Whose Christianity?

[Marz Blak]

In another thread a Christian poster has asserted to me that America was founded based on Christian morals, and that our laws should therefore still be based on Christian morality.

I disagree with both the premise and the conclusion.

But assuming for the sake of argument that he's right, I have a question. What are those Christian morals upon which we should base our laws? It seems to me that there's not enough agreement even among Christians in this country to formulate a complete legal system they'd all be happy with, never mind people of other religious traditions and atheists like me.

Any thoughts?

 

[Spike~]

If I had to choose? I'ld say Unitarianism. Since they're one of the most liberal denoms in Christianity.

 

[Marz Blak]

If I had to choose? I'ld say Unitarianism. Since they're one of the most liberal denoms in Christianity.

Only problem is that a lot of Christians don't consider Unitarian-Universalists to be Christians.

Well, not the only problem. But certainly a big one.

 

[nadroj1985]

Good point, Marz. If you ask me, Christian morality boils down to "love thy neighbor as thyself." The world would be a much better place if all would espouse this morality, IMHO.

However, there have been many unnecessary additions to that, and much dispute has risen from those additions. For that reason, "Christian morality" has become quite a useless combination of words.

 

[Ben johnson]

If you read the Declaration of Independance, the preamble to the Constitution, even the National Anthem (see 4th Stanza) --- the connection with belief in God is undeniable. At the time, 98% of the Founding Fathers were Christian, 1.2% were Jewish, 0.8 "something else".

Go to: http://www.nps.gov/thje/memorial/inscript.htm
Thomas Jefferson, hailed as the "founder of SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE", is exposed on his memorial by the inscriptions of his words. He was NOT an advocate of "separation", evidence by this inscription:
"Almighty God hath created the mind free…All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens…are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion…No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively."

Understand that "religion" in that time, was synonymous with "Christian".

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever"

"Everson vs Board of Education", 1947, the first appearnace of the idea of "Separation of Church and State". Instead of INTERPRETING the Constitution, the court CREATED law from SCRATCH. Reversing 300-400 years of American history.

The "One Code of Morality" is the Bible. And it is NOT as "subject to interpretation" as many contend. Jefferson, in his capacity of Superintendent DC schools, installed the Bible as curriculum.

We have violated the ideals of Thomas Jefferson, and reversed our history.

In 1963 prayer was vanished from public schools. A child HEARING a prayer does NOT constitute "Congress-established-religion"; but banning prayer does "prohibit the free excercise thereof". TV talk show host Dennis Praguer said: "I am not a Christian; but exposing kids to the IDEA of there being a God, forces them to consider responsibility to something other than THEMSELVES. Isn't that what our kids are lacking nowadays?"

Since prayer was removed, a documentable sharp increase occurred in teenaged crimes, pregnancy, suicide and drug use. Absent God, all tthat remains is anarchy --- self.

Christian morality boils down to "love thy neighbor as thyself." The world would be a much better place if all would espouse this morality, IMHO.[/quot]Very good. Yet there must be boundaries even for things considered "victimless situations". What if we established homosexual marriage? Are you willing to therefore IMPRISON someone for merely reading aloud (even in church) parts of the Bible? Are you? How about prostitution? Drug use? Shouldn't we be free to do WHAT WE WANT? The answer, is "no". Law exist for the common good. Seatbelts are required to protect the negligent, AND the rest of us who pay for injureds' medical bills when THEY can't pay. "YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE MORALITY" ie easily answered with, "name ONE law that is not someone's morality; moraltiy is the purpose of law."

 

[seebs]

I think that's quoting the man out of context. Certainly, I don't think he thought that "religion" was synonymous with "Christianity".

A bit of study of historical writings and alternative wordings under consideration makes it more clear that what they indeed wanted was absolute separation of church and state, that the state should make no law even touching religious practice.

Apart from that, I'm just going to say "post hoc".

 

[Marz Blak]

If you read the Declaration of Independance, the preamble to the Constitution, even the National Anthem (see 4th Stanza) --- the connection with belief in God is undeniable. At the time, 98% of the Founding Fathers were Christian, 1.2% were Jewish, 0.8 "something else".

