"The United States was founded on Christian values" [Archive]

Sefarst

19th April 2009, 08:45 PM

I keep on hearing that term. "Christian Values"

What does that mean?
What do Christian Values have to do with the Legislature, Senate, or Presidency?
What do Christian values have to do with Tax Law, the Penal Code? or anything else that was required to set a government.

Even if you take a look at the basic 10 commandments, only 4 of them are in the criminal code. Those being theft, murder, adultery and perjury. The rest were done away with in the separation of church and state.

So what are these Christian values that the US was founded on?

MrQ

Reread the Beatitudes. Matthew 5:1-10

"Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying:
'Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is a social security check.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be given compensation for emotional damages.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will be protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be given food stamps.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be allowed a charitable tax write-off.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will not be sued.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be immune to war crimes charges.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.'

I haven't read my Bible in a while, but I'm pretty sure that's how it goes.

arthwollipot

19th April 2009, 08:51 PM

Meekness is a disability now?

Sefarst

19th April 2009, 08:55 PM

Meekness is a disability now?

Don't argue with me, argue with Jesus.

Beerina

20th April 2009, 10:27 AM

Well, only in the loosest sense as in the "entire western civilization" is founded on Christian values. "The US was founded on values derived from certain Christian values" would be a more accurate statement.

Themselves lifted whole-hog from previous theo-philosophical conglomerations. They "worked", more or less, and people knew them, so it's no surprise priests tried to pretend their special god was the one who commanded them.

The US is founded more on the Enlightenment "values" which is way more secular.

And specifically that religion was used to motivate the masses to the destructive ends of tyranny. And so was government itself, independent of the intertwining with religion. Hence a government created by the people and given powers over the rights of people, and none others, something which has gotten in the way of populists for two centuries now. They try to get around it with claims of "attitudes change" rather than getting a supermajority together to make big changes.

HansMustermann

20th April 2009, 05:12 PM

I don't know, man... reading Romans produces such gems as:

Rom 13.1: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Rom 13.2: Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

Rom 13.2: For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.[... ]

I'm sure that revolting against the King isn't exactly what was meant there.

Rom 13.7: Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't say "no taxation without representation" there.

And it's no better in other places. E.g.,

1Pet.2.13: Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

1Pet.2.14: Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

1Pet.2.15: For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.

[...]

1Pet.2.17: Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

1Pet.2.18: Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

1Pet.2.19: For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.

1Pet.2.20: For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.

1Pet.2.21: For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps

Again, it doesn't exactly give the idea that you're supposed to change your state or master if you no longer like it.

Etc.

Typicallucas

20th April 2009, 06:01 PM

Again, it doesn't exactly give the idea that you're supposed to change your state or master if you no longer like it.

Etc.

Nice one, thanks!

ponderingturtle

21st April 2009, 08:09 AM

I keep on hearing that term. "Christian Values"

That this country started going to hell when they legalized chirstmass.

Paulhoff

21st April 2009, 08:25 AM

Anyone ask the American Indians about Christian Values has they lost their land and lives.

Paul

:) :) :)

Safe-Keeper

21st April 2009, 08:30 AM

Undesired Walrus

21st April 2009, 10:34 AM

In the US most of these slaves were owned by Christians.
In Africa they were owned by Muslms.

GW

Frederick Douglass said that the most brutal slaveholders were also the most devout.

Ryokan

21st April 2009, 12:04 PM

Even if you take a look at the basic 10 commandments, only 4 of them are in the criminal code. Those being theft, murder, adultery and perjury.

Really? Adultery is a crime in the US?

Typicallucas

21st April 2009, 12:05 PM

Ryokan

21st April 2009, 12:16 PM

You get it in Norway, too. Either it's that Norway was founded on Christian values (which'd be kinda hard to do as the nation was founded long before Christianity arrived on our shores), or that our Constitution is based on Christian values (which it isn't, any more than is the American counterpart). Highly annoying.

Well, the Norwegians have a better case than the Americans.

