Is the existence of Christianity better for this world

[BCP1928]

The Plymouth colony consisted of Christians, but around 60 percent were "strangers" or outside of the Puritan Separatist movement. The Mayflower Compact clearly referenced their faith and and also set a precedent for subsequent documents and movements that influence our lives today. A quick search for "Legacy of the Mayflower Compact" confirmed this and brought up the following:

The Mayflower Compact, signed in 1620, had a lasting impact on the United States, including:

• Self-government
  The Mayflower Compact established the first written constitution in the New World, and the first document to establish self-government in the region.
• Religious freedom
  The Mayflower Compact allowed for the practice of religion as desired, a principle that is embodied in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
• Rule of law
  The Mayflower Compact established the rule of law in America, which has shaped the country for centuries.
• Economic liberty
  The Mayflower Compact helped to introduce economic liberty to America.
• The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
  The Mayflower Compact laid the foundation for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
• Democratic principles
  The Mayflower Compact was a democratic document that acknowledged the right of each person to participate in the government.

The Mayflower Compact was signed by the 102 pilgrims at Plymouth, and remained in effect until 1691 when Plymouth Colony became part of Massachusetts Bay Colony.

The search results included references that didn't carry over to the text I quoted here, but much has been written about this. Casually dismissing the Plymouth colony as "Theocratic in nature" misses the point. Their founding document written by Christians and laid groundwork for self-governance that helped set the direction of what would eventually become the United States.

I think it is useful here to print out the text of the Mayflower Compact. It's quite short and we can all see for ourselves how well it lives up to the claims made for it.

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal Subjects of our dread sovereign Lord King James, by the grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian Faith, and honor of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the Northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, covenant, and combine ourselves together into a civil body politick, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11. of November, in the year of the reign of our sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini 1620.

In particular, I have a hard time seeing how a colony established specifically tor "the advancement of the Christian faith" can be regarded as a beacon of religious freedom. As to being pioneers of democratic government and the rule of law, the Jamestown colony elected it's first legislature in 1619, the year before the Plymouth colony was founded.

 

[o_mlly]

I do doubt the positive impact of Christianity in today's world ...

Examine and compare the lives of those living in countries where practicing Christianity is illegal, eg., Afghanistan and North Korea. Would one ever prefer to live under the Taliban regime or under the repressive regimes of North Korea?

One should not let the perfect be the enemy of the merely good or better.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Which includes social issues. Like I said I don't think theres a line of seperation. Being Deistic and its ideological beliefs relationg to the world will encroach on social issues in how we order society. The philosophy of a government will impact on social policies.

A practical example is the idea of humans being made in Gods image. This was the grounding for human worth that set it above and beyond human ideology about human worth. But Deism reduced that back to human ideology as it took the personal aspects of the relationship with GOd away.

And this has to do with Enlightenment exactly how?

The rational inquiry of God in nature became the rational skeptism of no God at all. The grounding was lost and human worth was either based on human ideas or some ambigious principle floating out there in the universe. If there was no personal God then there was no human rights grounded in God beyond human rationalisations.

This is not the place for this discussion.

Every coloney was Christain based some more than others. There was no secular ideology. Therefore these influenced social norms and the politics. We see this reflected in the actual social norms and laws of government which were based on the bible.

Sounds pretty theocratic to me.

Even the idea of seperation of church and State stems from a Christain worldview. You have to remember that the worldview back then was different to todays worldview of over 200 years of that proinciple being implimented. But despite the idea in the beginning the worldview was Christain and this tainted all thinking.

Oh good grief.

Which documents are you referring to.

Which ever ones you were. Your list was of 'Declarations" and "Bill of rights" etc. without specificity. I tried to fill in what I assumed was your intent, but I can't be certain given your lack of specificity.

Sorry its my lazy way of saying the settlers and founders of America.

These are different terms with different usages in the historiography of the United States. Here is handy guide:

Colonists: any free person living in a colony
Settlers: anyone moving to a colony or newly opened territory
Pioneer: the first or earliest settlers, particularly in the trans-Appalachian west (1770s - 1890s)
Founders (Founding Fathers [antiquated]): Leaders of the American Revolution, political and military
Framers: Delegates to the 1787 Philadelphia convention that drafted the US Constitution
Patriots: Supporters of the American revolution
Loyalists: Scurvy dogs that opposed it.

What actually happened within social norms and laws. Despite the seperation of church and State there was not really seperation of church and State. Some of the founding fathers even acknowledged this.

This makes no sense.

That in reality the government could not completely be devoid of God and Christain beliefs as this was the foundation on which they believed kept society ordered.

