A Christian Nation?
On August 6, 2007, the New York Times reported on an interesting dispute between the campaign of Sam Brownback and that of Mike Huckabee. According to Times reporter Sarah Wheaton, the following remark set off the dispute:
"'I know Senator Brownback converted to Roman Catholicism in 2002," Mr. Rude wrote. "Frankly, as a recovering Catholic myself, that is all I need to know about his discernment when compared to the Governor's." The message struck some as an attempt to highlight Mr. Brownback's Catholicism in a state with a large Protestant electorate.
The comment interested and even amused me, because on another website, I've recently been fielding comments from people who believe that we live in "a Christian nation." Yet here they were, Catholic and Protestant political figures, quarreling just as they did back in the 16th and 17th centuries-the very reason that a separation was proposed between Church and State.
My correspondents also informed me that the Founders were personally devout and orthodox in their views and that the Constitution was derived from the Bible. No doubt they also believe that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of our legal system (actually, it's the Code of Justinian.)
It's hard to figure where in the Bible my correspondents found any discussion of checks and balances, the separation of powers, the regulation of commerce, or impeachment.
What about the influence of John Locke? I asked them. Locke, himself a devout Christian from a Puritan family, inspired Jefferson's Statute for Religious Freedom written in 1777 and passed, thanks to James Madison, in 1786. Jefferson's statute is particularly indebted to Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration (1689), which you can read in its entirety here. In it Locke declared, "Neither Pagan nor Mahometan, nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion. The Gospel commands no such thing."
As Locke knew, religious strife-not only between Catholics and Protestants, but among Protestants-had resulted in "factions, tumults, and civil wars," causing the death or exile of thousands of Europeans. "It is not the diversity of opinions (which cannot be avoided)," Locke wrote, "but "the refusal of toleration to those that are of different opinions (which might have been granted) ... that has produced all the bustles and wars that have been in the Christian world upon account of religion." The only way to avoid such conflicts was to separate Church and State, he concluded, because
"If each of them [Church and State] would contain itself within its own bounds - the one attending to the worldly welfare of the commonwealth, the other to the salvation of souls - it is impossible that any discord should ever have happened between them."
Locke was not only the first influential proponent of religious toleration and freedom. His ideas inspired every Revolutionary in the Founding generation-all those who signed the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Ideas, passages, and phrases from his two treatises on civil government are echoed in numerous speeches and pamphlets of the American Revolution, including those of the teenaged Alexander Hamilton.
Right now, both a Marxist group and the right-wing Young Americans for Freedom, as well as many universities, have the second treatise of Locke posted online. Although the YAF calls it "a timeless classic of conservative thought," Locke is widely considered to be the father of liberalism, in the original sense of that word. The renowned historian C. Vann Woodward wrote of "the Lockean liberal consensus, from Benjamin Franklin to Abraham Lincoln, and on down." All major American statesmen and politicians, Woodward asserted, have been to varying degrees "apostles of Locke" and thus "liberals under the skin."
It's therefore all the more unfortunate that American citizens like my recent correspondents are ignorant of, or hostile to, our intellectual history and credit the Bible for every idea under the sun. It's unfortunate also that the MSM, particularly CNN, sees fit to interrogate presidential candidates about their "faith," because such interrogation is profoundly un-American. " I never told my own religion, nor scrutinized that of another," wrote Thomas Jefferson in 1816. And to the scientist Joseph Priestly Jefferson complained:
"The Gothic idea that we are to look backwards instead of forwards for the improvement of the human mind, and to recur to the annals of our ancestors for what is most perfect in government, in religion and in learning, is worthy of those bigots in religion & government, by whom it has been recommended, & whose purposes it would answer. But it is not an idea which this country will endure."
Carol Hamilton has a Ph.D. in English from Berkeley, an M.F.A. from Vermont College, and a B.A. in Comparative Literature from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her poems have appeared in many literary journals, including The Paris Review, The North American Review, Poetry Miscellany, The Gettysburg Review, Salmagundi, Poetry Scotland, and Frank (in Paris). Poems are forthcoming soon in DoubleTake (Johns Hopkins UP).
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
126 Comments so far
Show AllThis is Indian Land.
Bushistan is the land of immigration (and slavery).
But the only official religion is that of the natives.
Even after the forests are paved, the fact remains; this is Indian land.
Dayananda's definition of religion is nonsense--far too loose and free to be accurate.
Religions are distinguished by their supernatural or metaphysical explanations of the world--higher powers, sky gods, invisible entities, transcendent purposes.
"Responsibilities & principles" could apply to all sorts of worldly practices, such as course requirements in a college syllabus.
Some of you need to read either Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, or the new book by Hitchens to get a better grasp of this subject--rather than presenting your own hunches as truths.
In our modern culture "religion" often connotes the three Abrahamic traditions along with a nod toward eleven or so other major traditions. However, Carol and her opponents misuse the word. In their passions over either separating or empowering religion, they muddy the field.
Religion is best defined as a "set of responsibilities based on a set of principles". In that way, Locke and Jefferson have formed a religion. What's wrong with that? After all, any religion or worldview, whether it is theistic, non-theistic, humanistic, scientific, whatever, requires its adherents to be responsible and to follow a set of responsibilities.
The issue, then, is not to which group one belongs, but what are one's set of responsibilities and their priorities. Priority is everying. Saints and thinkers are very often asked to prioritize responsibilities. Even Jesus was asked to prioritize the Jewish laws. He responded to the question, and many of us remember his reply about the most important law, regardless of whether we are Christian.
Thus, putting aside various labels, one should reject those who cannot prioritize, and then select among those who can.
Don't know if this thread is still being visited, but thought I'd comment anyhow.
Objectivistthinker: spot on. Last summer, I believe it was, PBS aired a special entitled "One Faith, Three Religions" concerning the common ancestry of Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammadism. Interviewed there was a Muslim scholar who held forth that the Ten Commandments were man's contract with god. How could anyone that has spent his life studying things religious get it so wrong?
The Ten commandments are man's contract with his/her fellow human beings. All of the forbiddens are forbidden because they are deliterious to a healthy community. Do not kill, steal, lie, lust for a married spouse. No "GOD" was needed to put the imprimatur of truth upon these simple rules.
"It is an artifact of the primative human mind that continues to ascribe to GOD everything that is good about man, and to SATAN all that is bad." Justaman.
Some excellent comments in this thread.
It's always amazing to me how many Americans who call themselves Christians seem to go blind when they read the essence of Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. (Book of Matthew, Chapters 5, 6 and 7, KJV.)
In it, Jesus outlines how a Christian should act, and specifically tells his flock to be humble and non-judgmental, forgiving and loving, and, most of all, to refrain from hypocrisy.
"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name cast out devils? and in thy name dne many wonderful works?
And then I will profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity [...]
"And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened to a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand."
-- Jesus in Matthew 7:22,23 and 26.
"Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men."
-- Jesus in Matthew 15:7,8.
This is the antithesis of everything Bush and the Republicans have done since he was installed in office -- could you see Bush forgiving bin Laden and these American Christians turning the other cheek?
"Wherefore by their fruits shall ye know them."
-- Jesus in Matthew 7:20.
What have been the 'fruits' of the Bush Administratrion? War, death, destruction, lies and hate.
Jesus even settles the prayer in schools debate in this passage:
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily, I say unto you, They have their reward.
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seest in secret shall reward thee openly."
-- Jesus in Matthew 6:5,6.
Yet you won't read or hear our Mass Media point out what raging hypocrites the Bush Republicans and their so-called Christian supporters are.
What has happened to America over the past 40 years is the cynical melding of the interests of multi-national corporations, fundamentalist Christianity, and the Republican Party.
The corporations give money to the fundy right-wingers to increase their power and media reach and, in turn, the fundy right-wingers elect Republican candidates who give the corporations the deregulation, government contracts and tax breaks they crave. As Dreiser knew, the point of taking advantage of right-wing Christians is that they are easy to sway -- they're already mental slaves of their overzealous faith.
"Assure a man that he has a soul and then frighten him with old wives' tales as to what is to become of him afterward, and you have hooked a fish, a mental slave."
-- Theodore Dreiser
Here are two lines from Jesus that I have never heard the Bush Administration or one of their media preachers quote:
"Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
-- Jesus in Matthew 6:24.
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
-- Jesus in Matthew 19:24.
Bush and his neocons might also pause at this statement by the man Junior has called his 'favorite philosopher':
"Fear them not therefore; for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
-- Jesus in Matthew 11:26.
And, as we have seen the past six years from 9/11 to Katrina to Iraq, this well-known quote is of timeless accuracy:
"Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."
-- Jesus in Matthew 15:14.
It's just unfortunate that the rest of us have to dig our way out of the deep ditch the blind Bush and his followers have led us into.
To Franksdialogue:
You associate morality with god, i do not. Morality is a code that establishes right from wrong or good from evil. The belief that some other power or knowledge beyond human reason created this is the basis for a divine moral code. Our own intellect defines life as its highest value, one chooses it daily when we make judgments based on life or death, these judgments are based on our understanding (perception) of reality.
I am not sure how my value of my life makes me ready for membership to the Power Elite. I have in no way defended or advocated the actions of the "Power Elite." I would define the actions of "Power Elite" as unaccountable to reason usually done by use of violence with complicity and protection of the government(the law). None of this assumes a just moral code.
If you assume that there will always be a "powerful/self-dominated ruling class," then what would you have them rule by? A gut feeling? No, of course you wouldn't. The problem is the "powerful/self-dominated ruling class," it is unnecessary. I am advocating for reason, based on selfish motives, life not death, and earned rather than unearned. Your last sentence, "if you have no belief in God, then everything is permitted," is untrue, because morality would compel one to act "good." Regardless of your beliefs somethings are unmistakably moral(good),being the value of human life. It is simply untrue that one must adhere to a morality of faith for it to be considered moral. Of course, to coexist one must live with honesty and integrity, these principles must be accountable to reason.
If you consider the 'self' to be your highest value, then you are ready for membership in the Power Elite...there will always be a powerful/self-dominated
ruling class & there will always be those who are poor
& don't wield power...this is the way of the world...
but if the citizenry have no moral code, or have lost
sight of anything higher than the pursuit of money/power, then the ruling class will be corrupted
by 'absolute power' because there is nothing to restrain them...if you have no belief in God, then
everything is permitted.
I live in the US and don't subscribe to a doctrine or dogma of irrationality. Is the US a Christian country, of course not. It is a country controlled by fascists(state-run economy protected by the police and propaganda machine) that believe in the power and force of muscle(violence) and spirit(faith). It is not important to define ones sect, but rather to define the impetus. Why does it matter whether the person who coerces, deceives, murders, or rapes is Christian or non-christian? The powerful in the US live by no moral code, yet they stay in power because neither do its citizen. I am sure that this statement will be contentious, therefore it would be interesting to me if someone wanted to define an American code of morality.
Nationalism and the life of faith profess this common value, they all require the believer to undervalue or renounce ones intellect to that of a "higher power" by demanding a life of self-sacrifice. The sacrifice or our own reality to those in "power" has caused and will continue to cause us to be exploited.
The simple act of changing ones highest value, the self, while accepting ones abilities to be conscious of reality could present a fundamental change in human behavior, valuing freedom, honesty, and integrity using reason as the foundation.
not a problem vinlander
I'm all for mixing religion and secular life:
How about a sign over the stock exchange saying BLESSED ARE THE POOR
And one over the Supreme Court building saying JUDGE NOT THAT YE BE NOT JUDGED
How about the Pentagon: LIVE BY THE SWORD, DIE BY THE SWORD (nothing prophetic here by the way, we all die the way we live.)
Are Those Liberals Wearing Crosses?
.
Imagine a handful of mostly older women handing out toothpaste, razors and toothbrushes at a homeless shelter.
Imagine a group of mostly older women in the basement kitchen of a church cooking up chicken, peas and mashed (lots of coffee) for their weekly soup kitchen for the poor.
Imagine thousands of mostly older women volunteering and performing acts of charity all across America.
Some of the ladies have crosses in their lapels; are they not liberals?
Some of their brethren are altruistic agnostic or atheist volunteers; are they not serving the morality engendered in the world's god based religions.
It may serve Karl Rove's vision of political dominance to set these kind faced Americans upon each other over implications of being a 'liberal' but it really isn't the American way.
And it's not a word that anyone should remotely shy away from.
((--cognitorex blog --))
"Dear Lord, protect us from your followers."
Well said, Jan. Well said.
pwrmac5 said it best
Cut through all the doctrinal statements of all religions and if you are a true Christian you will quit bad-mouthing other religions and start imitating the life and teaching of Christ;otherwise your beliefs and behaviousr are mere sham
Senator Brownback has proven he will do anything to get elected including compromising his stated religious Catholic beliefs.