Paragraph 2 of the constitution says that Lutheran Christianity is the official religion of the kingdom, and that parents are duty bound to raise their children Lutheran. This is getting changed, but it's still there. Even with the changes, it doesn't totally do away with the state church.

Paragraph 4 says the king has the be a Lutheran, and has to uphold and protect the Lutheran religion.

So there's plenty of stuff for Christians to point at in the Norwegian constitution.

Elizabeth I

21st April 2009, 12:24 PM

Really? Adultery is a crime in the US?

Used to be, in most states (not on the federal level), but it's gradually disappearing from the statutes and hasn't been enforced for years.

ponderingturtle

21st April 2009, 12:35 PM

Really? Adultery is a crime in the US?

In some states the laws are still on the books.

Safe-Keeper

21st April 2009, 01:22 PM

Paragraph 2 of the constitution says that Lutheran Christianity is the official religion of the kingdom, and that parents are duty bound to raise their children Lutheran. This is getting changed, but it's still there. Even with the changes, it doesn't totally do away with the state church.Well, yes, the Norwegian Constitution is Christian, you can't get around that one, but for the non-Norwegians out there, Norway as a country was founded before this time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Hairfair#The_saga_descriptions), and the point remains that I don't really view democracy and freedom as "Christian principles".

Ryokan

21st April 2009, 01:50 PM

Well, yes, the Norwegian Constitution is Christian, you can't get around that one, but for the non-Norwegians out there, Norway as a country was founded before this time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Hairfair#The_saga_descriptions), and the point remains that I don't really view democracy and freedom as "Christian principles".

You could argue that Norway, in its current state, was founded in 1814. Or 1905.

Before that, you have to go pretty far back to find an independant Norway.

INRM

21st April 2009, 02:12 PM

Tricky

21st April 2009, 03:24 PM

Frederick Douglass said that the most brutal slaveholders were also the most devout.
"The church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the opressors. For my part I would say, wecome the infidelity! Welcome atheism! Welcome anything in preference to the gospel, as preached by those Divines! They convert the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny and bararous cruelty, and serve to confirm more infidels in this age than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire and Bolingbroke, put together, have done!"
---Fredrick Douglas.

EGarrett

21st April 2009, 03:33 PM

Freedom, Democracy, and Capitalism have nothing to do with the bible.

The Ten Commandments and the like are the same stuff that was said in the Code of Hammurabi.

I wish someone would try to make this argument against me.

Radically Rethinking

21st April 2009, 04:48 PM

The thing that drives me up the #^$&ing wall the most is this. You mention separation of church and state and they say "Where are the words 'separation of church and state' in the constitution?? Oh that's right THEY'RE NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!" as if that somehow proves that we're supposed to have religion in government.

HansMustermann

21st April 2009, 04:57 PM

Freedom, Democracy, and Capitalism have nothing to do with the bible.

The Ten Commandments and the like are the same stuff that was said in the Code of Hammurabi.

Indeed.

Not to mention that concepts like democracy (including the word itself) come from ancient Greece, who were pagans.

Also most of the legal system is a derivation and partial return to the pre-Imperial and pre-Christian system of republican Rome. Also most of the concepts of a representative democracy, i.e., a republic, come from Rome... at a time when it was transitioning from its native animism to the Greek pantheon. Again, including the word "republic" itself, coming from Res Publica.

(As a side note, the Res Publica was used in different contexts to mean public property, public affairs, politics, but also explicitly what we call today a republic.)

If anything, the American Revolution brought forth a return to the values that pagan Romans had perfected over half a milenium. The very "no taxation without representation" idea is reminiscent of the struggle of Roman plebeians -- who were equally taxed, and equally supposed to provide their equipment and go to war if they fell in a certain tax bracket -- to also be as represented and eligible as the patricians of equal duties, and the systems that resulted from that struggle.