Doesn't sound all that secular to me.

Ok I thought the early colonies were predominately Christain. That is why most fled British rule over church doctrine and status and they wanted to setup their own Christain colonies.

Flight from Britain for religious reasons was a rather uncommon reason to found a colony in North America. As I already noted, only Plymouth & Massachusetts Bay (for separtists/Puritans) were truly like that while Penn's Woods and Mary's land were set up as refuges for english Quakers and Catholics.

If there were a minority then how could they impose such social norms and laws based on the bible. Like it was compulsory to attend church. Laws outlawing adultery and homosexuality ect.

If it wasn't the majority belief then certainly it was the dominant social norm and worldview that ordered society.

Majority wasn't your claim. It was 90-100%.

Religion in Colonial America was dominated by Christianity although Judaism was practiced in small communities after 1654. Christian denominations included Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics, Congregationalists, German Pietists, Lutherans, Methodists, and Quakers among others. Religion was fully integrated into the lives of the colonists and completely informed their world view.

Religion in Colonial America

Religion in Colonial America was dominated by Christianity although Judaism was practiced in small communities after 1654. Christian denominations included Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics, Congregationalists...

www.worldhistory.org

Yes and how those documents were influenced by the Christain social norms and worldview at that time. Thats why I brought them up.

And that is what you haven't demonstrated.

Thats because its such a big time period to determine Christain influence on the west. The Enlightement was an 18th century movement though questioning of the church began earlier with the Reformation.

17th and 18th century.

I highlighted the time around the reformation and Enlightenment to point out that despite this influence the Christain worldview was still a strong influence. It was a gradual decline of the church and an increase in the secular State. It wasn't a clear line.

Even up until the mid 20th century the Christain worldview was still dominant and influenced social norms and laws. I mentioned we only brought in divorce laws and the SSM laws around the year 2000.

Which is not relevant to 18th century documents or the Enlightenment.

Ok well the idea of democracy was already being implemented within the church and it was Christains who really brought this to the fore.

"Democracy" in the Church is not relevant. (I thought you said recently that you are/were a Catholic. Even today that church is not democratic internally. Try voting for or even firing your parish priest.)

As one of the more powerful institutions of the Middle Ages, Church attitudes were reflected in many secular laws of the time.[87]: 1  The Catholic Church was very powerful, essentially internationalist and democratic in it structures, with its many branches run by the different monastic organizations, each with its own distinct theology and often in disagreement with the others.[88]: 311, 312 [89]: 396 

What? Sounds like vaguery and excusagetics. Who cares how fractured and uncontrollable the church was. It is not relevant.

Calvin strengthened this basically democratic approach by including elected laymen (church elders, presbyters) in his representative church government.[142] Politically, John Calvin favoured a mixture of aristocracy and democracy. He appreciated the advantages of democracy: "It is an invaluable gift, if God allows a people to freely elect its own authorities and overlords."[144] Consistent with Calvin's political ideas, Protestants created both the English and the American democracies.

Church organization is irrelevant and Calvin managed to take a rare democratic system "Christian Europe" to the edge of theocracy (at minimum).

In North America, Plymouth Colony (Pilgrim Fathers; 1620) and Massachusetts Bay Colony (1628) practised democratic self-rule and separation of powers. These Congregationalists were convinced that the democratic form of government was the will of God. Thus early Protestants resisted political absolutism and paved the way for the rise of modern democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_Christianity_in_civilization

Really? In the most theocratic of all English colonies in NA?

I think it is relevant and we should be concerned as it relates to the O. Here we have the Christain worldview entering into western thinking and social norms which was radical compared to the Greco Roman pagan worldview. We have and example of two worldviews to compare as to which was better for society and the world.

I am talking about the early church that Paul was writting to. How they had setup a system of elected elders to represent the members. The same principle was used in the offical Catholic church with the Pope and all the delegates and reps of different congregagtions as mentioned above. This was then refined further by Calvin and Aquinus.

The basic Christain principle was all were equal in Christ and had free will to choose. No one should Lord over another and even the leaders were subject to God.

Why should I care about how the church hierarchy was organized? We're talking about government, not social norms.

As per link above they were predominately Christain sects or denominations. They were not muslim were they. They all believed in the creator God and saviour Christ of the bible.

Yes decenting sects but not decenting against God or the bible. These were differenting interpretations about the same belief of Christainity. Today we don't say that say Methodists or Baptist are not Christain even though they may have conflicting views on how to apply Christainity.

And what religion were they Christain or Muslim. They were all still Christain based.