It was Brownback who received $42,000 from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abromoff ... stating "No impropriety" on his part.
In an interview with George Stephanopoulos earlier this year Brownback was asked if he would support rigorous lobbying reform and the weasel Brownback said "the current restrictions are just fine", thank you. (In other words keep the gravy train rolling along).
Brownback who claims to be pro marriage has a suspicious relationship with the Tahirih Justice Center a radical Iranian religious extremist organization with very strong pro abortion / anti- Christian / anti family agenda.. Tahirih Justice Center a Non governmental organization received $700,000 (last year) in Federal grants spending some helping abused women but spending GREATLY on lobbying and Public Advocacy suspiciously not itemized in their annual report.
Brownback worked together with Tahirih Justice Center sponsoring the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act an unconstitutional law that requires background checks before Americans can communicate with foreigners.
Brownback was a key speaker for Tahirih's Justice annual fundraiser event and worked together with TJC to produce a one sided Radio Vatican broadcast titled, "Mail Order Nightmares" that was filled with shocking lies and inaccuracies and was cancelled after Vatican radio discovered fraudulent deception.
Tahirih Justice center is a Baha'I faith inspired organization that was named after a Persian women Tahirih who was a convicted murderer and the wacko Brownback thinks Tahirih Justice center are "good frontline experts".
I wonder what century Brownback lives in?
Roger Williams on religious liberty:
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/religlib.htm
Thomas Jefferson's skeptical comments on religion:
http://ThomasJeffersonSpeaks.blogspot.com
Mark Twain on religion:
http://www.twainquotes.com/Religion.html
Some other relevant websites:
Roger Williams, "A Plea for Religious Liberty"
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/religlib.htm
Skeptical Thomas Jefferson on religion:
http://ThomasJeffersonSpeaks.blogspot.com
Mark Twain on religion:
http://www.twainquotes.com/Religion.html
This piece attracted a lot of nutcases, but Mike Corbeil may take the cake, sneering at a well-known historian and others who are far more knowledgeable than he is. Anyone who mentions "Satan" as if he is, or ever was, a real being is a nutcase.
Mike, buddy, next time you're on your meds and can concentrate without hallucinating, read about "classical liberalism" in Wikipedia or better yet at
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/
We certainly wouldn't want the US to become a theocracy like,say,
Israel, for instance...you know, a country where you have no rights unless you are Jewish...that being said, America has a primarily Christian heritage and this has been all to the good...
now, you have certain folks who 'say they are Christians, but they lie...they are of the church of Satan'...like our purportedly Christian president Bush...Bush is no Christian...as
far as Fox network & CNN, they are mostly run & express the view of the Jewish lobby...they will pander to Christian Americans when it is a matter of swaying opinion for their own interests...and wasn't it the 'neo-cons' who called for this 'clash of civilizations' between the Christians and Muslims?...of course, the Constitution says to 'make no laws as to the establishment of a state religion'...but nowhere does it state that religion has no part in public life...this is a matter of 'Common Sense'.
Dear Lord, protect us from your followers.
Someone here said:
"I support a national referendum whereby would be theocrats are allowed to pick a couple or more states and those that wished to could emigrate there."
I read somewhere that the religious right already picked a state to emigrate to. That was South Carolina.
BTW, the libertarians picked New Hampshire.
colleen said:
"I think the people who were executed by the religious authorities had themselves a religious view. Imo it was not religion which caused the deaths, but another force that hides behind religion and uses views of God as ways to gain power."
I like John Freeman's answer to that:
"To me, spirituality is the part of me that is the connection to a power greater than myself and hence to all of you. Religion on the other hand, is the business of controlling and fleecing the masses. There are do doubt some bits of truth in all the versions, though at the end of the day, the truth is perverted and written by flim-flam men to suit each personal agenda."
colleen continued:
"Neolithic humans had burials where food and flowers were placed in with the deceased...Now is that a religious belief?"
It seems like an expression of their love. Of course the theocracy would want to elaborate things to console the family and insure that they tithe to their church or in neolithic times, give the witch doctors access to their women.
shikejan said:
"The present Dalai Lama is/was a paid CIA agent–does that follow Buddhist Canon?)"
That just blew me away. I'll have to research it.
The USA embodies the complete opposition to Teachings of Jesus Christ. Both Americans and their Government have opposed them in various, even subtle, ways. For example, most Christian Americans are unfamiliar with the history of their faith and do not implement the the Teachings of Jesus in their daily lives. I recommend to every Christian American to read the Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John - and to take them seriously. After all, Christian Americans, both right and left, supposedly honor the Teachings of Jesus christ as the way the truth and the life! Merely going to Church and professing, without substance, that Jesus Christ is the true Prophet and the rest are false will not cut it. American Christians may be shocked to know how syncretic Christianity has always been and the variety of religions and cultures that influenced it - including Zoroastrianism and the Persians - the latter of which are the supposed enemies of Americans.
"Blessed are the Peacemakers for they shall be called the Children of God."
Inconvenient huh? Did this slip the mind of some Christian Americans? How about forgiving human beings seventy times seven? What about Jesus Christ being the light of the world and the Prince of Peace? Are these aspects of their faith worthy of being ignored? The first duty of Christians is to be Christ-like throughout their lives. "What Would Jesus Do?" is not a mere cliche - it is the question all Christians should ask in every situation in their life and to act accordingly. Although most Christian Americans believe that invading and occupying Iraq and making the people of Iraq lives miserable is somehow a positive action and that revenge is a virtue, they are mistaken.
PAUL BRAMSCHER: Excellent posting, but of course with such "Divine style enlightenment" how could a nation push its nationalistic agenda, one based on militarism to obtain the goods that it's exclusively blessed citizens are so deserving of, even if obtaining said objects comes at gunpoint and means the slaughter of other peoples.
MIKE CORBEIL: You amaze me. Since you're part of this forum, one presumes you are no dummy. Do you really think "Satan" is an actual entity? Few of us dispute the existence of evil. And then to go so far as to consign this artificial entity a political place on the dial. C'mon man... you need to step out of your fundamentalist root orthodoxy and take a new look at things! EZE was trying to humor you.
"#
ezeflyer August 8th, 2007 1:17 am
mikecorbell said:
"Satan is the strongest religious example of liberalism…"
and
"Similarly, Cheney-Bush liberally rein hell on Earth on nations, peoples who were NO threat to the USA or anyone else. Similarly, Clinton liberally reined hell on Kosovo Yugoslavia. ETC."
Satan, Cheney, Bush and Clinton are liberals, eh? So what kind of deal can you give me on a used car?"
WHY ASK ME? Did I ever say that I'm a car salesman? I don't think so. And yes, Satan, Cheney, Bush, Clinton, and many other workers of evil machinations are liberal alright, but it's obvious you don't understand plain and simple English, for I already more than sufficiently explained this.
Some employ the term neoliberal, but I don't know that people doing that would do it with regards to Satan, since he's been evil for AGES, pretty much countless ages. So people using 'neoliberal' might not want to include the 'neo' when referring to Satan's liberalism.
Of course he's liberal, but of course this is on the basis of religious beliefs of him having originally been an archangel in heaven. It's then very easy to see that he was liberal. The angels contrary to him and true to allegiance with God conserved this allegiance, while Satan broke the allegiance, liberally wanting to pretend that he was God's equal.
If you can't understand such simple logic, then it's probably because you're American and have become to molded to the reduced usage made of the term liberal in the USA.
When Jesus said to be careful about liberalism, thereby making it clear that he was warning that liberalism can be exaggerated or perverted and then dangerous, it is because this is indeed true about liberalism. But, and again, both liberalism and conservatism can be either good or bad; it depends on the application.
Wanting to restore Nature to a healthy and sustainable nature is conservatism, a very healthy and essential kind. Destroying Nature for profit and or any other reason when the destruction is of harmful kind or extent is a matter of being liberally uncaring towards both the environment and other people.
We can't be conservative about something that does not exist, but we can be liberal about it. Satan, again, is example of this. According to the Christian or (?) simply Biblical teaching on Satan, he was the very first to break allegiance from or with God; it was not something that existed before he committed this act. So he wasn't be conservative but liberal.
There are good, healthy examples of both liberalism and conservatism; and there are unhealthy to extremely unhealthy examples. Neither term inherently indicates what the related subject is. You have to examine that before being able to determine whether the subject is about a good or bad act.
You can liberally, i.e., freely, choose whether or not to be a healthy conservative, or an unhealthy, abusive, ... one.
You can liberally choose to disregard your fellow citizens and employ the H-1B, L-1 and TN-1 programs for importing foreign "temp" workers to not complement but REPLACE your fellow citizens; and many Americans have liberally made that very choice. Conversely, such people could instead opt to conservatively care for his or her fellow citizens and then not seek to REPLACE them when they will otherwise go bankrupt flat on their face.
Etc. It's all VERY SIMPLE, but a lot of Americans employing these terms have become molded to very restricted or reduced usage; they don't treat the terms with the full meanings they have.
Next time you want a break on a car deal, ask Satan, Cheney, Bush, or any other salesman.
The corporate media's obsession with religion creates a situation which makes the issue a liability. As one of the classic wedges (sex, race/ethnicity, age, religion, national identity), the religion wedge must cause the candidate to answer in the most encompassing way possible, or at least the most harmless. So what's a candidate to say? "I'm a secular humanist and conclude that religion has been responsible for far too much superstition, wars, fears, and bigotries -- and ought to go back to the dark ages wence it came?"
No, that sort of response just won't do, due to the framing of religion by corporate media. The president must wear two hats in their eyes -- the head of state, and head of church, a west hemisphere Vatican no doubt (but Protestant of course), but retaining all of the high corruption of the Church in the middle-ages.
As Hillary would say, "God bless America" (with an implied "but nobody else"). I never understood the national blessing. Their god is supposed to be the god of the entire planet, creator of all humans, Christian and non-Christian, and presided over an Earth which existed far longer without an America than with one. "God bless America" appeals to the most base, idolatrous, tribalist, and territorial churl even if one is a believer. Why not "God bless humanity"? Or as a bumpersticker I've seen states, "God bless the whole earth, no exceptions."
When are the true followers of Christ going to say, "Enough!" ? pwrmac5 asks.
My answer is simple: "We have".
Fascinating thread. Hat's off to EZEFLYER for his humor, added to HUB CAP. Some posters are so lost or limited by their own paradigm, they can't see outside it. And that's why I want to also salute the wisdom in the posting of LOGOS.NINE. That really sums it up. Reminds me of my favorite soul mate relationship with a brilliant attorney. Sometimes we'd take long road trips and I'd elaborate on my metaphysical beliefs and occasionally he'd tap my leg and say, "Good argument, counselor." Other times when I really believed in something he'd say of the whole theory, "Aren't these just stories we tell ourselves?" That about sums up the True point that we cannot know that which exists beyond our perceptual capacity to understand. As mortal beings we are not equipped to understand the Infinite. I enjoyed some of what Pastor had to say, but found it even more enlightening to see his points challenged by LOGUS.NINE.
From a political perspective, the main concern is the mis-use of religious doctrine to PROMOTE war. Is there anyone in this forum who does not recognize the extent to which Bush, arguably one of the most martial presidents in this nation's history at a time when A. weapons are at their most insidious/dangerous and B. we have entered a new millennium where it makes sense for mankind to learn the age-old lessons that will enable us to SHARE this planet and get along. The alternative is mutually assured destruction. When religion drives that engine, we MUST put the brakes on. As far as I am concerned, that is the crux of this discussion, or should be since in a very real way our lives depend upon re-establishing sanity! If the nation was not being led by a madman/team who either are deluded enough to believe the lie of Armageddon (which they are empowered to MAKE REAL) or merely using it to maintain a follower of authoritarian sheep... ultimately is immaterial, since the net result is the same: outright destruction of the Middle East with INEVITABLE blowback, karmic and terroristic, headed OUR way. "Whatsoever you do unto the least of these is done onto me." We must stop the madness!
The people who want power will use any doctrine they can to take power.
It could be christianity or any other religion, it could be racial superiority or nationalism, it could be atheism. Whatever people believe in would be used to gain power by the people seeking power.
Christianity has been used. Just as the US is being used.
The irony is that Christianity is a religion that should not take power and based upon Christ's life Christians should not be involved with killing or harming others.
The Christian religion has been perverted to suit the people who want to take power.
That America is a Christian nation is yet another of the lies we have been told.
Pastor -
I appreciate your contribution. It sounds like you're rooted in the New Testament's 'social gospel,' which I was implicitly referring-to in my posting, above. And so, I am looking for possible concourse between our seemingly different senses of such things.
But I don't understand your distinction between superstitition and religion, in your first paragraph.