The "christian values", where they were applied, and generally christian thinking, on the contrary brought us all things like the divine right of kings (based on the paragraphs I've already quoted and a few more)

(And ironically in Rome too religion was used to try to justify why the families of patrician descent should have more rights, and why those of plebeian ancestry should have less.)

joobz

21st April 2009, 05:00 PM

Tell that the the slaves who were whipped within an inch of their lives.
Slavery was a practice condoned by the bible and specificaly condoned by Jesus. So, I'd say modern morality has evolved beyond the bible's morality. thankfully.

slingblade

21st April 2009, 05:10 PM

Heh, just start telling those folks that the Government finally agrees there should be more religion in it, and so tomorrow all the men get prayer rugs and a compass; all the women get burkhas in a choice of muted but fashionable colors.

Heh heh.

Skeptic Ginger

21st April 2009, 05:49 PM

Well, only in the loosest sense as in the "entire western civilization" is founded on Christian values. "The US was founded on values derived from certain Christian values" would be a more accurate statement.

The US is founded more on the Enlightenment "values" which is way more secular.This adds to the propaganda rather than adding to a factual interpretation of history.

Could you name a specific "Christian" value that isn't a natural human value? Or could you clarify what makes our values "Christian" as opposed to "Western" culture or modern culture?

I can think of a few things that are not Christian, namely Islamic fundamentalism. And there are religious differences in "Eastern" culture. And perhaps some cultures are less interested in individual freedom and more interested in group norms than the culture in the US though I think one could argue that may be more image than fact when you consider the problem the 'establishment' had in the 60s when young people expressed their individualism.

I've heard the claim that Christianity was responsible for the culture of the individual, but I've never been convinced it wasn't just coincidental. I can't really see anything cultural that specifically evolved from Christianity other than the particular religious practices of that religion. I think there's a stronger argument that as people evolved into more individualism they simply molded their religious views to match rather than the other way around.

Luther and the Protestant movement wasn't about Christianity. If it was, then they shouldn't have had to rebel against the Catholic authority.

Skeptic Ginger

21st April 2009, 05:56 PM

Really? Adultery is a crime in the US?Bigamy is. And adultery was always grounds for a "fault" divorce until no fault divorces became more popular.

From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery).In the United States, laws vary from state to state. In those States where adultery is still on the statute books, even though they are rarely prosecuted, the penalties vary from life sentence (Michigan)[31], a fine of $10 in (Maryland), or a Class I felony in (Wisconsin) [32]. In the U.S. Military, adultery is a potential court-martial offense.[10] The enforceability of adultery laws in the United States has been / is being questioned following Supreme Court decisions since 1965 relating to privacy and sexual intimacy of consenting adults, in cases such as Lawrence v. Texas.

Gees, I hope Michigan has updated their code.

Skeptic Ginger

21st April 2009, 06:00 PM

PaxImperium got it right on this one in that to an extent some of our laws were based on Christian principles, but the bulk of our principles were inspired by the Enlightenment and were far more secular in origin.

INRMSo then, you can tell us what those "Christian" principles are and why Christianity gets the credit as opposed to human nature?

Skeptic Ginger

21st April 2009, 06:07 PM

The claim that the US is a Christian country uses the facade that our values came from Christianity. In reality it's more likely the other way around, we gave our values to the church by rebelling against church leaders who would impose their interpretations of those values.

But regardless, the point of these bullies trying to rewrite history has nothing to do with this country's foundations. It has to do with trying to pass current laws based on Christian beliefs. That includes all the abortion, stem cell and gay rights laws that some Christian's have taken on as a cause.

And propaganda science tells us leaders like to exploit this feigned persecution to enhance their own positions. What the country's 'founding fathers' did or did not believe has nothing to do with the current claim.

ServiceSoon

21st April 2009, 06:14 PM

Could you name a specific "Christian" value that isn't a natural human value? Or could you clarify what makes our values "Christian" as opposed to "Western" culture or modern culture?Didn't those natural human values originate from the bible?

Prometheus

21st April 2009, 06:22 PM

Didn't those natural human values originate from the bible?

So humans had no values for the first couple of million years of our existence? Or we just replaced all the old values with brand spankin' new ones after Constantine ordered the bible compiled 1700 years ago?