So far you have named all Christain denominations in all these areas. You making the mistake of thinking a different denomination equals a different religion.

This block of text was in response to my response to this original claim of yours about factionalism/religious pluralism in early America:

The early American settlements had a variety of beliefs that were allowed to exist. Though as time went on it became for political and factions developed. BUt that happens even under democracy.

As I stated, and you just confirmed, the factionalism of religion in colonial America existed from the beginning. For some inexplicable reason you start talking about them not being Muslims. What? These were *English* colonies, were would they find English Muslims? (There were Muslims in colonial America, but they were almost all enslaved.)

You have a very cynnical view of the history of Christainity.

It is well earned.

Actually its completely relevant to the core of whether Christainity is better for the world. The fundemental principles of democracy are reflected in Christain principles of equality, freedoms and human worth which can all be justified within a Christain worldview.

These cannot be rationalised within a world without God that is pagan or material evolution without any basis beyond human ideology. That was the basis Christainity stopping slavery as humans under a worldview were just animals of varying worth according to the strictures of social norms at the time.

Christainity was at least able in principle to supporting these principles. Such as slaves and masters were equal under Christ or every individual had the same worth as being made in Gods image and not mans. This formed the basis for these principles as well as Bills of Rights, Declarations and Human Rights.

This section of your reply had nothing to do with the text you wrote it under. (Which was about the orgins of the Enlightenment.) Please pay attention to what you are replying to.

 

[Bradskii]

What? I think you've misunderstood what I mean by "influence," since influence is a scalable, even amorphous word. When I say that Christianity has had influence, I imply it a level much less than the average Christian thinks it to be. Influence isn't strong causation.

Then let me put it this way. If there was no such thing as religion then we'd still end up with the laws, statutes and conventions that we have now.

That, and the fact that I wouldn't make the mistake of ever confusing correlation with influence, mainly because my university studies kind of made sure I knew the difference between the two.

Well, I just read it in a book somewhere.

 

[Milan Nikolic]

It is interesting that Christ promises eternal life, while the cosmos is clearly heading for general death. This is a very special offer that Christ gives us.

We need to understand that God is naturally very different from us, but fortunately Christ showed us that we are connected to God even through our nature.

 

[stevevw]

And this has to do with Enlightenment exactly how?

Deism seemed to come around the same time as Enlightenment due to rational thinking which took the personal and subjective out of belief in God. Then it went from an impersonal God of rationalism to no God needed at all. This was the natural progression from Christainity to material secularism.

This is not the place for this discussion.

Actually once again its directly related to whether Christainity is better for the world. Beliefa God beyond human ideology that grounds us and upholds human worth as being created in Gods image is a better principle to live by.

That is what the founding fathers based human worth on regarding God given rights that were inalienable and could not be redefined or taken away by human ideas of human worth. This same principle was partly responsible for bringing slavey and other inhumane treatment to an end.

Sounds pretty theocratic to me.

It pretty well was. I mean the world was pretty religious for a long time. That was their worldview until THe Enlightenment and rational thought came along.

Which ever ones you were. Your list was of 'Declarations" and "Bill of rights" etc. without specificity. I tried to fill in what I assumed was your intent, but I can't be certain given your lack of specificity.

Basically any document of principle in law of the idea that no human is greater than another regardless of status and people are free to choose. Both stem from biblical teachings.

This makes no sense.

I think the early serttlers were reacting to the British church dogma and in some ways that setup the path towards seperation of church and State. But I think Christain belief whether Protestant, Catholic or Methodist still underpinned social norms and this was reflected in politics.

This gradually died out. Like I western nations like the US still had Christain social norms up until the mid 20th century with 'No Divorce laws', Traditional biblical Marriage as the basis for law, and abortion and SSM were illegal.

How can a State that is suppose to not align with any religion have Christain values as the basis for norms and laws. Thats a breach of the Constitution. But the founding fathers and leaders throughout history accepted this as they still believed that a nation needed religion and this was Christainity. .

The state governments, even after the Constitution was adopted, were still able to impose religious conditions for various forms of participation in public life.

Colonial Religion, or, The Belief in Separation of Church and State (until recently) – Our Story: An Ancillary to US History

pressbooks.pub

Doesn't sound all that secular to me.

No thats right. For much of our history explicitly or implicitly through upholding Christain norms and laws within a so called secular State the US was not neutral in belief. Gradually we see the erosion of those Christain norms and laws ie Divorce, abortion and SSM laws take over until today things have flipped.