Go to: http://www.nps.gov/thje/memorial/inscript.htm
Thomas Jefferson, hailed as the "founder of SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE", is exposed on his memorial by the inscriptions of his words. He was NOT an advocate of "separation", evidence by this inscription:
"Almighty God hath created the mind free…All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens…are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion…No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively."

Understand that "religion" in that time, was synonymous with "Christian".

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever"

"Everson vs Board of Education", 1947, the first appearnace of the idea of "Separation of Church and State". Instead of INTERPRETING the Constitution, the court CREATED law from SCRATCH. Reversing 300-400 years of American history.

The "One Code of Morality" is the Bible. And it is NOT as "subject to interpretation" as many contend. Jefferson, in his capacity of Superintendent DC schools, installed the Bible as curriculum.

We have violated the ideals of Thomas Jefferson, and reversed our history.

In 1963 prayer was vanished from public schools. A child HEARING a prayer does NOT constitute "Congress-established-religion"; but banning prayer does "prohibit the free excercise thereof". TV talk show host Dennis Praguer said: "I am not a Christian; but exposing kids to the IDEA of there being a God, forces them to consider responsibility to something other than THEMSELVES. Isn't that what our kids are lacking nowadays?"

Since prayer was removed, a documentable sharp increase occurred in teenaged crimes, pregnancy, suicide and drug use. Absent God, all tthat remains is anarchy --- self.

Christian morality boils down to "love thy neighbor as thyself." The world would be a much better place if all would espouse this morality, IMHO.

Very good. Yet there must be boundaries even for things considered "victimless situations". What if we established homosexual marriage? Are you willing to therefore IMPRISON someone for merely reading aloud (even in church) parts of the Bible? Are you? How about prostitution? Drug use? Shouldn't we be free to do WHAT WE WANT? The answer, is "no". Law exist for the common good. Seatbelts are required to protect the negligent, AND the rest of us who pay for injureds' medical bills when THEY can't pay. "YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE MORALITY" ie easily answered with, "name ONE law that is not someone's morality; moraltiy is the purpose of law."

Ben johnson, you say the Bible is not subject to interpretation. It is clear that many if not most Christians disagree with you, to which even a quick perusal of just the threads on just this board will attest.

If the Bible is not subject to interpretation, and it is to be used as the foundation of our law, then what are you suggesting? An imposition of Levitical law? A careful reading of the New Testament to determine which of the old laws is still to be followed, which is to be put aside by Christ's "new covenant?" For that matter, which Bible? Will ancient Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew be taught in the schools so that we can all read the source material and be sure we have not been subjected to improper translations? And even if we get past that, who decides which books are part of the "real" Bible and which not, as Christians don't even all agree on this point?

Please expand on how you see this working. Even assuming we get to a set of "real Christianity-based" laws, how will they be be enforced? Will all judges have also to be clerics, studied in the "proper" reading of the Bible, given that not even Christians agree exactly on what it really says at a level of detail necessary to codify law? How will these laws be enforced without the establishment of a State-approved sect, an "official" Christianity, which even, I think you would agree, even those who take the most limited view of the intent of framers in the Establishment Clause would agree was expressly prohibited?

This post illustrates exactly the problem I'm getting at in proposing "Christian morality" as the basis for the law. Sigh. This is exactly the sort of lack of critical thinking which I have asserted before is at the base of so many of this country's problems.

 

[Marz Blak]

Ben johnson: one further thing. The fact that I responded to your argument as I did above is not intended to imply that I don't see it as being filled with questionable assertions and logical lapses. I am more interested in the fact that people who think as you do have apparently not thought through how what they propose is supposed to work, and I only have so much time; so I decided to address its conclusions for the sake of argument first.

I'm pretty sure your argument will be picked apart in due time if this thread lasts. If I have time, I'll return to it.

 

[Spike~]

If you read the Declaration of Independance, the preamble to the Constitution, even the National Anthem (see 4th Stanza) --- the connection with belief in God is undeniable. At the time, 98% of the Founding Fathers were Christian, 1.2% were Jewish, 0.8 "something else".

Got the number to prove that. Because my understanding is that many of them were deist and free-thinkers.

Go to: http://www.nps.gov/thje/memorial/inscript.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_2.html

Before you reply to this, keep in mind that I have a whole folder in my favorites that reinforces that link.

