Originally posted by Devil King
Yes. This is not a thread about religion. It's about political consideration of people who take their religion too far and refuse to acknowledge the seperation of church and state. This is a political thread, not a religious thread.
Yes, this probably belongs in a religious forum but what the heck. Lots of thought out replies here....(mostly).
Anyway, this has probably been done before, but exactly how do you know how to separate church and state when it comes to government, designing a criminal punishment system, etc? You've got to base a system of right and wrong on something don't you? How can you pick some morals and leave others out if you are going by a particular religion? Or if you don't believe in any religion or God how do you know where to begin with what is right and wrong?
And our founding fathers who wrote the constitution were mostly (not all but most of them) Christians who were greatly influenced by the Bible/Christianity and were more worried about imposing a particular church or denomination of the state on everyone--they weren't concerned about keeping general Christianity/Bibllical concepts out of our government.
Originally posted by K-Dog
And our founding fathers who wrote the constitution were mostly (not all but most of them) Christians who were greatly influenced by the Bible/Christianity and were more worried about imposing a particular church or denomination of the state on everyone--they weren't concerned about keeping general Christianity/Bibllical concepts out of our government.
Obviously many of them were influence by their faith but the only thing they really did to let in the influence of future Christians was give them the right to vote in mass numbers.
Re: Re: Re: religious war for the presidency has begun.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Puts what comes after in into context, to understand Jesus' new winesack you have to know of the old one he replaced.
We need to know what isn't be followed anymore? Not sure I follow. It would be like including "duck and cover" in a nuclear war pamphlet in order to understand current survival tips.
And it's still used to justify intolerance, and isn't a good moral guide by pretty much anyone's definition of moral. So again, why include it in the Bible at all, and why consider it the Word of God?
Originally posted by K-Dog
Yes, this probably belongs in a religious forum but what the heck. Lots of thought out replies here....(mostly).
Anyway, this has probably been done before, but exactly how do you know how to separate church and state when it comes to government, designing a criminal punishment system, etc? You've got to base a system of right and wrong on something don't you? How can you pick some morals and leave others out if you are going by a particular religion? Or if you don't believe in any religion or God how do you know where to begin with what is right and wrong?And our founding fathers who wrote the constitution were mostly (not all but most of them) Christians who were greatly influenced by the Bible/Christianity and were more worried about imposing a particular church or denomination of the state on everyone--they weren't concerned about keeping general Christianity/Bibllical concepts out of our government.
I assume you own slaves and stone women.
How does a document written by men that considers the importance of not imposing any particular religion, not take into consideration the importance of keeping the biblical concepts and influence of Christianity from infuencing the government? Your entire 2nd paragraph is a contradiction.
Originally posted by K-Dog
Yes, this probably belongs in a religious forum but what the heck. Lots of thought out replies here....(mostly).
Anyway, this has probably been done before, but exactly how do you know how to separate church and state when it comes to government, designing a criminal punishment system, etc? You've got to base a system of right and wrong on something don't you? How can you pick some morals and leave others out if you are going by a particular religion? Or if you don't believe in any religion or God how do you know where to begin with what is right and wrong?And our founding fathers who wrote the constitution were mostly (not all but most of them) Christians who were greatly influenced by the Bible/Christianity and were more worried about imposing a particular church or denomination of the state on everyone--they weren't concerned about keeping general Christianity/Bibllical concepts out of our government.
What proof is there that religion dictates "right and wrong" as fact? Do you not murder, rape and steal simply because you fear for your soul after death?
Here's a hypothetical: If God, the afterlife etc were somehow to be proved false beyond the shadow of a doubt, would you throw away your morals?
If the founding fathers wanted the Christian-view of God in America's government, don't you think they would have included it somewhere?
Originally posted by Devil King
Yes. This is not a thread about religion. It's about political consideration of people who take their religion too far and refuse to acknowledge the seperation of church and state. This is a political thread, not a religious thread.
Thanks for trying, I have a feeling the person who moved it saw "religious" and knee-jerked.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why are these the only Commandments that pro-seculars focus on when discussing morality against the religious? As if killing and theft are the only things prohibited by the Bible.
I could have gone on with the list, but those three (the more intense ons) were enough for the point.