Flight from Britain for religious reasons was a rather uncommon reason to found a colony in North America. As I already noted, only Plymouth & Massachusetts Bay (for separtists/Puritans) were truly like that while Penn's Woods and Mary's land were set up as refuges for english Quakers and Catholics.

I think the whole idea of leaving the Old land to escape to a new independent land was appealing to a variety of reasons. I think at least up until the forming and establishing of the Constitution early America was predominately Christain.

Then in a short time things were transformed between 1775 and 1791. That laid the ground for secularism. But still CHristain beliefs were not yet expunged from social norms and laws.

Majority wasn't your claim. It was 90-100%.

Yes at different times there has been at least 90%. I admit 100% is a bot extreme lol. But it was to emphasize the vast majority were Christain. But even a 70% majority is enough to influence norms and laws throughout our history and we seethat majority to exactly that. There can be no denying this.

And that is what you haven't demonstrated.

Its hard to find reliable evidence on the early days. When articles say that the early colonies were dominated by Christains I assume at least 90%. A Pew article mentions in 1900 Christainity was 90%. Assuming Christainity was also dominant before this then not long after the forming of the American Constitution Christainity was around 90%. A society with 90% Christainity is going to be heavily influenced in forming norms, laws and politics.

At the same time, the proportion of Americans who are Christian has declined in recent years, from well over 90% in 1900 to almost 80% today.

Regional Distribution of Christians

This report divides the world into five regions to take a closer look at the geographic distribution of Christians. (To view all the countries in each

www.pewresearch.org

Even around 1972 90% of Americans were Christain. This was the first survey on religious belief by Pew so we can assume that pre 72 there was still a very high level of Christainity.

In 1972, when the GSS first began asking Americans, “What is your religious preference?” 90% identified as Christian

1. How U.S. religious composition has changed in recent decades

Only a few decades ago, a Christian identity was so common among Americans that it could almost be taken for granted. As recently as the early 1990s,

www.pewresearch.org

17th and 18th century.



Which is not relevant to 18th century documents or the Enlightenment.

But it is for whether Christainity is better for society as it was the social norms and the laws that were based on Christain beliefs despite the words in the documents and Enlightenment. Enlightenment was an intellectual phenomena and not a moral one.

Though gradually and eventually it eroded Christain values and superceded them with secular rationalist ideas about morality which is basically 'Relativism' and there is no morality beyond human ideas. But that really only came in post revolutions with critical theories and Postmodernism.

"Democracy" in the Church is not relevant. (I thought you said recently that you are/were a Catholic. Even today that church is not democratic internally. Try voting for or even firing your parish priest.)

Lol, it isn't politically either lol. Democracy has been dead for a while now. If it ever really was democracy. But the basic idea of the people having an imput in who they want to run things is based on Christain principles that all are equal and subject to God whether Kings, High priests, presidents or slaves.

There would be no basis for freedom and democracy if it wasn't for this Christain truth because in a Godless world there is no basis for equality and freedom. Humans are animals, instrumental entities of varying worth. There is no higher power to answer to and there is no no purpose to life.

What? Sounds like vaguery and excusagetics. Who cares how fractured and uncontrollable the church was. It is not relevant.

How can that be when you just said the church was not democratic in its structure. That link literally said it was. So of course its relevant to refuting your claim.

Church organization is irrelevant and Calvin managed to take a rare democratic system "Christian Europe" to the edge of theocracy (at minimum).

The fact is democracy would and could not have happened if it wasn't for this transformation and transition within the church thinking. It began by questioning church claims of acting for God beyond what it was justified to do and this brought in the non offical church goers in having a say how GOds word was to be applied.

Which opened the door for then questioning whether religion was required at all. It was a progression and not some sharp line of thinking where non church goers came up with the idea.

I will finish the rest later regards Steve

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then let me put it this way. If there was no such thing as religion then we'd still end up with the laws, statutes and conventions that we have now.

Well, I just read it in a book somewhere.

That makes two of us, then---------i.e. having reading it in a book (and hearing it lectured upon by atheist professors "who know").

Also, thanks for your concern for my possible errors. When you think you've spotted an actual error in my thinking, please step up and inform me of it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then let me put it this way. If there was no such thing as religion then we'd still end up with the laws, statutes and conventions that we have now.

That's not necessarily true. I disagree. But then again, if all you're referring to is "religion" in general, and not specifically focusing upon Christianity, then maybe you're right.

In my "Christian Thinking" I only expect people to be able to work out ethics and morality, and legal thought, cogently .......... just so far on their own steam power, even if they're all made in the Image of God.