You state that Superstition "...invoke[s] supernatural intervention in one's life...." and suggest this is not good.
Then, in conclusion, you distinguish Religion from Superstition as "...a system of worship designed to improve oneself through connection to others and the transcendent," -- affirming this as good.
Initially, you seem to be saying that you don't mean that the 'connection to the transcendant' requires acceptance of Christian doctrinal specifity, as to the Identity or Purpose of the transcendent.
Yet in your second paragraph, you seem to directly imply that your apprehension of the transcendent is rooted in the metaphysical claims of the Christian Bible, (which, then, would doctrinally require one's acceptance of the doctrinal superstitions you seem to be avering in the first paragraph -- would it not?)
If you are simply saying something like: The best and truest message for humanity has thus far come from a politically-progressive reading of the person-to-person concepts attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, I can understand that and agree with you.
If however you mean (also) that, therefore only Jesus's message is Divine --and that believing it to be so is equally-therefore no 'superstition,' -- I think there is, at least, a language-driven logical contradiction between what you say initially and what you say in conclusion.
Please believe my good will: I am not seeking to play logic/language games in responding to you. And in any case, you obviously needn't 'justify' what you feel or think, to me.
I'm simply trying to understand what you finally believe, vis-a-vis your several statements.
I think it's important that the progressive political thinkers, such as we see a lot-of on this website (and of which I'm one), not become too cockey about 'what we humans need or don't need to know,' as we try to fashion more humane institutions/human relations via politics.
But at the same time, I think that we have to resist our human tendency to sneak-in, through the back door, any reprise of doctrinal superstitions in the name of (however quite-needed) transcendent groundings.
This is more or less what the framers of USA's Constitution seemed to know: It's personally and politically disastrous (and provably in-error) to think and act as though we humans have no need to acknowledge that we didn't create ourselves. Thus our chartering documents (the Declaration, at least) posits a generalized Divinity - Jefferson's 'God of Nature.'
But the Framers also thought it even more disastrous to ground our collective political epistemology in the specifics of any denominationally-doctrinal metaphysical claims, such as the Christian Bible.
Language easily gets-in-the-way, here. But I think that people of good will have no trouble stepping around the encumbering words -- if they actually agree about where the line's to be drawn.
Drawing it politically must be strict, and kept so..
Drawing it culturally is and must remain an entirely separate sphere of concern and debate.
Regards.
The coming religious civil war in the USA can be avoided. What we can do and what we will do are still questions yet to be answered.
Locke is a very important thinker who no doubt influenced the founders and framers. However, ROGER WILLIAMS, who predates Locke by several decades, espoused "separation of church and state" and is in fact credited with coining that term.
I would like to offer my own definition of superstition and religion. Superstition is a system of beliefs designed to invoke supernatural intervention in one's life, for example divine blessing or eternal life. The Christian right clearly falls in this definition. Religion is a system of worship designed to improve oneself through connection to others and the transcendent.
In regards to the idea that the United States should be a purely secular nation without regards to religious influence, I would say that is a flawed thesis. We are already a secular nation with superstitious use of Christianity, according to my previous definition. The Right uses atheistic philosophies of Ayn Rand's objectivism and the neoconservative movement to justify behavior that is expressly anti-Biblical and the Christian tradition. I believe the country would be greatly improved if Biblical concepts of economic justice as espoused by Evangelical Jim Wallis and traditional concepts of Just War, long associated with Christianity, were returned to guide our political behavior.
"Something Unknown is doing we don't know what."
This was physicist Arthur Eddington's attempt to describe What or Whom created us. It's probably the only truthful statement about God any of us humans can make.
Humans obviously didn't create themselves or the universe -- but it's also obvious that no human knows-- for certain -- What or Who did.
Or The Purpose[s]of Creation.
So, we (gold-fish-in-the-cosmic-bowl humans) make-up metaphysical Identities and Purposes for Whatever/Whomever created us, because it's a way of trying to get a handle on the Incomprehensible -- much faster than anything 'Science' promises.
Some humans pretend 'doctrinal God knowledge' in order to dominate other humans; other doctrinal believers only use religion/metaphysics to ease human anguish and help themselves andothers to be mindful, decent, etc.
Many of us humans do both things, in desperate oscillations. We're scared of the bad stuff that Existence brings- and who's to blame us for that...?
But wouldn't we propser more, as collective creatures, if more of us were honest about what we don't know, and more actively-committed to what we do know?
I don't think we humans need to 'solve' God Metaphysics to build a just and decent society --we can't 'prove' metaphysical claims anyway --except maybe for Eddington's clever claim, above.
Wouldn't it be a deep-enough 'grounding' (for now), for us Earth creatures just to observe what produces love and beauty in ourseves, and between ourselves and others?
<>Do Unto Others... (cause what you give-out, tends to get returned to you, as a natural dynamic)
<>Care for the Earth life-systems that sustain all creaturely life(cause we'll likely poison ourselves, if we don't)
<>Stay mindful as possible, always, in all things (cause we have a lot of rough edges, as creatures, and unconsciousness - like metaphysical doctrines that demand mindless obediance - tend to bring-out our roughness)
I don't think we humans need Doctrinally-sealed, mepaphysically-verified God Proofs to make life on this planet better (we're never gonna get them, in any case!)
We just need some reliable, institutionalized decency, and a bottom-up culture that, person-to-person, reproduces sensitive awareness of others in each socialized/civilized individual -- principles that most major religions teach anyway, despite their useless, mutually-divisive theogonies....
This is too simple I suppose; not sexy enough, because: How, exactly, do we become this better Creature/make this Better World?
I don't know exactly, beyond inklings noted above. But I'm pretty sure we'll never get there by playing the proof game of My Favorite God.
Like Kurt Vonnegut said about endless metaphysical/theological debate: I've learned much more by watching a Laurel & Hardy marathon.
.
I feel sorry for those who spend their lives believing that they are going to get the Big Lotto Win In The Sky when they die.
I guess that when you're dead you don't feel disappointment and you can't sue for fraud.
And jesus said, "by your faith in me, today you will be with me in paradise". That is the only religion we need. To believe that Jesus died for our sins, for we are all sinners. Just accept that Jesus is the son of God and died for you and you will live forever, in peace too. No 60 or 70 virgns, but a wonderful home, as was this Earth when it was first settled by mankind.
I suppose that first, one must believe there is a God. To live in the wonder of nature, standing alone beneath the limbs of a giant redwood, sitting alone on a shore and watch the waves roll in and observe the wildlife, pick a wild fower in a green meadow and then take in the beauty of a flaming sunset. Lay out in the total darkness on a warm night and count the countless stars. That type of peace, may help one to wonder, and perhaps even believe, that there must be a God.
It is our perogitive to believe or not, and to believe or not, the words of Jesus Christ. If he is right, God help those, who refuse his simple and free offer.
Churches? Be wary, religions, be warier, preachers, know them by their deeds. The Holy Bible, take the good and leave the bad. All of Christ's saying are good. ___ Be good to your children, teach them to love life and one another, regardless of anothers race or gender or religion. For life is often short, seldom fair and often difficult. When it ends, is that really all there is? Wonder,__ wonder.
And if we are a Christian Nation, then exactly what kind?
A Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Pentecostal, Lutheran, Methodist, Snake handling, David Koresh, Episcopalian, Easter and Christmas Christian, Christian Bale, Christian Slater or Christian Science Nation?
Somebody call Rush Limbaugh or some Mega Church and set me straight!
mikecorbell said:
"Satan is the strongest religious example of liberalism..."
and
"Similarly, Cheney-Bush liberally rein hell on Earth on nations, peoples who were NO threat to the USA or anyone else. Similarly, Clinton liberally reined hell on Kosovo Yugoslavia. ETC."
Satan, Cheney, Bush and Clinton are liberals, eh? So what kind of deal can you give me on a used car?
I heard a sermon years ago at the unitarian church in Barnstable about the origin of the Mayflower Compact. It seems that about 15% of the original settlers were not believers but called "strangers" in the document. The success of colony was dependent on their participation so a mechanism had to be contrived to assure their consent and enthusiasm. If all of the settlers had been believers a compact or agreement would not have been necessary. For me, the experiment in self government begins with an understanding that disagreements must be dealt with in a transparent way with the safeguards of due process with no appeal to a shared deity. This is the basis of our government not the Ten Commandments.
"You may scoff all you want, but end time prophecies are being realized right here and right now"
It's true, there are fanatics in positions of power who are working diligently to bring about the end times to fulfill their insane interpretation of "prophecy".
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1009-20.htm
"People who are stupid enough to believe the Bible do not deserve the attention of thinking human beings, the least they could do is keep their stupidity at home and leave the rest of us in peace, religion is toxic and it has dome enough harm over the centuries it is time for it to be flushed down the toilet!"
AMEN!
You may scoff all you want, but end time prophecies are being realized right here and right now.
Probably the single most important factor in human intelligence (stop laughing) is pattern. Pattern is both the signal and the circuitry of our functioning minds.
The history of pattern as the master of our thoughts is the history of religion. The history of pattern as the slave of our thoughts is the history of science.
Sorry I got to this thread so late. Many thoughtful entries here, and that is the POWER of this site--the ability to present ideas, disagree, clarify, amplify and refine our mutual thinking skills. And this is the most threatening thing we can do at the present--THINK! But to do so clearly, both dispassionately and with great passion; willing to agree to disagree but still respect each other in the morning. If I only had one website to which I could connect, there's no contest--commondreams.org would certainly be the one.
While everyone is ranting about the origins of our form of "government" I'd like to propose that more of you become acquainted with the "Iroquois Constitution" and see of it rings any bells.
Amos, many thanx for your contribution of the Great One's teachings to this site. If more of us would simply follow His teachings, not as a religion, but as a philosophy and psychology, the world would be a much happier and positively oriented place. Peace is in your heart; do not let it be disturbed by your temporary foray into the dominant paradigm. Your Buddha-nature has been untouched, so be gentle on yourself. Master Chuck Blackburn
Sigma wrote "It IS interesting that the calls for religious freedom and religious moderation came from devout Christians".
Actually, people like Jefferson and Priestley were NOT devout Christians in the sense of accepting JC as their personal savior. They were "deists" or what we might now call "unitarian universalists". Jefferson famously wrote a version of the New Testament that took out all the miracles and the hocus-pocus and left only the moral teachings of Jesus. For years it was given to every new member of congress (in an odd twist).
So I disagree that the founders who fought for religious freedom were devout Christians.
However, we should not forget that, from the very start, our country has had a minority tradition of Christians who want to establish Christianity as the state religion. Their power has ebbed and flowed-- it was at a peak when they managed to get "In God We Trust" printed on our money about a century ago (it wasn't always there), and its at a peak again now. But eventually they are going to discover that the Republicans are using them-- most Republicans don't want to establish Christianity as the state religion, but they are not opposed to pandering to people who do want this. Eventually the fundies will realize that the Republicans will not go all the way with them.
.. reminds me of peace-and-justice progressives who think that the Democrats represent them. You are being used.
"Religion is the perversion of spirituality for the purpose of controlling the masses. In most religions the experiential nature of true spirituality is horded by the elite. The layperson of the religion must follow the teachings of the master, or rely on the priest to relate the will of GOD for their lives."
That's why I'm a Quaker. No mediators between us and the Light.
Nothing is real, not even the war. This arguing over whether or not the U.S. is a Christian nation is just another mind game. Reality just is - all this talk just covers it up.
All the bad stuff listed above is falsely attributed to Christians.
The Bible says we should judge others by their actions and that we in turn will be judged by the way we judge others.
People who claim to be Christian just want to give justification for their actions.
If this is a Christian nation, that religion needs to be abandoned. For shame!
Bobbi Dykema Katsanis,
I like how you think.
I love it when people agree with me:)).
Seriously I do believe people of faith have a right and responsibility to wrestle the mantle of Christ from the people who talk Jesus a lot but seem to be confused about what Christ said and did.
all the best
Ms Hamilton is apparently not only mistaken about the Justinian Code matter, as reader militantliberal commented, but Locke clearly was not about liberalism or libertarianism; he was religiously and, in all other senses, sanely conservative. He was clearly enough working to influence preservation of the very teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, who had LONG before commanded "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE". Locke wasn't inventing anything, and wasn't being contrary to Jesus; he was being conservatively Christian and otherwise humane.
It's not that Jesus was not humane, for he most definitely was, but not everyone is Christian, so I add the reference of also humane.
It is awfully common today for people to praise liberalism as if it's to be worshipped, yet it is something that Jesus warned to be very careful about; in the sense that liberalism can definitely be dangerous. And Satan is the strongest religious example of liberalism within, minimally anyway, Christian faith. He liberally transgressed God's Way, and has conserved his liberal choice ever since. Metaphor, or otherwise, that is part of true Christian Scripture.