Thomas Jefferson, hailed as the "founder of SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE", is exposed on his memorial by the inscriptions of his words. He was NOT an advocate of "separation", evidence by this inscription:

I think Jefferson's letter to the Dunebury Baptists tells us quite cleary what he wanted in ragards to Seperation of Church and State:

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

I put special emphasis of the bold and underlined parts.

Understand that "religion" in that time, was synonymous with "Christian".

Proof please.

"Everson vs Board of Education", 1947, the first appearnace of the idea of "Separation of Church and State". Instead of INTERPRETING the Constitution, the court CREATED law from SCRATCH. Reversing 300-400 years of American history.

They did not create a law from scratch. They don't have that power. They simply ruled that school mandated prayer was unConstitutional.

The "One Code of Morality" is the Bible. And it is NOT as "subject to interpretation" as many contend. Jefferson, in his capacity of Superintendent DC schools, installed the Bible as curriculum.

Actually, it is. Seeing as how it's been translated several times, butchered by the RCC, and is extremely old, it's open to a great deal of interpretation.

And I'm sorry, but the Bible is not a good source of morality. If I wanted to justify something evil that I was about to do, I'ld look though the Bible.

In 1963 prayer was vanished from public schools. A child HEARING a prayer does NOT constitute "Congress-established-religion"; but banning prayer does "prohibit the free excercise thereof". TV talk show host Dennis Praguer said: "I am not a Christian; but exposing kids to the IDEA of there being a God, forces them to consider responsibility to something other than THEMSELVES. Isn't that what our kids are lacking nowadays?"

Wrong. They abolished school mandated prayer, which does violate the 1st Admendment. Kids can still pray in schools. School admins are many things, but mind-readers they are not.

Since prayer was removed, a documentable sharp increase occurred in teenaged crimes, pregnancy, suicide and drug use. Absent God, all tthat remains is anarchy --- self.

Yes, but do you have any proof that the removal of prayer is what caused those things?

"YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE MORALITY" ie easily answered with, "name ONE law that is not someone's morality; moraltiy is the purpose of law."

What? That phrase mean that you can't legislate everyone's morality, i.e., making own man's personal morals law, unless those mral serve a secular purpose (the Lemon Test, IIRC).

 

[Outspoken]

Only problem is that a lot of Christians don't consider Unitarian-Universalists to be Christians.

Well, not the only problem. But certainly a big one.

correct, because to believe it you must cut out parts of your bible.

 

[Outspoken]

*chuckles* by the jefferson statement you have posted he denies atheistic rights to non-religion

oh and by this statement..

"I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man"

It gives him less of a diest and more of a christian lighting..though I thought the former was true, thanks for changing my mind

 

[Marz Blak]

...
oh and by this statement..

"I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man"

It gives him less of a diest and more of a christian lighting..though I thought the former was true, thanks for changing my mind

You can assert that by the common Father and creator of man Jefferson was referring to the God of the Apologists, and it is certainly possible that that was his intent; but referring to the putative Supreme Being in such a fashion is just as consistent with a Deistic worldview as with a Christian one. I would need more evidence, myself, before coming to a conclusion on the matter.

 

[Outspoken]

You can assert that by the common Father and creator of man Jefferson was referring to the God of the Apologists, and it is certainly possible that that was his intent; but referring to the putative Supreme Being in such a fashion is just as consistent with a Deistic worldview as with a Christian one. I would need more evidence, myself, before coming to a conclusion on the matter.

You can see clearly that documents of that time where riddled with references to the Christian God. If you don't admit that then you're just not looking at the history books. Its quite clear the nation was based on Christian morality for that is what they majority believed.

 

[Marz Blak]

You can see clearly that documents of that time where riddled with references to the Christian God. If you don't admit that then you're just not looking at the history books. Its quite clear the nation was based on Christian morality for that is what they majority believed.

Again, I don't entirely disagree with you, in that Christian morality was a dominant factor. But it is also not at all clear that not all the framers were completely Christian. It's pretty clear that there were non-Christian Deists, Unitarians, and even (gasp!) more than a wisp of atheism among them.

Insofar as the 'majority rule' aspect of your argument is concerned, may I point out that the protection of unpopular and minority rights is, in a sense, the very heart of the Bill of Rights? Asserting that 'Christian morality was clearly intended, because most of the framers were Christian' is in direct opposition to this obvious intent of the framers.