Another way to look at this is to bring in things I gleaned in the Comparative Criminal Justice Systems class I took. That was interesting to see the comparison of different traditions of criminal justice.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, I just read it in a book somewhere.

And which book did you read it in, precisely? Sopolsky's book?

 

[Bradskii]

That's not necessarily true. I disagree.

'You won't believe this, but the head honcho says he heard from the River God last week. Apparently we're not supposed to steal each others stuff'
'Wha..? You're kidding me. We have to stop doing that? How am I going to get a new spear if I don't take one from the guy next door? I need it to kill the guy who stole my grain'.
'Ah, yes. There's bad news about that as well...'

Really..?

 

[Bradskii]

And which book did you read it in, precisely? Sopolsky's book?

It was determined that you'd get his name wrong, so don't feel like it's your fault.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It was determined that you'd get his name wrong, so don't feel like it's your fault.

Yep. I was determined to see if you'd notice.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

'You won't believe this, but the head honcho says he heard from the River God last week. Apparently we're not supposed to steal each others stuff'
'Wha..? You're kidding me. We have to stop doing that? How am I going to get a new spear if I don't take one from the guy next door? I need it to kill the guy who stole my grain'.
'Ah, yes. There's bad news about that as well...'

Really..?

............................... well, I guess since none of us REALLY believes in loving our enemies, you and I can begin to hash things out in an intrusive, unfriendly, antagonistic, politically charged way, right?

 

[Bradskii]

............................... well, I guess since none of us REALLY believes in loving our enemies, you and I can begin to hash things out in an intrusive, unfriendly, antagonistic, politically charged way, right?

Or we can work together to make sure society runs as well as we can make it. If that means that you need to be told that it's a bad idea to steal one neighbour's club so you can beat the other neighbour to death, then I'll be the one explaining it to you. And you don't need no book learnin' to reach that conclusion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Or we can work together to make sure society runs as well as we can make it. If that means that you need to be told that it's a bad idea to steal one neighbour's club so you can beat the other neighbour to death, then I'll be the one explaining it to you. And you don't need no book learnin' to reach that conclusion.

Y'know, I don't need to 'defend' premises and statement that I've never thought or said, but that someone (like yourself) somehow thinks I have.

Why you're showing up out of the blue and incurring your criticism of what it is you think I've said or implied, I'll never know. Unless you just enjoy trolling people.

See. I don't really think you give a damn about my view or opinion. You're just here to undercut and criticize Christianity in general because you have some grievance with it and I just happen to be collaterally present and have to hear your .............................. Sapolskian viewpoint and other Psychology of Evolution assessments.

I mean, what do you want here? ..................................... a discussion? A moment for education? What?

 

[Bradskii]

Y'know, I don't need to 'defend' premises and statement that I've never thought or said, but that someone (like yourself) somehow thinks I have.

You introduced a little sarcasm into suggesting that we don't need scriptural guidance like 'love your enemies' to keep society running as best we can. The sarcasm needn't have been there. Because we don't need to be told to not steal or murder or lie to gain an advantage. Or to understand the golden rule. If you want to sneak some religion in somewhere you can say that we know it because it's written in our hearts. By whoever you choose (although I know that it's part of the evolutionary process). But it certainly doesn't need to be cherry picked from anyone's religious writing.

You said you disagree. That's a premise that you might consider defending.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You introduced a little sarcasm into suggesting that we don't need scriptural guidance like 'love your enemies' to keep society running as best we can. The sarcasm needn't have been there. Because we don't need to be told to not steal or murder or lie to gain an advantage. Or to understand the golden rule. If you want to sneak some religion in somewhere you can say that we know it because it's written in our hearts. By whoever you choose (although I know that it's part of the evolutionary process). But it certainly doesn't need to be cherry picked from anyone's religious writing.

You said you disagree. That's a premise that you might consider defending.

We apparently DO need to be told to love our enemies, which according to you even the Golden Rule doesn't explicitly imply.

So with that, and rather than going the distance with you on some selected topic, and not only because I don't trust that you'd engage anything in the way of academic thinking I'd bring to the table in any shape, form or degree, I'll just wish you a blessed, healthy and prosperous life until the day you die.

That's my "defense."

Be blessed. Have a happy evolutionary life.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Deism seemed to come around the same time as Enlightenment due to rational thinking which took the personal and subjective out of belief in God. Then it went from an impersonal God of rationalism to no God needed at all. This was the natural progression from Christainity to material secularism.

Sounds like a good plan. Not how I got there, but it works.