Similarly, Cheney-Bush liberally rein hell on Earth on nations, peoples who were NO threat to the USA or anyone else. Similarly, Clinton liberally reined hell on Kosovo Yugoslavia. ETC. What's being conserved in that? Nothing, well, nothing worthwhile anyway; while evil, yes. What's being liberal in that? Committing evil how ever the hell you please. Evil is liberal as HELL, hellishly liberal; and then, because it refuses to correct itself, it conserves its hellbent liberalism.
People have an awful way of using language; ignorantly. Americans do not generally have a clue about what being conservative and liberal mean. Both can be good, and both can be evil; only the application, of either, or both, indicates whether we have good or evil.
And it's NOT Locke who called himself liberal, but some afterwards idiot, the "renowned historian C. Vann Woodward", who evidently did not understand what it means to be liberal. Locke was conservative religiously and socially. Religiously, he spoke to conserve true Christian teaching and way; while socially, he spoke to conserve the rights of ALL, and in a manner that was conservatively according to his religious faith, and actual Scripture.
Woodward was not very adept with vocabulary. And MOST Americans today are no better. Conservative, Liberal, right, left, people using these terms are all idiots; I'm both conservative and liberal, liberally conservative, conservatively liberal, and try to keep the whole matter BALANCED, FAIR, sound, sane. And my right and left never argue; they're complementary parts of my physiology, than you very much.
People should come up with better political references, rather than using terminology that is pure nonsense, infantile. Right and left; who cares? Those terms mean NOTHING; unless you're right- or left-handed in terms of dexterity, f.e. And then it only matters to you, individually.
Don't leave it up to people who define dictionaries, for these are often enough GOOF matter. We see that with French dictionaries, f.e.; spelling and phoenetics, so pronunciation, too often do NOT match. That sort of nonsense only happens because pin-heads are allowed to decide what dictionaries consist of.
Anyway, Locke wasn't being liberal; only conserving true Christian teaching and applying it in a way that socially respects human rights; acceptable differences that do not harmfully impact society, and which is not liberalism but simply sanity. You can liberally deny human rights being respected, and only once this process is set can you then choose to conserve such injustice.
You need the liberal break from just rule first. After all, you can't conserve what does not exist, first.
It's a simple illustration of how STUPID people ARE. I wonder if they can tie their shoe laces yet at age 25 and more. Trick; buy loafers. That way you can fool people.
Politically reactionary Catholicism in the US was tottering from 1958 to 1978, and was given a new lease on life through John Paul II, who supported the human rights of those in the Soviet bloc, but hostile to them where the Church hierarchy was receptive to revolutionary influences. To the horror of reactionary Catholics, he was deeply opposed to using warfare, especially nuclear devices & their threat, in the confrontation with the USSR; but the effect of his pontificate in the US was to unify the Biblical Christian fascists with the Catholic variety heavily involved in the CIA & the military, and who always have looked to Franco as a fine example of a Christian social commander.
The pressure against liberation comes from the bottom up from Protestants, and from the top down among Catholics. They were able to become friends in agreeing to maintain the ancient anti-female prescriptions of the Hebrew scriptures. There is no liberative power at all in those scriptures; neither the liberation theologians nor the feminist theologians who try to extract some inspiring form of the stories grasp that those scriptures will always give birth to genocide, however filtered through the Beatitudes or through later political-economic analyses. Their ideal is always that of sheep being shepherded, and the character & origin of the shepherds is utterly beyond the point: thoss who have shepherds will always go to the shearer & the slaughterhouses.
Long mostly interesting discussion. I thank COLLEEN for pointing out the BEAUTIFUL TEACHINGS of John Dear; and I applaud BOBBI DYKEMA for his/her faith and commitment to practicing the IDEALS taught by a MAster. However, with that being said, JOHN FREEMAN makes an important point, which is substantiated by the HISTORY LESSON shared by DEEPA and the FACTS stated by J. Conrad.
There will always be GOOD SOULS born in EVERY religion, it's kind of like DENNIS inside the Democratic party. But religion, like an established party, sets limitations due to the human folly and agenda of its "leaders." When religion is USED to foment aggression and KILL then it has a BIG credibility problem insofar as religion was NOT designed for that purpose. THAT is my beef with this whole thing. It's true that the US military is pushing a Christian agenda. This uniting of martial force with aggression is chilling, and any thinking person must ask why this darkest of human impulses again runs rampant when theoretically for all our civilization, education, history lessons and purported advances, this same DISGUSTING DIABOLICAL outcome recurs? I think religions work on their followers to maintain strict demarcations that work well when it's time for one region to desire the resources of another. Religion becomes a very effective playing card when division is the goal. Also, when people are made to believe they are killing for god (the ultimate blasphemy and one popularized across history) it's doubtful they'd ever fight more passionately & viciously. So dear contributors to the forum, it's like this: "Houston. We have a problem!"
Yes, Amos, those are the major tenets of Buddhism--or at least the original ideas of a guy who was called later The Buddha. But, y'know, not many Buddhists and Buddhist leaders actually practice what they preach--other than the "it's your fault" doctrine, commonly called Karma (when, in fact, karma is a verb). Just look at the massive wars in China and Japan and the means of the present Lamas in gaining power during the Ming Dynasty. (The present Dalai Lama is/was a paid CIA agent--does that follow Buddhist Canon?)
Plato made the comment--and I write it freely--when the printed word comes, forgetting how to think will also come. (actually, he said we'd lose our memories--not too different, actually: in order to think, we must use our memories)
Also, Amos, dogma is not religion. Indeed, it is not thought.
So, your thesis is akin to a collandar. As is most religious posturing via doctrine/dogma.
What we need to do is get beyond these peculiarities and deal with questions of intolerance and violence--as well as the ethics presented to the populaces of places as being acceptable. Power? Incompetence? Fear?
I think Wilhelm Reich noted that all religion is fascist in nature: MY way is THE RIGHT way. Isn't it interesting, then, that Shakyamuni is credited with saying, "My way is not the only way" but his followers dogmatically imitate? Krishnamurti said imitation is not knowledge.
We need to think. . .
Religion is the perversion of spirituality for the purpose of controlling the masses. In most religions the experiential nature of true spirituality is horded by the elite. The layperson of the religion must follow the teachings of the master, or rely on the priest to relate the will of GOD for their lives.
Religion is fundamentally evil! Even when used to promote good it is still evil because it insists that there is only one way, and that the leaders of said religion are the keepers of divine knowledge.
It is all hogwash. The only valid spiritual practice is one that provides tools for the individual to experience the divine on an individual basis.
Religion has no place in government, and in my opinion no valid place in modern society!
123
To me, spirituality is the part of me that is the connection to a power greater than myself and hence to all of you. Religion on the other hand, is the business of controlling and fleecing the masses. There are do doubt some bits of truth in all the versions, though at the end of the day, the truth is perverted and written by flim-flam men to suit each personal agenda.
ezeflyer
"but superstitious values and beliefs always accompany religion"
I think religion and superstition and science all came out of an attempt to understand our world and it is based in fear and curiosity. Probably much of it is based in a fear of death and the unknown as you also acknowledged.
I think the people who were executed by the religious authorities had themselves a religious view. Imo it was not religion which caused the deaths, but another force that hides behind religion and uses views of God as ways to gain power.
Neolithic humans had burials where food and flowers were placed in with the deceased. Somehow I find that touching. But anyway, I don't know that we know any more now about why we are here or what happens after death than the early humans knew and I think we feel the same emotions as they felt. (Now is that a religious belief? I have no proof that we feel the same emotions.)
What is a Christian Nation ? Actions speak louder than words recited from a holy book. Christians perpetuated a racist genocide against Native Americans. Christians enslaved and brutalized Africans for centuries. The Klu Klux Klan are Christians. Christians dropped atomic weapons on Japanese civilians. Christians killed about two Million Vietnamese. Christians are now killing Iraqis for their oil as if they were not part of the human race. These are only a few examples. Recently a self-professed Christian said to me, "how many Muslims are there in the world, about a billion, do you think we can kill them all ?". Ann Coulter ranted , "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." And ironically, someone from the Pentagon once said, "they hate us because we are a Christian nation."
The Great Binding Law, Gayanashagowa, of the Iroquois Nation, was a source of much inspiration to the authors of the Constitution.
"dlnelson7 August 7th, 2007 12:02 pm
I am as frightened if not more by Christians than I am of Muslims only because of the Christians that live in the out-of-control US who are pushing their agendas."
UNDERSTANDABLE, given you live in the USA; but elsewhere, it's often a different reality. Christianity is NOT perfect everywhere else, but it's particularly bad in the USA, and everywhere else that I am aware that there's badness, it seems to be always descendants of Euro's. F.e., for the indigenous peoples of South and North America, as well as Australia, and surely other places, it's descendants of invading and conquering, genociding, etc., Euro's who are the problem.
"newordan August 7th, 2007 12:12 pm
For another insight into how the founding fathers felt about the separation of church and state, see the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli which was ratified by the U.S. on June 10, 1797.
Article 11 begins ..."
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Treaty+of+Peace+and+Friendship
"mirf59 August 7th, 2007 12:29 pm
Fantastic essay. The first two sentences of the Locke Letter on Toleration contain the key:
...
Since power is the ruling force of politics, Christianity as a tool within political circles is an instrument used to acquire or advance power. The Gospel unequivocally celebrates service and condemns the lust for power, so in many ways the pursuit of power through politics is the polar opposite of Christianity.
..."
I didn't read the whole of that post, only about half of it, and it's clearly sound, of good mind. Definitely accurate from what I read of the post.
"Vern August 7th, 2007 12:35 pm
Even earlier;
Code of Hammurabi ..."
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Code+of+Hammurabi
"sigma August 7th, 2007 12:50 pm
It IS interesting that the calls for religious freedom and religious moderation came from devout Christians. No other religion that I know of produced people in power calling for understanding and FULL rights for those of another faith. ..."
I DO NOT think that that is wholly true. I think there are other people of other religions that called for understanding .... Consider the First Nations Peoples of North America, F.E. They were fully gracious, helpful towards the newcomer Europeans, helping them to survive and accepting to befriend these foreigners of definitely different religious beliefs. And then the "Christian" newcomers and their future generations committed 97-98% genocide of the First Nations Peoples here; while the FNP fought in DEFENCE against this major or murderous aggression.
And we find examples among other peoples of our world, including Islamic. Not all Muslims live according to the same set of beliefs, or principles, but Christians sure don't have any basis for preaching about this; and Jesus of Nazareth warned sternly enough about the many FALSE PROPHETS and therefore preachers, ministers who'd use his name in wholly contrary, hypocritical, hegemonic, ... ways. He sure wasn't mistaken about that.
In Hinduism, when we look at the true, core, original religion, wherein it is demythologized and pure, we find a religion of peace, justice, love, and plenty of similarity with Jesus of Nazareth's teachings and ways. And that's of course normal, for Jesus lived as a human being, and taught for human beings. Krishna was human being!
We have those similarities across all peoples of our world, and we find false and malicious prophets across all peoples of our world. I wonder why. Oh, it's because we're all human beings; and there are very malicious as well as good-willed or -natured ones amongst us all. Heh, it's human reality.
"andrewr August 7th, 2007 1:06 pm
Many codes of laws predate christianity and Moses. Most banned killing. And yet the christians would have the 10 commandments carved in stone outside court houses .... ..."
Yes, and because many Christians want to make up their own religious rules; while Jesus said "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, S.V.P.!".
That is what is evidently going on with many who profess to be Christian; they make up their own replacement rules and beliefs. A few relatively, more-or-less, though not equally, minor and strictly religious examples are the references of Mother of God for blessed Mary of Nazareth, the mother of Jesus, and Jesus as God; and then the pope referred to as, yuck, Holy Father.
For true Christians, there is NO Mother of God, for true Christians are monotheistic. If I need to say more on that, then it'd evidently do not good anyway.
For true Christians, Jesus is NOT God but Brother, and sent by God, The Father; therefore, Jesus is not God. If I need to say more to explain, then ... it'd likely not do much good anyway.
As for Holy Father for popes, it's ANTI-Jesus and -Scripture. A woman approached Jesus calling him 'good', and he told her to cease doing that, to reserve this reference for only God The Father who had sent Jesus to teach and show the way to God (a lot of similarity in that with Krishna, but we can also say with plenty of other humans of very good nature, character).
Once Jesus died and ascended to heaven, he became good alright, for all who are in heaven have to be good. There are some very serious 'bouncers' there; while the non-bounced being in God's presence are rendered holy, as long as they don't transgress against God's Way, and which is LOVE.
