bradford, the first Governor of the Plymouth Colony, was my ancestor...
there is a book authored by Nathaniel Philbrick titled "Mayflower" that you might be interested in reading.
it was awarded "One of the 10 best books of the year 2006" by the New York Times Book Review,
one of Amazon's top 50 books of 2006,
and named as one of the best books of the year by Newsweek, The Washington Post, the Boston Globe,
Denver Post, Publishers Weekly, etc.

wow, no kidding?! will definitely pick it up, and thanks for sharing this info...

Okay, fair enough, Christians built 99% of the country while Miscellaneous built the rest.

*sigh* feel that christian love...

 

[MikeK]

*sigh* feel that christian love...

It was precisely the example of Christians on this forum that resulted in me really deeply and pointedly questioning the faith and eventually losing the strong faith I had. I suspect they have the same effect on lurkers who are curious to learn more about Christianity. This behavior is a service of sorts.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Your assertion that Christians built America still doesn't give them the right to lord it over everyone else or impose their culture over everyone else.

"Lord it over others" and "imposing their culture" are a bit relative. But relatively speaking, um, yeah actually. They do. As I've said, Muslims didn't build this country. Neither did atheists, Hindus, Bahais and so forth. Were I to relocate to a predominantly Buddhist country, for example, wouldn't it be wrongheaded of me to expect their entire culture and national identity to change simply to accommodate me?

I haven't really seen a valid answer as to why America's historically Christian character should be allowed to slip away because something-something a poor immigrant's feels. There are numerous other countries in the world which have little or no historical connection to Christianity where the immigrant might feel more at home. But America does and I see no reason to change that, especially when, as are the current circumstances, at least some immigrants are determined to do us harm.

 

[thecolorsblend]

*sigh* feel that christian love...

What's unloving about that? If I were calling for some sort of physical harm upon the Miscellaneous (you're welcome to suggest another term for me to use if Miscellaneous is bothersome, btw), it's simply acknowledging that the Miscellaneous built 1% of the country. Considering my previous stance on this, I thought I'd be applauded for giving them their due.

 

[Fantine]

"Lord it over others" and "imposing their culture" are a bit relative. But relatively speaking, um, yeah actually. They do. As I've said, Muslims didn't build this country. Neither did atheists, Hindus, Bahais and so forth. Were I to relocate to a predominantly Buddhist country, for example, wouldn't it be wrongheaded of me to expect their entire culture and national identity to change simply to accommodate me?

But if the demographics of that "predominantly Buddhist" country changed to reflect a diverse cultural landscape, the culture and national identity would change because the demographics did.

It seems as if you would like to force people of other beliefs to defer to yours--even as their numbers grow and grow and grow--because you feel threatened and hostile to them.

 

[thecolorsblend]

But if the demographics of that "predominantly Buddhist" country changed to reflect a diverse cultural landscape, the culture and national identity would change because the demographics did.

It seems as if you would like to force people of other beliefs to defer to yours--even as their numbers grow and grow and grow--because you feel threatened and hostile to them.

Is national identity a simple matter of demography? If it can shift one way, theoretically it can also shift the other. And presumably this is neither moral nor immoral. Right?

So if demographics can shift away from a nation's historical and traditional identity and character, it is neither moral nor immoral to shift them back toward the nation's historical and traditional identity and character. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Fantine]

It's neither moral nor immoral if it is not coercive--if attempts are not made to prevent certain demographic groups from voting, for example, through suppression laws.

 

[dzheremi]

I don't know what most of the arguments going on here are about, but am I the only one who is more proud of my religion for what it has done uplift humanity and connect us with God than with any of this other stuff? Any religious belief or non-religious belief can inspire a person to write a piece of music, build a building, or even found a country, but I am proud of the particularly Christian versions of these things precisely because they are Christian versions, and hence they are meant to inspire people to connect with God and transform their lives in Him by repentance, fasting, and prayer (I am assuming that on a Christian messageboard I will not have to explain why this is a good thing!). I guess in that sense I am a 'Christian supremacist', though I also recognize that this isn't anything that the followers of other religions couldn't also say of their own music, buildings, and countries. (And, yes, while people may debate just how much we can call the USA in particular a Christian nation, there are other nations for which the founding of their churches are much more plainly and obviously tied to their concept of nationhood or peoplehood, e.g., Armenians are generally very, very proud to hail from what history shows us was the first Christian nation, and particularly against the backdrop of the surrounding eventually Chalcedonian and Muslim states, they are right that they are inheritors of a unique heritage via their Church, though I doubt even they would say that this means that Armenian Apostolic Christians should be preferred in the nation's law code...if it's actually like that over there that'd probably be because they are well over 90% of the entire society, which is not the case with America and any of its Christianities.)

It just seems that out of all the things that you could say about Christianity, "Christians founded America" is one of the more contentious and potentially negative things to focus on. I think there are better, more edifying things to focus on, and that the more we focus on them instead of wistfully talking about the past (a past which never existed outside of certain people's heads), the less we'll need to have these arguments, or to consider religiously-biased laws to protect people who apparently can't protect their communities against possible demographic shifts.

 

[LoAmmi]

I don't know what most of the arguments going on here are about, but am I the only one who is more proud of my religion for what it has done uplift humanity and connect us with God than with any of this other stuff? Any religious belief or non-religious belief can inspire a person to write a piece of music, build a building, or even found a country, but I am proud of the particularly Christian versions of these things precisely because they are Christian versions, and hence they are meant to inspire people to connect with God and transform their lives in Him by repentance, fasting, and prayer (I am assuming that on a Christian messageboard I will not have to explain why this is a good thing!). I guess in that sense I am a 'Christian supremacist', though I also recognize that this isn't anything that the followers of other religions couldn't also say of their own music, buildings, and countries. (And, yes, while people may debate just how much we can call the USA in particular a Christian nation, there are other nations for which the founding of their churches are much more plainly and obviously tied to their concept of nationhood or peoplehood, e.g., Armenians are generally very, very proud to hail from what history shows us was the first Christian nation, and particularly against the backdrop of the surrounding eventually Chalcedonian and Muslim states, they are right that they are inheritors of a unique heritage via their Church, though I doubt even they would say that this means that Armenian Apostolic Christians should be preferred in the nation's law code...if it's actually like that over there that'd probably be because they are well over 90% of the entire society, which is not the case with America and any of its Christianities.)

It just seems that out of all the things that you could say about Christianity, "Christians founded America" is one of the more contentious and potentially negative things to focus on. I think there are better, more edifying things to focus on, and that the more we focus on them instead of wistfully talking about the past (a past which never existed outside of certain people's heads), the less we'll need to have these arguments, or to consider religiously-biased laws to protect people who apparently can't protect their communities against possible demographic shifts.

Seems kind of like the difference between a Patriot and a Nationalist. You would be the Patriot side, someone who stands behind their faith and thinks what it has done is awesome, but recognizes that other people have other faiths that they feel the same way about and that doesn't bother you. The other side would build up their faith at the expense of others. It is so superior that others hardly have the right to exist.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Christianity is superior because of who Jesus Christ is and what he did for the world.

And everyone is invited to become a Christian.