Actually once again its directly related to whether Christainity is better for the world. Beliefa God beyond human ideology that grounds us and upholds human worth as being created in Gods image is a better principle to live by.

I've seen no reason to think these are different.

That is what the founding fathers based human worth on regarding God given rights that were inalienable and could not be redefined or taken away by human ideas of human worth.

It does say 'endowed by their creator' which is a rather deistic way to phrase it, though Christians have seen willing to read their god into it for almost a quarter millennium.

This same principle was partly responsible for bringing slavey and other inhumane treatment to an end.

Sure took a long time and the source material is pretty permissive of such.

It pretty well was. I mean the world was pretty religious for a long time. That was their worldview until THe Enlightenment and rational thought came along.

As they say, things get better.

Basically any document of principle in law of the idea that no human is greater than another regardless of status and people are free to choose. Both stem from biblical teachings.

Is that the part that gives different treatment for Hebrew and non Hebrew slaves?

What exactly does the Bible say we are "free to choose"?

I think the early serttlers were reacting to the British church dogma and in some ways that setup the path towards seperation of church and State. But I think Christain belief whether Protestant, Catholic or Methodist still underpinned social norms and this was reflected in politics.

This gradually died out. Like I western nations like the US still had Christain social norms up until the mid 20th century with 'No Divorce laws', Traditional biblical Marriage as the basis for law, and abortion and SSM were illegal.

How can a State that is suppose to not align with any religion have Christain values as the basis for norms and laws. Thats a breach of the Constitution. But the founding fathers and leaders throughout history accepted this as they still believed that a nation needed religion and this was Christainity. .

This still makes no sense. Perhaps we should drop it.

The state governments, even after the Constitution was adopted, were still able to impose religious conditions for various forms of participation in public life.

Colonial Religion, or, The Belief in Separation of Church and State (until recently) – Our Story: An Ancillary to US History

pressbooks.pub

I'm not sure why you chose that link. I don't think it helps any of your points.

No thats right. For much of our history explicitly or implicitly through upholding Christain norms and laws within a so called secular State the US was not neutral in belief. Gradually we see the erosion of those Christain norms and laws ie Divorce, abortion and SSM laws take over until today things have flipped.

Cool.

I think the whole idea of leaving the Old land to escape to a new independent land was appealing to a variety of reasons. I think at least up until the forming and establishing of the Constitution early America was predominately Christain.

The statement was on the foundation of colonies, not the reasons individuals migrated or the US Constitution.

Then in a short time things were transformed between 1775 and 1791. That laid the ground for secularism. But still CHristain beliefs were not yet expunged from social norms and laws.

Why those two dates?

Yes at different times there has been at least 90%. I admit 100% is a bot extreme lol. But it was to emphasize the vast majority were Christain. But even a 70% majority is enough to influence norms and laws throughout our history and we seethat majority to exactly that. There can be no denying this.

In the book "The Churching of America 1776-2005" by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark, they estimate religious affiliation with Christiain churches was at about 1 in 6 or 1 in 5 in 1776.

Its hard to find reliable evidence on the early days. When articles say that the early colonies were dominated by Christains I assume at least 90%.

Don't assume. It's a bad look.

A Pew article mentions in 1900 Christainity was 90%. Assuming Christainity was also dominant before this then not long after the forming of the American Constitution Christainity was around 90%. A society with 90% Christainity is going to be heavily influenced in forming norms, laws and politics.

At the same time, the proportion of Americans who are Christian has declined in recent years, from well over 90% in 1900 to almost 80% today.

Regional Distribution of Christians

This report divides the world into five regions to take a closer look at the geographic distribution of Christians. (To view all the countries in each

www.pewresearch.org

Where "today" is 2011. Christianity is down another 10% since then in the US.

Even around 1972 90% of Americans were Christain. This was the first survey on religious belief by Pew so we can assume that pre 72 there was still a very high level of Christainity.

In 1972, when the GSS first began asking Americans, “What is your religious preference?” 90% identified as Christian

1. How U.S. religious composition has changed in recent decades

Only a few decades ago, a Christian identity was so common among Americans that it could almost be taken for granted. As recently as the early 1990s,

www.pewresearch.org

Finally a date with concrete numbers. (Even I was an involuntary Christian in 1972.)

The "affiliation" numbers I gave above probably underestimate the number of actual Christians, likewise the phone surveys tend to overestimate. (As I have noted in other threads, religiosity in the US peaked in the early Cold War period and then started to slowly decline. Post-internet, the fall has been much faster.)

But it is for whether Christainity is better for society as it was the social norms and the laws that were based on Christain beliefs despite the words in the documents and Enlightenment. Enlightenment was an intellectual phenomena and not a moral one.