So referring to popes as holy while they are still alive is NONSENSE, infantile nonsense. But, and minimally, MOST popes are also far from fatherly in ANY sense of the term. If a religious minister or any person caring for others is fatherly enough in character, then calling that person 'father' is humanly understandable; but when it comes to Christian religious faith, there is only one father, God the Father. Again, Jesus said that he's Brother, and NO pope is above him.
Yet if a minister is elderly and has LONG been referred to as 'Father ...', then I certainly won't make a case of this. It's off-base, but not a major matter.
A lot of people who profess to be Christian distort the true faith; no longer living according to what Jesus of Nazareth taught and showed or illustrated. They refuse to [carefully] pay attention to him. It's almost is if some of these people want to diminish his presence as the Primary Teacher of the faith, to replace him; almost, if not entirely or definitely.
Following that guideline permits realisation that apostle Paul was mistaken ... a number of times. And Jesus never said that apostles would be perfect in their ministry; he actually provided proof that we should not expect such perfection, that we should be on our guard for the imperfections. There are a number of instances in which the first apostles were shown to be ... not Jesus, anyway.
One example is with a parabole of Jesus with a few apostles and about the question of discernement, but it's a parabole that the church long enough ago disappeared; although not everyone has been left ignorant. It was no longer in the Bible, but I was fortunate to learn of this through some honest Franciscans who placed their primary [focus] on Jesus. And the parabole is one of the very few that Jesus answered or provided a full explanation for. He did not do that with MOST of the recorded paraboles; only with a few.
The explanation that he provided is very anti-imperialistic church, religion, faith; being, instead, of universal scope in terms of ... like, ALL OF HUMANITY IS GOD'S HUMAN FAMILY ON EARTH. That is what the parabole reduces to for teaching, and it's clearly not what an imperialistically (and capitalistically) run church would want.
What was Jesus' reply after two apostles got their answers wrong and the third in line decided it was better to just ask for the answer? Jesus said that we know we have real discernement when we can look at our fellow neighbour, human being, and truly perceive the presence of God in that person; and this was not a Christian, etc., neighbour, but simply neighbour.
Know what? This planet is one serious neighbourhood. What? Well, isn't it something like around 25,000 miles in circumference?
Your neighbour is your fellow human being, I figure; and there are 6bn+ of us on this planet today. It's just that some neighbours are more remote while others are more proximate; but we're all neighbours inhabiting the same neighbourhood, and "she" is called Earth.
I did an Internet search for that parabole, and it's not found; and it also wasn't in the RC Bible that we used back in the early 1980s; but Franciscans I knew knew of this forgotten and hidden history,and they graciously educated me.
Once a person of good will reads the parabole, we then can't but realise that its illustration of God's universal love for humanity is anything other than MUST BE TRUE; it has to be. God is not of hein but of LOVE, and for ALL of humanity; although He surely doesn't like evil, so those committing and supporting evil, particularly when it is wittingly done, now He has a bit of a problem with these people. And appearances cannot deceive Him; there is NO way to deceive Him, but some people evidently believe that they can do otherwise. Foolish is that.
God is of universal love and sure does not speak only through people who profess to be Christian. He can speak, and has spoken, through people of good will regardless of their temporal-life religious beliefs. NO ONE can limit God and the ways in or through which He works.
Thus, we should realise that under God, WE HAVE A COMMON HUMANITY alright; instead of living our lives in prejudicial ways. God is not prejudicial. He has His principles, but they are of love, NOT hein, bigotry, etc. He SEES ALL that is innocent, and understands us all like NO other persons can.
And Christians should wisely realise that if not born in and raised by Christian professing parents or families, then we would be like all who do not profess to be Christian. We'd be of other faiths or atheism, depending on the families in which we're born in and raised by. That's not an absolute, but would surely apply in general terms.
Would God love us less? Definitely NOT.
God speaks and acts through whomever He wishes, and it is always WISELY, and with love. There is nothing that is more wise than real love. Wisdom and love come and go hand-in-hand.
NO ONE can limit God. Try as much as you wish, but no one can. God's love is limitless, if not offended, transgressed; and material wealth matters NOT to Him. He SEES REAL wealth, which is soul matter; not material. But He's surely not happy with the corporate and governmental destruction, pillaging, pollution of our world, for He knows very well the impact these acts have on the humanity that He loves.
God can be offended? Yes; and I had a "little" experience in this regard.
And God does NOT micro-control us. It's why we have (some) goofy doctrines, f.e. They're NOT of Him, but given that He is not about to ever start to micro-control us, letting us live and act freely, we have goofy humans who concoct goofy doctrines, laws, etc. If He was to do otherwise, then we would be DE-humanized, which is contrary to God's Way. To love and receive love in return requires not control, domination over others, but freedom; giving up freedom means giving up true love. Doing that would be contrary to God's Way.
That, however, needs to be understood in a sanely balanced way. Psychopaths and sociopaths, f.e., need to be stopped, but that is OUR responsibity. God won't fill in for our lacunes; we need to see to our social responsibilities. Abuses are to be stopped. And what is that, if not a matter of being [responsible]? God certainly wants us to be responsible; it goes hand-in-hand with having moral individual conscience. Having individual conscience is one thing, but if it's immoral, then that person must be prevented from harming others; and that is society's responsibility.
God will not de-responsibilize us, for that would be to de-humanize us, etc.
["INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE IS PRIMORDIAL"] is fitting and may be the most brilliant thing Thomas of Aquinas ever said or wrote. I appreciate that he did, for it's an [essential] principle, and is wholly humanizing. The church adopted this principle, which Thomas did not invent but first wrote down, at least in these specific words; but the church does not adequately live up to this. The church too much is imperialistic, which is contrary to being a truly Christian church. Thomas did not invent the principle, for we find evidence of it being part of humanity long before him; it's just that he finally put it down in written and simple, succinct words.
They still need to be understood in the aforementioned sense though, for society needs to be responsible, we can't allow psychopaths and sociopaths to harm other people. So in those few words that Thomas wrote, we need to realise that he's talking about [moral] conscience. He was not meaning to say that psychopaths and sociopaths are to be freely allowed to act.
Anyway, if a person is of good will, then it does not really matter what religious faith that person professes to believe in; being of good will alone will help that person find his or her way to God. It's in the soul, the soul senses Goodness of the God kind, but the person just isn't sure quite what to believe, precisely. We mustn't forget that we are only human.
Jesus said, in the Sermon on the Mount, "Blessed be the peace makers" and "... people of good will", all without specifying anything about which religion these people will be from or of; only saying 'peace makers' and 'people of good will'. He did not qualify that with the attribute of being 'Christian' or 'Jew'. And the same applies when he said to love our neighbours as we do ourselves; there was no religious specificity in this.
If it had been the contrary, then it would have been contrary to LOVE. And there surely can't be a higher commandment from God than to love. After all, it IS what He IS.
That's wherein the parabole of turning swords, i.e., weapons, into ploughshares is wonderful. Without love, there is and will be no peace, and if we have peace, then we will have love; for hatred, heinousness always interrupts, disturbs, destroys relationship of loving peace. If we have the latter, then we have justice. Love, peace, justice, they are inseparable; they come and go hand-in-hand. Yet, love is principal, for even when peace and justice are absent, we still have people forgiving the perpetrators. Why? Love is the only real answer.
However, if love is respected by all parties, then we will have peace and justice. So it is likely more precise to say that peace and justice come and go hand-in-hand, while love remains above both.
Jesus did not love what the crucifiers, ..., did to him, but he religiously or spiritually loved them enough to pray for them to be forgiven by God the Father. Peace and justice were absent, but he still loved enough to pray for these wrong-doers.
And I'm sure that plenty of Iraqis who've been tortured, brutalised, and killed in this present war, Palestinians, Africans, and so on, have also not really wished the perpetrators ill will at all. Jesus did not live a life to be distinct from us, but to instead be one with us; and that really would be a true God's Will and Way, for God most definitely understands us FULLY.
It most surely is not for no reason that Jesus said that he is Brother. Taken to its full extent, it means a LOT.
And only the self-righteous do not understand. He came as human because God loves humanity and needed to related to humanity in terms that humanity could [really] understand; plain and simple.
Of course, this is all based on the assumption that Christian, as well as Islamic, belief in Jesus is true. It is what I believe though.
Yes, plenty of Muslims evidently know of Jesus very well. They know more of him than many who profess to be Christian do; I've found anyway. Sharia Muslims, however, now they're religiously deviant with their wicked laws; but there surely are Shia Muslims who also don't agree with such laws, only not being able to eliminate them. And that's something MOST of us clearly should be able to relate to, for we're all STUCK with madness(es). The US govt(s) put(s) people to death UNACCEPTABLY, and has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and many of the incarcerated should have never been criminalized to begin with, for no real crimes were even committed.
There's good and bad "ALL OVER THE PLACE".
Make love, peace, justice your way, and you will then find that you can find friends also among all peoples. Live freely and allow others their freedom; except for psychopaths and sociopaths, f.e.
Religion, i.e., individual relationship with God, must be also rooted in our humanity. We are not angels; we are human beings.
I remember a funny story about my aunt. She is a lesbian and not very religious. Those two don't seem to go hand-in-hand nowadays, if ever. I was confused one day when she was walking around wearing a t-shirt that said "God save me..." on the front. It made sense once I saw that the back of the shirt said "..from Your followers."
The Puritans landed at Plymouth Rock, which was not their intended port of entry. They were about three hundred miles north of their Pre-planned site. Butttt, they had run out of beer and had to make shore to brew some. [That is a fact BTW.] Europeans did not drink water, it wasn't safe in Europe at the time, kinda like it is here now. The French drank wine and the swine from other countries drank beer. Their kids drank 3.2 beer.
Sooo,___ our first Bible thumpers, were a bunch of boozers, who after settling in, had built a church, some houses and planted crops, including hops, started spreading their word. First, they pissed off the Indians and then started burning the gals with the smallest boobs at the stake, while singing Onward Christian Soldiers without smiling. They were serious Christians who took their beliefs very seriously.
Later on, the bad guys in England who dank beer but didn't thump Bibles, were banished to Australia for punishment. A funny world isn't it? Thank goodness, we learned how to get re-born and quit being sadistic morons and learned to be nice to one another,__ like Bush did.
What worries me is that the US Air Force, top down, is full of warrior christians who desire a theocratic nation. As our liberties slip away, I sometimes think of the Air Force and all it's flying war machines.
As a long-time admirer of Roger Williams, I was disappointed not to see his name mentioned in this otherwise fine essay nor in the comments. Many historians point to Williams as the first person to formulate the idea of separation of church and state. Without denigrating John Locke's considerable influence on the founders, it's highly unlikely that Locke, William's junior by 29 years, was unfamiliar with William's extensive writings.
Craig Nelson's recent biography of Thomas Paine notes that the "Rhode Island founder and clergyman Roger Williams, banished from the Calvinist Bible Commonwealth, wrote in 1643 that there needed to be 'a wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world,' and by the world he meant government."
The historian Bancroft states that "Williams was the first person in modern Christendom to establish civil government on the doctrine of the liberty of conscience, the equality of opinions before the law."
In the words of another writer, William's "little state, Rhode Island became the asylum of the oppressed, and it increased and prospered until its foundation principles -- civil and religious liberty -- became the cornerstones of the American Republic." In his book, Forty Centuries of Law and Liberty, Varner
J. Johns states " Roger Wiliiams was the trail blazer for the men who framed the American Constitution."
Fortunately, we had men like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison who promulgated these ideas.
People who are stupid enough to believe the Bible do not deserve the attention of thinking human beings, the least they could do is keep their stupidity at home and leave the rest of us in peace, religion is toxic and it has dome enough harm over the centuries it is time for it to be flushed down the toilet!
at its roots, it's about pyschology, not religion. Check out "The Authoritarians," Professor Bob Altemeyer's research, posted on the web. What we're seeing is the 25% or so of the population that believes in rigid hierarchy running amok. Go on, give it a google. John Dean used his research for his book Conservatives without Conscience.
Religion is the perversion of spirituality for the purpose of controlling the masses. In most religions the experiential nature of true spirituality is horded by the elite. The layperson of the religion must follow the teachings of the master, or rely on the priest to relate the will of GOD for their lives.
Religion is fundamentally evil! Even when used to promote good it is still evil because it insists that there is only one way, and that the leaders of said religion are the keepers of divine knowledge.
It is all hogwash. The only valid spiritual practice is one that provides tools for the individual to experience the divine on an individual basis.
Religion has no place in government, and in my opinion no valid place in modern society!
I would include Marxist/Leninism as a state sponsored "religion" that has no place in government. Thankfully, over half of the former marxist countries have ditched that odious faith.