Besides, the religious currently tend to disregard the less intense ones the are also prohibited by God. When was the last time someone obeyed the Sabbath as an eg.
Originally posted by Robtard
Besides, the religious currently tend to disregard the less intense ones the are also prohibited by God. When was the last time someone obeyed the Sabbath as an eg.
Last Saturday. Many Jewish people obey Sabbath law.
Here's a question I've never gotten a good answer to. Does anyone know why things like killing gays were put in the Bible in the first place?
Originally posted by Devil King
I assume you own slaves and stone women.How does a document written by men that considers the importance of not imposing any particular religion, not take into consideration the importance of keeping the biblical concepts and influence of Christianity from infuencing the government? Your entire 2nd paragraph is a contradiction.
I'll tell ya, it's a heck of a lot easier to make my slaves do my work than me getting my lazy butt up and doing it myself! 💃
And those danged women....I've got them lined up so if I stone one off, I'll get a fresh new one anyway. Oh, I thought everybody had it so good.
I don't see how my second paragraph was a contradition. I don't believe they were trying to keep their religious influence out of the constitutional ideas. What I said was that from what I know (maybe I'm wrong) they did not want a state-mandated church or denomination. They had seen English rules switch back and forth between Catholicism and various Protestant systems, often merely to justify their political agendas based on different doctrine. But as a whole they were Christian influenced. They weren't Muslim, Buddha, etc.
The statements that we are all created with inalienable rights by our creator of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is based on Christian principles. Now yes, maybe other religions could be said to say much of the same thing, but the founding fathers would have been influenced primarily by Christianity. Anyone who knows anything about the framework of the Constitution knows that the men prayed together everyday when they wrote this. They were Christian influenced, there were not Muslims or Hindus in 18th century New England (that I know of at least.)
A discussion like this is kinda hard to have cause I'm not sure if I am on the same wavelength as everybody else or not.
Re: religious war for the presidency has begun.
Originally posted by Robtard\
[b]Evangelist accuses Obama of 'distorting' BibleCNN) -- A top U.S. evangelical leader is accusing Sen. Barack Obama of deliberately distorting the Bible and taking a "fruitcake interpretation" of the U.S. Constitution.
comments to be aired on his radio show Tuesday, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson criticizes the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee for comments he made in a June 2006 speech to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal.
In the speech, Obama suggests it would be impractical to govern based solely on the word of the Bible, noting some passages suggest slavery is permissible and eating shellfish is disgraceful.
"Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?" Obama asks in the speech. "Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?
"So before we get carried away, let's read our Bible now," Obama also said to cheers. "Folks haven't been reading their Bible."
He also calls Jesus' Sermon on the Mount "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application."
In the comments to be aired later Tuesday, Dobson said Obama should not be referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament. - end snip
-
You have to ask, why are those "antiquated dietaty codes" which no longer reflect the New Testament arbitrarily kept or done away with. E.g. If stoning your daughter and slavery are no longer to be taken as God's commands, why is homosexuality still taken? [/B]
I thought I would go back to the original message and ponder a bit more. Barrack Obama does have a few good points here. It opens several cans of worms actually. How much should Christians pay attention to the old testament? How much the new? When he is talking about our military policy, I see his point. The sermon on the mount is a very peace-loving message. But we depend on a violent military in which men are not afraid to kill and feel right about doing it to protect us all. I mean, we can't just pray for our enemies while they come into our country and destroy our buildings, kill our people, and do nothing about it can we? Sometimes we have to go on the attack first and do it ruthlessly. One of the bigger cold-war era nuke missles was called the "Peacemaker missle" with the idea being that you would make more peace using it to end wars than you would by not and just keep on fighting. So how does a Christian, or person of any other faith, or just in acting on good conscious, know where to draw the line in the sand on these things? He does bring up some good points here, even though he will not get my vote personally.
Originally posted by K-Dog
I don't see how my second paragraph was a contradition. I don't believe they were trying to keep their religious influence out of the constitutional ideas. What I said was that from what I know (maybe I'm wrong) they did not want a state-mandated church or denomination. They had seen English rules switch back and forth between Catholicism and various Protestant systems, often merely to justify their political agendas based on different doctrine. But as a whole they were Christian influenced. They weren't Muslim, Buddha, etc.