I tend to think of the Enlightenment being about finding better ideas about society. Christianity seems moored in the past.

Though gradually and eventually it eroded Christain values and superceded them with secular rationalist ideas about morality which is basically 'Relativism' and there is no morality beyond human ideas. But that really only came in post revolutions with critical theories and Postmodernism.

That is just a mish-mash of terms. Other than the annual airing of grievances the connection is not clear.

Lol, it isn't politically either lol. Democracy has been dead for a while now. If it ever really was democracy.

I may give you antepodians a bit of good natured ribbing, but despite having a monarch, your country is a democracy and so is mine.

But the basic idea of the people having an imput in who they want to run things is based on Christain principles that all are equal and subject to God whether Kings, High priests, presidents or slaves.

I'm going to need some theological support for this claim. It does not comport at all with my experience of Christianity.

There would be no basis for freedom and democracy if it wasn't for this Christain truth because in a Godless world there is no basis for equality and freedom. Humans are animals, instrumental entities of varying worth. There is no higher power to answer to and there is no no purpose to life.

No one needs an external source to give their life meaning or purpose. Nor do we need non-human "higher power" to be accountable to our fellow humans. And the rest of it is just plain wrong.

How can that be when you just said the church was not democratic in its structure. That link literally said it was. So of course its relevant to refuting your claim.

The Church is top-down hierarchy. Electing a 'king' (for life) by the 'nobles' does not make a democracy.

The fact is democracy would and could not have happened if it wasn't for this transformation and transition within the church thinking. It began by questioning church claims of acting for God beyond what it was justified to do and this brought in the non offical church goers in having a say how GOds word was to be applied.

No, all they needed to do was read some Aristotle or Plato or Cicero. The writings in Europe about democracy emerge as more manuscripts of the Greco-Roman writers circulated and then were printed. (Renaissance to Enlightenment). If it were just about applying Biblical principles it could have arisen in "Christian Europe" in 1000 CE instead of centuries later when the Greeks and Roman authors were more widely read.

Which opened the door for then questioning whether religion was required at all. It was a progression and not some sharp line of thinking where non church goers came up with the idea.

See above.

I will finish the rest later regards Steve

Oh, boy.

 

[Bradskii]

We apparently DO need to be told to love our enemies, which according to you even the Golden Rule doesn't explicitly imply.

Do unto others...that pretty much covers it for me. If my enemies do not love me then don't expect me to love them. It's not a commandment. It's a bargain.

So with that, and rather than going the distance with you on some selected topic, and not only because I don't trust that you'd engage anything in the way of academic thinking I'd bring to the table in any shape, form or degree...

Your call if you don't want to defend any given position. I guess I'll manage without and be so much the poorer for the lack of any examples of 'academic thinking'.

 

[stevevw]

Sounds like a good plan. Not how I got there, but it works.

Thats because you came along well after this transition. We have had 200 years of progression and over the last 50 years we have been more on the No God and secular ideology side with social norms and worldview within the public square. So people are going to be born into secularism.

It does say 'endowed by their creator' which is a rather deistic way to phrase it, though Christians have seen willing to read their god into it for almost a quarter millennium.

I think they have good reason to. Endowed by their created is another way of saying God created us. Thats the point people keep missing that even language is a different metaphycis to secular ideology that makes humans the gods that determine who we are and our worth.

Sure took a long time and the source material is pretty permissive of such.

Thats because God and Christainity is working within a fallen world and so its a gradual process of changing minds and systems. CHristains were working behind the scenes trying to gradually change the system before it happened. They have always been at the forefront in welfare and looking after people.

As they say, things get better.

Not really. Theres more than one way to measure progress. Yes rational thinking and science has brought many great things. But at the same time society seems to have lost its moral compass and meaning. More people are suffering meental illness and ending their lives. Substance abuse is prevelent and people are struggling to live in suppodely modern advanced nations.

Society is divided by identity politics to the point anti-semetism and violence against people is now increasing. The US is at risk from homegrown terrorism and the world is hovering on the bring of war. Climate change is a real concern, where all dreading the next pandemic and thats if its not due to some totalitarian State trying to impose their will on the people as democracy is dying in what use to be free nations.

Is that the part that gives different treatment for Hebrew and non Hebrew slaves?

I don't want to get into the slavery thing as its more contextual than your making out. All I can say is that yes there were aspects that went along with slavery and there were reasons why non Hebrew slaves were treated differently. One was they could not convert to Hebrew.