John Dear is a Jesuit preist who has written about the combining of Buddhism and Christianity. (And there have been scandals with Buddhism too. Nothing is perfect.)
Dear also has had articles here at CommonDreams.
This one of them:
http://www.thinkingpeace.com/pages/articles.html
Pharisee Nation...(some quotes)
"As I travel the country speaking out against war, injustice and nuclear weapons, I see many people consciously siding with the culture of war, choosing the path of violence, supporting corporate greed, rampant militarism, and global domination. I see many others swept up in the raging current of patriotism. Since most of these people, beginning with the president, claim to be Christian, I am ashamed and appalled that they support war and systemic injustice, that they do it in the name of God, and that they feign fidelity to the nonviolent Jesus who gave his life resisting institutionalized injustice."
"I used to think these all-American Christians never read the Gospel, that they simply chose not to be authentic disciples of the nonviolent Jesus. Now, alas, I think they have indeed chosen discipleship, but not to the hero of the Gospels, Jesus. Instead, through their actions, they have become disciples of the devout, religious, all-powerful, murderous Pharisees who killed him."
"Now these so-called Christians run the American empire, and teach a subtle spirituality of empire to back up their power in the name of God. This spirituality of empire insists that violence saves us, might makes right, war is justified, bombing raids are blessed, nuclear weapons offer the only true security from terrorism, and the good news is not love for our enemies, but the elimination of them. The empire is working hard these days to tell the nation--and the churches--what is moral and immoral, sinful and holy."
This is very strong stuff, so of course John Dear has been ignored by the main stream media, but imo
John Dear is a Christian.
If the issue of religion and government is important to you, read "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris. He discusses the adverse impact that all religions have on mankind's chances for surviving in the modern era.
Thanks entelechy and colleen:
colleen said:
I'll give a shot at it :)
"Superstition is a primitive form of science without carefully used cause and effect and without scientific method."
I think science became science when the scientific method was invented. Before that it was alchemy, science's antecedent with a big dose of superstition. So yeah, I guess I agree with you there.
"Religion is a philosphical basis for values and beliefs that can not be decided using scientific method. For example: Another human being is of value by virtue of being a human being. That shared humanity makes the other significant."
Philosophical plays on words are part of religion that may not accompany superstition, but superstitious values and beliefs always accompany religion. So religion did not arise independently of superstition but is its fruition. Being the ruling factor in primitive societies, superstition was used in a social context that included human values, creating religion.
"Sometimes there is superstition in religion, but the basis for religion is not the superstition but the philosphical views of how the world is formed or constructed. Religion will probably have a moral code and a set of beliefs but may not have a belief in a deity to be a religion."
The philosophical views of the world back then, practically indistinguishable from its superstitious views, caused theocrats to execute a few early scientists. Religion as superstition matured and developed moral codes as it grew and took on social perspectives.
Most religions have a deity with some small exceptions like Buddhism which is more a way of life than a religion. But if we also define superstition as a reaction to fear of the unknown, all religions harbor superstitious beliefs in an afterlife or in reincarnation as a response to that fear. Maybe religion is nothing more than superstition with a social bent.
Jeff M,
I like your idea of letting the theocrats have a few states to call their own, the better to leave the rest of us alone. I have harbored a similar fantasy for some time. Since I live on the west coast, I've always thought it would be nice if everybody west of the Cascades and Sierra Nevadas just cut loose from the rest of the nation and became the sort of peaceful egalitarian hippie zone that Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, and Humboldt County have longed to be, and the theocrats and gun nuts who at the moment have such disproportionate influence in their respective states could keep eastern Washington, Oregon & northern California -- but no nukes, and they'd have to surrender all weapons at the border, including nail clippers, if they wanted to visit.
In a more serious vein, I think it would be a good idea for the US, which is a large, unwieldy nation, to devolve into more local and sustainable economies and governance. Every state or region (where a state is comprised of two or more wildly different ecosystems, like California) should be transitioning toward a food economy where at least 75% of the food consumed within the state or region's borders is grown there. The average American's contribution to global warming is more heavily weighted by his or her consumption of food grown with massive petroleum inputs (not just fuel but pesticides and chemical fertilizers also) and trucked or transported by train over huge distances (and the transporters get a tax write-off for this, so that local produce often can't compete).
This may seem kind of off-topic, but as a Christian who takes God's creation seriously, I think how we treat the earth and how we feed ourselves ARE religious issues: the vision of justice in the words of the Old Testament prophet Micah (not one you'll hear quoted a lot among fundie Xians) is every person content under their own vine and fig tree. Sounds good to me. (The other gem from Micah is "What does the Lord require of you? To do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God." I believe that this verse, and Jesus' commandments to care for the needy in Matthew 25, are the TRUE test of whether someone is actually a Christian, or just a loudmouth.)
peace out
bdk
lillulu, that's right about buddhism. christianity is for the most part, not loving that i can see, but then it's book doesn't promote that much love, especially the old testament. i used to be a christian then deconverted so i know this is NOT a christian nation
Thank you to those of you who have pointed out the difference between conservative (reactionary) fundamentalist American Christians and other kinds, especially those who mentioned Archbishop Desmond Tutu and other true and courageous followers of Christ. Too often I have found a glaring ignorance coupled with the most unapologetic contempt for people of faith emanating from the blogosphere of the Left. As one poster pointed out above, 90% of the world is religious and that is not likely to change. Many Christians and other people of faith share progressive values, believing that Jesus meant it when he commanded us to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and visit those who are sick and in prison (and, I believe, ask WHY there are so many hungry and homeless so as to address the root causes).
To the list of courageous Christians seeking justice and peace I would add Jim Wallis, who has been tirelessly circling the country trying to wake up his fellow Christians (evangelicals, yet!) to the fact that there are 3,000 verses in the Bible that deal with poverty (mostly prophets foretelling doom if the Israelites didn't start taking better care of their widows and orphans) and about six that deal with homosexuality (about which Jesus was entirely silent). Since Wallis's crusade (unfortunate word in some respects, I know) I have seen the number of MSM references to religion start to include those who are not in the fundamentalist mode, and more calls for Christian responses to the evils of poverty, war, and environmental degradation, including climate change.
Some Christians in very high places, such as James Dobson of Focus on the Family, have chosen to ally themselves with power rather than keep to their Teacher's words. This is unfortunate, but not unprecedented. The entire history of Christianity, beginning with Constantine in the early 4th century, has been chockablock with Christians selling out what are supposed to be their true values (justice, peace, mercy) and climbing into bed with power. And many so-called "Christians" in the US are among the 29% who still favor GWB (hard to believe that anybody does) because they see him as a "good Christian leader" (read: someone who will put on a good show of trying to recriminalize abortion, and also possibly bring about Armageddon by starting the third world war in the Middle East). Anything that might disabuse them of this quaint perception is utterly ignored and heaped with abuse. (So much for "the truth shall set you free... ")
But I believe it would be to the mutual benefit of progressives and progressive Christians to find ways to listen to one another and work together. Martin Luther King Jr. accomplished great inroads in racial justice out of his deep and passionate faith. People of faith, like any other people, are capable of great and selfless good as well as heinous and selfish evil.
Having been deeply religious in the past, and always having struggled to let go of religious "faith" because of the idealism and belief in the overriding power of kindness, love and charity that I gained from it, I've found the following documentary to be the best explanation yet for why religion is not what I thought it was .... it also goes on to show the control that the large banking families have on the world. Quite an eye opener and thought provoking explanation of the history of religion and how the traditions originated:
http://www.homepagedaily.com/Pages/article-zeitgeist-movie.aspx
I'd welcome any other useful tools for education that I can use on my blog A Year In A Day - www.stoplaughing.com.au/wordpress
I am a Christian.
By that I mean I strive, however imperfectly, to emulate the life and teachings of Jesus Christ in my daily life.
I am also a proud Socialist.
I feel that the values and aspirations of democratic socialism are not only compatible with, but embody much of what Christ taught us.
I also believe strongly in the separation of church and state.
I am totally mystified as to why any person of faith would think otherwise.
ESPECIALLY CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS who demonise government at every turn.
That they, of all people, should want ANYONE other than themselves having a role in their worship baffles me.
Unless of course one acknowledges the obvious.
Those people oppose democracy and freedom.
They prefer Theocracy.
I support a national referendum whereby would be theocrats are allowed to pick a couple or more states and those that wished to could emigrate there.
Let them establish a theocracy and run their country as they see fit. I am totally serious here.
I'd like to hear any serious comments on this.
Or not so serious comments, come to think of it:)
all the best
Intolerant? Arrogant? Unforgiving? Hypocritical? Murderers? Torturers? Misogynists? Hmmm, yes I would say America is very much a Christian nation...and Muslim...and Jewish...and...
What's the dfference?
This is from 2002:
http://www.warc.ch/update/up122/index.html
"As United Church of Christ leaders committed to God's reign of justice and peace in the world and to the just conduct of our nation, we firmly oppose this advance to war."
"Rather than lining nations up against an 'axis of evil', our nation should engage in honest and open consultation with parties around the world and especially in the Middle East to seek a non-military solution to the threat that Iraq may pose. That solution should begin with ending economic sanctions, which have only strengthened Iraq's leader while weakening its people."
"Mainstream US church leaders are surprisingly unanimous in what they say about war against Iraq, and surprisingly ready to criticize the policies of their country's government."
"Leading the charge is the United Methodist Church. "President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are members of our denomination," says Jim Winkler, staff head of the UMC's church and society board. "Our silence now could be interpreted as tacit approval of war."
etc...
but the msm ignored this condemnation of the coming Iraq War by major churches.
methinks you are far too generous to Locke. After all, he was the author of the 1669 Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina which allowed no one to reside as freeman who did not acknowledge a God and worship him publicly (Ninety-six), and established the Church of England (Ninety-seven). Now granted, Jefferson and the others were looking at later works of Locke, but had the Lord's proprietor and the successor governments strictly followed what Locke had suggested, the freedom of religion which was somewhat enjoyed by the residents, to the point that many governors of NC were Quaker, would not have happened.
Even though Christian church and state are separated in the US constitution, there is little support for this in the US history.
The English Puritan revolution was justified repeatedly by biblical analogies drawn from the OT. Using a rather dubious interpretation of the book of Daniel, the revolutionaries saw themselves as "the Saints of the Most High," commissioned to execute judgment on kings and nobles. Oliver Cromwell drew a parallel between his revolution and the exodus and proceeded to treat the Catholics of Ireland as the Canaanites. He even declared that "there are great occasions in which some men are called to great services in the doing of which they are excused from the common rule of morality," as were the heroes of the OT. The Puritans of New England applied the biblical texts about the conquest to their own situation, casting the Native American tribes in the role of the Canaanites and Amalekites. In 1689, Cotton Mather urged the colonists to go forth against "Amalek annoying this Israel in the wilderness." A few years later, one Herbert Gibbs gave thanks for "the mercies of God in extirpating the enemies of Israel in Canaan." Similar rhetoric persisted in American Puritanism through the eighteenth century, and indeed biblical analogies have continued to play a part in American political rhetoric down to the present.
The presidents of the US in their "colonizing crusade" invoked the "Christian God". President McKinley said, "We're going into the Philippines to civilize and Christianize the Filipinos." He said: "I went down on my knees and prayed to Almighty God for light and I guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me: 1) I That we could not give them [the Philippines] back to Spain — that would be cowardly and dishonorable; 2) that we could not turn them over to France and Germany — our commercial rivals in the Orient — that would be bad business and discreditable; 3) that we could not leave them to themselves — they were unfit for self-government — and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain's was; and 4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed, and went to sleep, and slept soundly, and the next morning I sent for the ... War Department map-maker, and I told him to put the Philippines on the map of the United States (pointing to a large wall map), and there they are, and there they will stay while I am President!"
Until 1933, 120,000 U.S. troops occupied the Philippines. "Pacifying" those "heathens" took longer than McKinley thought and brought out the brute in the soul of U.S. Christian soldiers. A frustrated U.S. general even ordered troops to kill every Philippine male over age ten. Fortunately, that order was not carried out, but U.S. troops did slay up to 200,000 Philippine men and women in three years, until overwhelming superiority in weapons and sheer ruthlessness overcame local resistance forces. Two thousand U.S. "Christian crusaders" died, as well. This bloody war on the Philippines lasted seven years, which involved massacres and the extermination of populations. The US had "civilized" and "Christianized" the Filipinos and established its control.
One critical citizen satirized McKinley's war: "G is for guns/ That McKinley has sent/ To teach Filipinos/ What Jesus Christ meant."
U.S. President William McKinley's words should echo with President Bush. Bush has confessed that he talks to God and hears His words. Like McKinley, Bush understands that the stars and stripes stand for inseparable U.S. commercial interests and pious purposes.