The statements that we are all created with inalienable rights by our creator of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is based on Christian principles. Now yes, maybe other religions could be said to say much of the same thing, but the founding fathers would have been influenced primarily by Christianity. Anyone who knows anything about the framework of the Constitution knows that the men prayed together everyday when they wrote this. They were Christian influenced, there were not Muslims or Hindus in 18th century New England (that I know of at least.)
A discussion like this is kinda hard to have cause I'm not sure if I am on the same wavelength as everybody else or not.
It is inarguable, regardless of prayer and wording, that the fundamental principals of the American Constitution were based upon the secular ideals of the European enlightenment. We can trace those memes as far back as you want, and you will find very strong Christian influences, however, Christian theological rule and political admistration has never looked anything like the American constitution. The people who wrote it may have been practicing Christians, and may have used that language as narrative, but the ideas themselves have roots in the Rousseaus and Voltaires of the late 1700s.
Also, if we want to play the historical argument, the ground work for the Renissance and other European events which allowed the creation of the philosophy of "freedom" were based on Islamic ideas brought in through the Moors conquest of Spain and Italy. To say Islam has no role in the American Constitution, if we are looking at the philosophical origins of the principals described in the constitution, is incorrect. But that can be brought back even further. These ideas were brought to Islamic society from Greece as Rome conquored it.
Greek science and philosophy set the ground work for Islamic philosophy which set the ground work for Christian philosophy during the renissance, which was the ground work for the enlightenment and age of reason which was directly responsible, as in uses the EXACT same language and justifications as, the American Constitution.
But wait, where did Greek Philosophy come from? Egypt and pre-vedic India! So what is that? The American constitution is really based on Polytheistic mythology from pre-bronze age society? Using your logic, it sure is!
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God.
--- Thomas Jefferson
"Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religions."
--- George Washington
Plenty of quotes out there show Thomas Jefferson to have been an atheist and George Washington to be a Christian. Yet these two quotes are basically saying the same thing: that all forms of religion should be protected, but one should not be a bigger part of the government than another. That's what they were going for in the infancy of the United States.
However, it is a little presumptuous to say that Christianity had no influence in the construct of the Declaration of Independence. It was pretty much the only religion in colonial America at the time since Jewish people did not start emigrating in large numbers to America until about the 1800s, so many of the founding fathers were Christians. Those who were not seemed to be influenced at least by John 13:34 ("love each other as I have loved you"😉 in that they were okay with religious expression as long as the US did not become a church-state.
Originally posted by inimalist
It is inarguable, regardless of prayer and wording, that the fundamental principals of the American Constitution were based upon the secular ideals of the European enlightenment. We can trace those memes as far back as you want, and you will find very strong Christian influences, however, Christian theological rule and political admistration has never looked anything like the American constitution. The people who wrote it may have been practicing Christians, and may have used that language as narrative, but the ideas themselves have roots in the Rousseaus and Voltaires of the late 1700s.Also, if we want to play the historical argument, the ground work for the Renissance and other European events which allowed the creation of the philosophy of "freedom" were based on Islamic ideas brought in through the Moors conquest of Spain and Italy. To say Islam has no role in the American Constitution, if we are looking at the philosophical origins of the principals described in the constitution, is incorrect. But that can be brought back even further. These ideas were brought to Islamic society from Greece as Rome conquored it.
Greek science and philosophy set the ground work for Islamic philosophy which set the ground work for Christian philosophy during the renissance, which was the ground work for the enlightenment and age of reason which was directly responsible, as in uses the EXACT same language and justifications as, the American Constitution.
But wait, where did Greek Philosophy come from? Egypt and pre-vedic India! So what is that? The American constitution is really based on Polytheistic mythology from pre-bronze age society? Using your logic, it sure is!
Reductio ad absurdum.
The founding fathers were Christians. In spite of their enlightenment era intents keeping that influence out of their design of the Constitution would be impossible. Admittedly they did a very good job, but assuming that simply because they were trying to work with Enlightenment concepts doesn't mean they somehow avoided letting their religion affect the design is silly.