So even owning them was discouraged. Which then means they were enslaving Hebrews more than non Hebrews. But slavery was not even what you think it was so your equating todays morals with 1,000s of years ago.

What exactly does the Bible say we are "free to choose"?

This shows how our worldview and different paradigms can blind us from seeing different points of view.

First there are 100's if not 1,000s of examples of how God had warned or revealed to people their sin or a choice and God allowed them to choose sometimes waiting 100s of years. Allowing them to choose against God. God did not intervene and make them.

God gave Sodem heeps of chances to repent. Abraham pleaded with God if even 50 then 10 and down to 1 person could repent and be saved and Gog gave them that chance each time before he cast His judgement on them.

Revelations 3:20 says "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me". That shows Jesus waits patiently at the door and allows the person to choose to open the door before He will enter.

I'm not sure why you chose that link. I don't think it helps any of your points.

The point is that despite the Constitution saying there was a seperation of church and State that did not happen right away and Christainity underpinned social norms and laws for some time. Even up until the 1970's. So the idea of seperation is a bit misleading.

The statement was on the foundation of colonies, not the reasons individuals migrated or the US Constitution.

Yes and I said that predominately the early colonies were founded on Christain and biblical beliefs whether Protestant, Catholic, Methodist, Quaker, Pilgrim or Puritan.

Why those two dates?

Ah something I read in relation to the period of formulating the Constitution and then it being ratified by all the colonies or states at the time.

In the book "The Churching of America 1776-2005" by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark, they estimate religious affiliation with Christiain churches was at about 1 in 6 or 1 in 5 in 1776.

Ok so I have read varying accounts but most state that the majority of colonies were one denomination or another of Christains. So maybe something happened and many people fell out with their belief by 1776. But it doesn't make sense that such a sudden and dramatic change should happen like that especially with belief.

If surveys show 90% belief in 1900 then whatever happened in 1776 had then reversed back to pre 1776. So something strange is going on there with the data.

Also what I find strange is that I am pretty sure I can find norms and laws with that time period of pre or post 1776 that were based on CHristain beliefs and the bible. If there was only 1 in 5 or 6 Christains how can a society and government favor Christain belief to underpin their norms and laws. Thats more or less imposing a minority on the majority.

Where "today" is 2011. Christianity is down another 10% since then in the US.

Finally a date with concrete numbers. (Even I was an involuntary Christian in 1972.)

What was wrong with the Pew report from the 1900. Also the link you have used is about church membership and attendence. As it states the attendence can be underestimated as for example rural folk may not attend church. In fact there may be many that don't attend a church but are Christain.

The "affiliation" numbers I gave above probably underestimate the number of actual Christians, likewise the phone surveys tend to overestimate. (As I have noted in other threads, religiosity in the US peaked in the early Cold War period and then started to slowly decline. Post-internet, the fall has been much faster.)

Yes I agree that we have seen a decline in the second half of the 20th century and especially say post 2000. I think around the Enlightenment is when the decline started which makes sense in that this was when people were questioning the church and then human reason rationalised that people could exist with a God as nature had all the answers.

I tend to think of the Enlightenment being about finding better ideas about society. Christianity seems moored in the past.

Hum, certainly its important to reason and the bible does tell us to question and use reason in our judgements. Not to just blindly accept something.

But I am not sure rationality is something we can equate with social issues. Rationalists can reason that inhumane ideas as based on human ideology. There is no basis outside the instrumental and functional. Afterall there were rationalist arguements for slaves just as there were religious ones.

What actually changed was applying the Christain truth principle of human worth being grounded in something beyond human rationalisations. The problem with humans playing God is that we are not all knowing and imperfect and have a tendency to blind ourselves to sin thinking it is nobel when its not.

But I agree that The Enlightenment was needed. The Church had become dogmatic and power went to their heads. In some ways this brought the church back down to earth. But still the Enlightenment was seen through the prism of a Christain and to a lesser extent a Deistic and natural worldview which is very different from later incarnations and especially today.

It was a gradual de-evolution from the Christain and God worldview to the secular ideological one. The Enlightenment had varying effects. It made Christainity more focused on reasoning faith and understanding Gods creation better in nature thus strengthen faith.

But at the same time this rational thought led to finding naturalistic explanations instead of some creator God. Thus led to people falling away from the church. Maybe a necessary evil.

But still we are sort have come full circle as the biggest issue today despite all the rationality and success oif material science explaining GOd away is that more people than ever are lost and lack meaning. They are still looking. All that rationalism hasn't really explained things.

I might cut this one short as well. I like shorter chunks and to break things up lol.