The Christian zealots of the time praised McKinley's will in overcoming Satan (Phililippinos) with military force. Now the descendents of these zealots that counseled McKinley, win court battles to validate creationism and push Armageddon and Rapture as themes of U.S. Middle East policy. Few days after 9/11 President Bush called his war on terrorism as "This crusade." Here is the deeper significance of Bush's reference to the Crusades: violence was established as the perfectly appropriate Christian response to 9/11. George W. Bush is a Christian for whom this particular theology lives. While he identified Jesus as his favorite "political philosopher" when running for President in 2000, the Jesus of this Christian zealot President is not the "turn the other cheek" one. Bush's savior is the Jesus whose cross is wielded as a sword. George W. Bush, having cheerfully accepted responsibility for the executions of 152 death-row inmates in Texas, had already shown himself to be entirely at home with divinely sanctioned violence, while the majority of the US public is lustily cheering and praising at the WONDERS THEIR BLOOD-THIRSTY GOD IS DOING IN IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, SOMALIA, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO, LEBANON, PALESTINE, and looking forward to THESE WONDERFUL DEEDS OF THEIR GOD IN IRAN.
Reasonable people don't think that God ordered Bush to bring freedom (free markets) to the Middle East. Indeed, as Lily Tomlin quipped, "Talking to God is prayer. God talking to you is schizophrenia."
If the president of the US represents all the US citizens, then why is that only a christian preacher preaches during the president's breakfast????
I'll give a shot at it :)
Superstition is a primitive form of science without carefully used cause and effect and without scientific method.
Religion is a philosphical basis for values and beliefs that can not be decided using scientific method. For example: Another human being is of value by virtue of being a human being. That shared humanity makes the other significant.
Sometimes there is superstition in religion, but the basis for religion is not the superstition but the philosphical views of how the world is formed or constructed. Religion will probably have a moral code and a set of beliefs but may not have a belief in a deity to be a religion.
All religion is a massive con and is responsible for much of the conflict in the world.
Given that there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of any god or any 'life after death', why religion continues to have such influence in our world is entirely beyond me.
It seems that many folk have not evolved beyond the status of superstitious savages to whom the killing of those who don't share their beliefs is an obligation.
ezeflyer,
To answer your question, religion is superstition organized as dogma and centralized in city states, whereas random myths and fables change with tribal migrations.
I just noticed that there is someone on this posting as "Nietzsche." Earlier in the thread, I quoted Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, and in preface to my quote I referred to the old German thinker as a "wanker." I just want to make it clear that I was referring to the dead philosopher (who I believe really was a wanker) and not to anyone participating in this discussion. Sorry if anyone took it any other way.
If the US were a Christian nation there would be universal health care and the illegal workers would be treated with kindness. There would be no death penalty and the prisons would be used to contain people from harming others and not as a form of punishment.
The US would be a completely different nation if it were a Christian nation.
Imo Christianity is not defined by a set of rules like eating or not eating fish but a way of behaving towards one another. It is a form of philosophy about humanity and its relationship to the cosmos.
What's the difference between religion and superstition?
Thanks Nietzsche,
To survive, all humanity needs to read and think honestly, and be open to peaceful revelation. Instead, it is ever so rare.
The Unites States is a "Christian Nation" in the same way that Saudi Arabia or Pakistan are "Muslim Nations" or Vietnam and China are "Bhuddist Nations"--in name only and not in any practice.
Lee Ann--Thanks for saying what i was thinking and so very well!
Lil Lulu--I thought Alaskans were more congenial (even if they were of the neocon bent--I feel your pain becasue jacksonville FL just chock full of such intolerance!
Good post entechy.
Jesus was religious. Conservative Christians are superstitious. If Islam has the Taliban and Al-Qaeda Christanity has the religious right and "Left Behind" delusional freaks.
War on terror? War on drugs? How are we doing on those? Our current President's religious views are typical of the ignorant and dangerous current brand of Christanity championed by political conservatives.
The basic problem is the human species itself is schizophrenic, forever divided between opposite ideas of how to live, predation or cooperation or a mixture of both,
male or female dominance or a mixture of both, dictatorship or democracy or a mixture of both, religious dogma or liberal arts or a mixture of both, etc. ad nauseum in ecocide. Thus all our dreams are devoured by the next chemical reaction, which now appears to be global corporate fascism and World War Three.....unless the people unite to create continental networks of eco-tech villages freely trading with each other surrounded by miles of healthy wilderness, or a mixture of both?! All existence is the process of paradox.
Hi Indijo, I was referring to Koran 9:29. If this is not what it actually said in the past, then I apologize.
the rationality or irrationality of religion is not really the point. 90% plus of humanity is "religious" and that's not going to change any time soon. each of the great world religious traditions is complex and has scriptures/teachings which can be manipulated (including buddhism). it is not helpful in dealing w/people to say they are religious b/c they are stupid. such is the analysis of a 3rd grader. it is helpful to know how institutions manipulate people's faith, and to be able to combat that from within the complex tradition of a person's faith. that requires patience & study.
in any case, the religion of most USAans is the US itself. there's a long history of equating America w/"the promised land" or "kingdom of god", and all of our political discourse partakes of that mythology (even in much of secular/progressive thought).
debunking that religious myth, from whatever angle you care to do it, is probably the most important thing you can do on the religion front.
and, as several people noted above, fundamentalism is being encouraged around the world by military-corporate statists, and has been since the brits embraced the wahhabis to help overthrow the ottomans in saudi arabia (sound like afghanistan anyone?) rockefeller used to send the evangelist billy sunday out among the mine workers of West VA cuz he knew that if he could get them to embrace sunday's BS, workers would be much less likely to organize and make trouble.
Capitalism is America's state religion.
Bluedude - of course you can legislate morality! Virtually all legislation is about morality. Laws against murder, stealing, perjury, vandalism - they are all about morality. Morality has to do with how we treat other human beings and their property as well as how we treat the environment in which we live. Laws against pollution, therefore, are also about morality
I've heard many conservatives use the phrase "you can't legislate morality" when they really mean "you can't legislate equality" or "you can't legislate tolerance." I'm not sure what you had in mind, but my guess is that perhaps you are talking about legislating beliefs. You can't legislate religious beliefs, this is true. Or at least attempting to legislate them is doomed to failure.
But in essence, all laws are very concerned with morality and establishing moral priorities. Of course, much of it also has to do with power and maintaining the status quo, but even this is tied up with morality.
As far as the issue of our being a Christian nation, our government is not based upon Christianity. However, the majority of Americans consider themselves to be Christians. It's interesting to me that so many of the so-called Christians actually believe they are in the minority. I had a conversation with some Christian relatives not too long ago. I was trying to make the point that, as an agnostic, I sometimes feel a slight social disadvantage living and working among so many Christians. Their response was that they too feel discriminated against BECAUSE they are Christians since other people who claim to be Christians are not really Christians.
Amazing! Especially since there is not actually all that much difference among the Christian religions. It's just a matter of which loopy notions of dogma they adhere to. And those notions change from time to time (eating meat on Friday used to be a sin; now it's OK, for example). They all believe in one god - and it's pretty much the same god. Mythology based upon the writings of people who thought the world was flat and who never imagined the complexity of today's world. It's incredible that these ideas are still compelling to so many people.
Sigma,
I'd be interested to know exactly What Version of the Koran you are quoting, because there are many and, according to historians, many versions were corrupted by anti-Xtian and anti-Jewish fundies, for political purposes, to give them more power over their communities and the people under them.
I doubt very much that Muhammed ever suggested that all non-Muslims "must feel subdued", and I doubt very much that he ever suggested that they have to pay taxes to keep themselves from being killed. What you are quoting are corruptions of the original Koran.
Beware people, there are many corruptions of the Koran and Jewish and Xtian Zionists love to mass-produce them and dish them out to anyone and everyone. The Taliban in Afghanistan actually had most of their Korans published and given to them by an Xtian publishing company working out of Israel.
pwrmac5 is right about how Christ led his life.
This deviant political form of Christianity found in the US is used to justify political actions and wars and it is not based in the life of Jesus.
There are people, Nationalists, who believe in the government of the US as if it were a part of their religion and they have carried this belief into the Christian Churches, where it does not belong.
There are ministers who opposed the war in Iraq, as being unchristian, who did not speak up because they knew it would mean these Nationalists would leave that church for another that gave their vierw of a God who supported the US policies of war. Opposing war would mean a loss of some parts of their congregations.
There were religious leaders who opposed the war, such as the Archbishop of Canterbury, the former Pope and Bishop Desmond Tutu. But the mainstream media ignored these religious leaders. When I went to Washington to join in protests against the war before it began, there were busloads of people from churches around the coutry who were there. But that has not been reported!!!!
It isn't only the government that has had a problem because of these Nationalists infusing religion into politics, but it has also weakened the basic beliefs of Christianity. Christ died as a martyr for the sins of mankind.
Martydom does not translate well into war.
Real christians are very gentle souls.
Organized religion is exclusive by its very nature. It is dangerous to all.
Why is the rationality of religion even being disgust anymore? It's ALL Manifest Insanity.
Religion is the worst vice ever invented. Time we all got over it.
Come on people, how many practicing Christians are there in the US??? I'd be surprised if the figure hit 10,000 out of 300 million. The rest are just pious posers whom Jesus loves only because he's extremely tolerant.
Nietzsche was a wanker in most respects, but he was right when he said, "The last Christian died on the cross."
Hey canuckchuck, soon your country will be part of the good ol'USA, so I guess it's ok for you to post. But think about he who laughs last.
Locke along with Marx, Rousseau, Paine and many others have been long forgotten in the schools in this country. The point being that we have allowed this separation of church and state issue to come back to threaten us again. I believe that corporate driven politics of the world IS the driver for the world's slide back into feudalism. Capitalism as we know it will soon be devouring itself, socialism is still relevant, despite what the media keeps saying. And maybe the future economic/political structure will be built on the current Chinese model, but the point made in the article should scare everybody (except those born again, the Mormans, and the Moslems) because we, not just the US, canuckchuck, but the world (people of the world) seem to forget everything that is over 20 years old. We should know better, but many people don't realize that the born again fad was just that twenty years ago. It was laughed at, now you laugh at your own risk. It is good to have brought this subject up, but the neo-Calvinists, Cromwellians, and even those followers of Thomas Jefferson's political enemy John Adams who still follow the chosen path are hard to shake.
They are ever ready to exploit a weakness, and we are showing that weakness.
Aren't Christianity, Islam, and Judaism from the same Jewish roots and as such related to one another? I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of Christians I've met who were actually kind and gentle, so I'm not impressed with the USA being a Christian nation. I'm more impressed with the nonviolent religion of Buddhism. I guess I was born in the wrong country.
There were three Buddhism monks who came to the town where I live in this Republican state. They were here for only one day, but wouldn't you know the right-wing Christian fundies were outside demonstrating against them. I've NEVER heard of Buddhists doing that to another religion. Buddhists are tolerant and respectful of other religions and don't proselytize and send missionaries around to convert people to their religion. They don't believe in violence, war, killing, revenge, etc.
I'm definitely more afraid of KKKhristians than I am of any other cult. They have their fingers on nukes!
As I have said before, lack of historical knowledge is crucial. The article shows how such ignorance is used to promote an agenda of almost any sort. Of course, our "tolerant" "founders" were also quite intolerant when not of their "race"--enslaving black Africans and carrying out a diliberate policy of "ethnically clensing [genocide]" Native Americans--an interesting omission.
Most organized religions fall victim to the egos of their priests, ministers, imams. etc. who imagine they possess the true word of God, Allah, etc., when in fact they lust for power over the minds and bodies of millions of people, which becomes a virtual satanic perversion as they launch religious wars in which millions are slaughtered, more over the centuries than Hitler and Stalin combined.
America too is susceptible to pseudo Christian fanatical madness, even to the extent that our insane President is deliberately maneuvering the World toward a nuclear World War Three to fulfill his Biblical prophesy of Armageddon, while the people cower in ignorance and fear, hoping God will protect them, or that it will all just go away - but it is whithin themselves, so they cannot escape.
Militant liberal is wrong himself. Consider, for example, this passage from Reeves' History of the English Law: From the Time of the Romans...:
" It would be a great error to suppose that the Saxon
laws contained all the law the Saxons had. They derived
a whole system of laws and institutions from the Romans;
their written laws were only additions thereto, and for the
most part rude and barbarous. When the Saxons, like
the other barbarian nations which had conquered portions
of the Roman empire,became desirous of forming a regular
law, they could do no more at first than put into writing
their own barbarous usages. But by degrees they became
sensible of their barbarism; they learnt a better law, and
there grew up among them an unwritten law, derived from
the traditions of the Roman law, which remained when
their own rude written laws had become obsolete. And
hence a constant struggle after something better — a continual tendency towards the laws and institutions of
Rome. "
And Sigma seems to have missed the point of the article entirely!
If judged by their collective actions, Americans are no more "christian" than Charles Manson
turn the other cheek?
do unto others?
the meek share inheret?
HAHAHAHAHA
My own ancestors were of the Society of Friends (Quakers) who fled religious persecution first from England then from Puritans in Mass. They finally landed in Pa. I appreciate the distinction between what I call "hate" christians and the majority of quite Christians like my ancestors. As for myself, my first roomate in college was a "hate" christian. When he found out that my Dad (who had passed away when I was 15) did not practice as he did, he said that he was sorry but he was "roasting in hell". I immediatly punched him in the face, and was thrown out of the dorm. I have had no tolerance for such people ever since.
indjio beat me to it correcting Sigma. But to add to it, in a time when Jews in Europe were suffering pogroms, they were being protected in Islamic contries as "people of the Book."
As to calls for religious freedom in the founding of the U.S., many of the founders were Deists. They had seen the result of religious intollerance in the wars in Europe, and seen it's fruits among the Puritans of Massechusetts. Furthermore, without the separation of Church from State as part of the Constitution, there could have been no U.S.
States varied in their religious proclivities depending on which group had founded the colony, and had reason to fear domination by any particualr creed. Maryland was founded by Catholics fleeing persecution. Massechusetts by Puritans fleeing persecution in England, and axious to turn the tables in their new home - not foster religious freedom at all. And so on.
The Christians today that are condemned for being intollerant, are only a particular strain of Christianity. On their radio networks they refer to themselves as Christian - and their beliefs as what Christians must believe - and yet the majority of Christian denominations do not share their beliefs. Yet they try to confuse the isue and claim the whole territory by never referring to their denomination, or even calling themselves "Non-denominational." And yet you know that adherents of the main Protestant churches, to say nothing of Unitarians, would feel most unwelcome amongst them.
Indijo, While I agree with some of what you said, "Muhammed wrote religious tolerance into the Koran , and merely required a tribute (tax)from any non-Islamic religious organization on predominantly Muslim land for it to continue operation." is not really the whole story.
First, the jizya (A tax for basically the right to not be killed) was paid by individuals first, religious organizations second. 2. The paying of the tax was not enough, according to the Koran, they must also "feel themselves subdued". 3. People of "the book" were not permited to build new churchs or repair old ones.4. They were not allowed to ride a horse. 5. They had to move out of the way if a moslem happened by. 6. They had to wear identifying clothing. 7. Men could not marry moslem women. 8. They could not testify in court against a moslem.9.They were not allowed to buy property from a muslim, but had to sell if approached by a muslim. Ect. Not exactly the full rights called for in the article by Locke.
.
This is not some long ago concept, it still goes on today.
George Carlin suggests another commandment: Thy shall keep thy religion to thyself.
Thank You AMOS for the Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path. Materialism, and dishonesty of thought and action cause so much suffering.
You can not legislate morality. It has never worked. Abstinence only sex programs don't work either, to be specific. Religion and reason have always clashed. Religion may make you feel good, that you are special, but that just feeds the ego. Making it easier for one group to step on the "non-believers". We are all the same, we all bleed red blood. And this one planet is all we have.
This is a very IMPORTANT article.
MIRF59: You made some excellent points except you conclude that the irony of those masquerading as Christians is FUNNY. Indeed it is anything BUT funny (and this goes to SIGMA'S insulated view of a Christianity perhaps based on her own sincerity, but miles apart from what is spreading like a cancer via the evangelical TV & church networks) in that this contingent represents a potential 50 million voters who are the ones supporting Bush's abysmal policies of DESTRUCTION. They are so naive, racist or stupid as to believe that just the NAME of Christ can be used as some kind of talismanic rationale and protection against policies that are not only opposed to everything Christ as teacher of Peace taught, but due to the inversion of Christ's teachings are tantamount to the ANTI-CHRIST energy that was prophesied by several mystical sources.
Is there a greater abomination that taking the name of God, any God (there IS a Supreme Divine Intelligence but we humans are not up to the tasks of either defining it or understanding it) to support the DESTRUCTION of Creation and all those tribes that are like a rainbow of branches from the tree of Life?
Couple this insanity with actual facts on the ground re: depleted uranium, the WISH to use nuclear war on a sovereign people, and the dangerous mental disease that is enabling the world's richest, most militaristically endowed nation with the WILL to keep on killing. Christian nation? I cannot imagine what Christ and the BEINGS of the spiritual hierarchy must make of this mutiny!
The Four Noble Truths
1. Life is suffering;
2. Suffering is due to attachment;
3. Attachment can be overcome;
4. There is a path for accomplishing this.
The Eightfold Path
1. Right view is the true understanding of the four noble truths.
2. Right aspiration is the true desire to free oneself from attachment, ignorance, and hatefulness.
3. Right speech involves abstaining from lying, gossiping, or hurtful talk.
4. Right action involves abstaining from hurtful behaviors, such as killing, stealing, and careless sex.
5. Right livelihood means making your living in such a way as to avoid dishonesty and hurting others, including animals.
6. Right effort is a matter of exerting oneself in regards to the content of one's mind: Bad qualities should be abandoned and prevented from arising again; Good qualities should be enacted and nurtured.
7. Right mindfulness is the focusing of one's attention on one's body, feelings, thoughts, and consciousness in such a way as to overcome craving, hatred, and ignorance.
8. Right concentration is meditating in such a way as to progressively realize a true understanding of imperfection, impermanence, and non-separateness.
I reckon all of those Buddhist's won't be "raptured" up but they probably do not dwell on such nonsense as the rapture and Armageddon and other man made spooks. There is much to be learned in a world where not only is your mind open but your heart is as well.
I must go now and seek cleansing after revealing and harboring ill-conceived thoughts about the religious bullies that run this country and the ignorant sheep that follow. I try to politely put up with them but some times are harder than others. I do not know all of the answers if any at all but I am mostly tolerant of those who pick and choose their exceeded limitations and then lie to their selves about it. At least I try but I am a failure at times and so I must try harder.
Christianity starts in the heart not in the mouth or at least it seems it should… but what do I know…
"It IS interesting that the calls for religious freedom and religious moderation came from devout Christians." -- sigma
Actually, Muhammed wrote religious tolerance into the Koran, and merely required a tribute (tax) from any non-Islamic religious organization on predominantly Muslim land for it to continue operation. Moderate Muslims are well aware of this; the so-called fundie-extremists, who have been corrupted by tyrannical leaders, have strayed away from it, while corrupting the true meaning of the word "jihad" from a "spiritual conflict" to a physical one.
The wealthy corporate elite are most responsible for this accent on religious reactionism in U.S. politics. It follows their desire to prevent any real progressive changes in a nation where they have become extremely comfortable with the way things are (wealth and power-wise). Such people fear progressive changes because many of those changes may include socialist reforms, concepts that threaten to reduce their power and profits.
By ignoring history and playing their religious-ignorance hands, they hope to dumb-down Americans and keep them dumbed-down, just the way they like them.
It saddens me as I see more and more Christian religionists push for their brand of faith to be the "one, true faith" that no one as ever asked these questions:
"What armies did Jesus raise?"
"What political offices did he seek?"
"Who and when did Jesus declare an enemy?"
"When did Jesus play the victim card?"
"When did Jesus renounce Judaism to start Christianity?"
"What laws did he change to his advantage?"
A cursory reading of the Bible reveals that none of these things occurred. Yet there are people out there with their own agendas for self-enrichment that say and do these things in his name.
When are the true followers of Christ going to say, "Enough!" ?
Many codes of laws predate christianity and Moses. Most banned killing. And yet the christians would have the 10 commandments carved in stone outside court houses where death sentences are handed down. If they weren't too stupid to see the irony it might even make them laugh.
Taken literally the bible would sanction the killing of JFK for adultery. And I would have paid money to be in on the stoning to death of Ronald Reagan for divorcing his wife and marrying someone else. If only these people took the bible literally when it suited them...
commoncensorship
Can you say "spam"?
It IS interesting that the calls for religious freedom and religious moderation came from devout Christians. No other religion that I know of produced people in power calling for understanding and FULL rights for those of another faith. Yet Christians are the ones vilified as intolerant today.
American Muslims, or at least their organizations--like the Council for American-Islamic Relations--have also started giving orders even though they're less than 2% of the population.
1. Demanding employer and public school accommodations for prayer times, which change from day to day; see, e.g. http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2007/07/23/news/nebraska/doc46a3c6a2bc45c702275063.txt and http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070702-9999-1n2prayer.html
2. At Minneapolis airport, Muslim taxi drivers refusing to transport alcohol--and this is a big deal because for some reason 3/4 of the cab drivers are Muslim http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2006-09-17-airport-check-in-usat_x.htm
3. Demanding the right to testify in court (Michigan) or get a driver's license photo (Florida) with face veiled http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6402346 and http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/florida.license.veil/
4. Demanding and getting footbaths in public restrooms so they can wash feet before prayer; these footbaths are to be paid for by student fees http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070605/SCHOOLS/706050368
5. In Canada they wanted sharia to become enforceable by the judiciary in family law disputes http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1126181967010_31/?hub=TopStories
While the Christian Reconstructionists, creationists and all their ilk deserve the bad press they get on this and other web sites, Islamists also bear close attention. They are trying to reshape American and other Western societies to fit sharia. And through CAIR they have connections in high places.
Fantastic essay. The first two sentences of the Locke Letter on Toleration contain the key:
"Since you are pleased to inquire what are my thoughts about the mutual toleration of Christians in their different professions of religion, I must needs answer you freely that I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true Church. For whatsoever some people boast of the antiquity of places and names, or of the pomp of their outward worship; others, of the reformation of their discipline; all, of the orthodoxy of their faith — for everyone is orthodox to himself — these things, and all others of this nature, are much rather marks of men striving for power and empire over one another than of the Church of Christ."
Since power is the ruling force of politics, Christianity as a tool within political circles is an instrument used to acquire or advance power. The Gospel unequivocally celebrates service and condemns the lust for power, so in many ways the pursuit of power through politics is the polar opposite of Christianity.
Certainly, though, if we look at the way the business of the state is conducted, and we look at the way private business is allowed to operate -- we can clearly see that no one needs to worry that the US is a Christian nation.
I would imagine it would be quite difficult to convince most Iraqis that we are a Christian nation, seeing as how Christ is a major prophet in Islam and they are quite familiar with His teachings. And, anyone who can stand to take an honest look at the way we get on at work, in public, and in relation to other peoples around the world would be forced to conclude that we are currently quite close to the opposite of Christianity.
In fact, if an evil deity could retrofit America to its specifications, one wonders if any changes would be proposed.
One literally damning bit of evidence is the massive sex appeal of Ayn Rand's Objectivism in the US. If Americans were Christian, Objectivism would have no followers here and its ideas would be dismissed wholesale. But, in reality Objectivism is a very smart philosophy if one wants to succeed in the US accepting the terms of success as understood conventionally -- principally, acquisition of wealth and power and fame.
In a sense, the separation of Church and State maybe was too successful. The great irony is that these conservatives which operate in office in adherence to systems opposed to Christianity are those that pose as Christians to get in. That's terribly funny.
Even earlier;
Code of Hammurabi from that backwater of Mesopotamia.
Ms. Hamilton is also wrong about the earliest source of American law. It's the English common law (made by judges), Parliamentary statutes and (of course) Magna Carta, not Justinian's Code, though the latter heavily influenced the law codes of Continental Europe.
For another insight into how the founding fathers felt about the separation of church and state, see the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli which was ratified by the U.S. on June 10, 1797.
Article 11 begins "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..."
I am as frightened if not more by Christians than I am of Muslims only because of the Christians that live in the out-of-control US who are pushing their agendas.
Someone here mentioned the Code of Hammurabi as the basis of the Ten Commandments and all other moral codes since. This is something a lot of people seem to believe. If you're interested, Google for it (the first listing is the easiest to use). If you can find anything resembling the Ten Commandments, congratulations! I can't. There are 282 items, so be prepared for a long session of - well, pure horror.
As I was reading 'Things Fall Apart' by Chinua Achebe I realized that he was describing that deadly triad consisting of The Missionaries, The Merchants and The Military. America seems to be inflicted with the same deadly triad. I think that the missionaries are the most distructive because people lose their footing when they start to trust in the gods of Someone Else.
Every God and Goddess, every Heaven and Hell, every Saint and Sinner lies within us. Our life goal is to unite our self with the Self and everyone must search for the Holy Grail themself, going in a group is a disgrace. Organized religion is a self fulfilling racket in whatfools' opinion