Skeptic Ginger

21st April 2009, 07:36 PM

Didn't those natural human values originate from the bible?Prometheus answered your question so let me just add, it's incredible how many people have been indoctrinated to believe such nonsense, or at a minimum, don't seem to question the claim that human morality is based on the fear of hell if we don't obey.

Typicallucas

21st April 2009, 07:42 PM

Didn't those natural human values originate from the bible?

No,

Natural: Being in accordance with or determined by nature

The bible didn't make us what we naturally are.

arthwollipot

21st April 2009, 11:34 PM

UnrepentantSinner

21st April 2009, 11:49 PM

Really? Adultery is a crime in the US?

Much like sodomy, not one that's enforced if it's still on the books. It is, however, in the UCMJ and used in courts martial.

Aepervius

22nd April 2009, 05:45 AM

Didn't those natural human values originate from the bible?

To expand on what was said, those natural human values come from us being social animal and grouping in huge herd. This is especially true since those huge herd became sedentary (you might call that a city). From such context some tendencies and behaviour would spring up : killing , raping, stealing resource (etc) from each other would be frowned or punished.

religions (not only christians....) just took over what was already existing and spouted it right back as if they were the origin of it and moral source of it.

So bottom line : no religion whatsoever is the source of any specific "higher" concept necessary for social cohesion such as forbidding rape, murder , or stealing. Those "laws" sprang from socialization and partly from sedentary life and they were indeed existing before any of the most recent religion came to life.

The Norseman

22nd April 2009, 08:47 AM

Didn't those natural human values originate from the bible?

I have to agree with the other responses in that no, those natural human values didn't originate from the bible. IIRC, the tao de ching was written around six hundred years before christ and includes many values and morals for example.

ServiceSoon

22nd April 2009, 09:00 AM

I have to agree with the other responses in that no, those natural human values didn't originate from the bible. IIRC, the tao de ching was written around six hundred years before christ and includes many values and morals for example.And where was the tao de ching followed? If it wasn't America then isn't that information irrelevant, since we are discussing what shaped American's morals.

Cleon

22nd April 2009, 09:05 AM

And where was the tao de ching followed? If it wasn't America then isn't that information irrelevant, since we are discussing what shaped American's morals.

Not irrelevant at all, as it (correctly) points out that even what you think originated with the Bible is actually much older.

ServiceSoon

22nd April 2009, 09:07 AM

No,

Natural: Being in accordance with or determined by nature

The bible didn't make us what we naturally are.Based on what I have read about history, it wasn't a generous, overly moral time to live. Society didn't have that social contract thing going on yet.

As already discussed, some of the laws on the books coincide with religious values. So if this all happened naturally, why are some tribes in Africa not evolving as fast as us? The idea is that through force of government, religion compelled people to follow their rules and shaped society the way we know it today.

ServiceSoon

22nd April 2009, 09:11 AM

Not irrelevant at all, as it (correctly) points out that even what you think originated with the Bible is actually much older.I'm not arguing that the morals in the Bible are original. I am arguing that the morals in the Bible effected the laws of America, which affects who we are today. The tae de ching had no such affect on American's or American law.

The Norseman

22nd April 2009, 09:13 AM

I'm not arguing that the morals in the Bible are original. I am arguing that the morals in the Bible effected the laws of America, which affects who we are today. The tae de ching had no such affect on American's or American law.

You asked the question, "Didn't those natural human values originate from the bible?" and I simply responded like others that it is not correct.

ServiceSoon

22nd April 2009, 09:13 AM

So humans had no values for the first couple of million years of our existence? Or we just replaced all the old values with brand spankin' new ones after Constantine ordered the bible compiled 1700 years ago?Of course they had values. Yes, they were replaced with new values found in the Bible. I don't understand how you can say that the Bible and religion in general, didn't have an impact on American society.

Cleon

22nd April 2009, 09:22 AM

I'm not arguing that the morals in the Bible are original.

Didn't those natural human values originate from the bible?

Kindly get your story straight.

I am arguing that the morals in the Bible effected the laws of America, which affects who we are today.

I'd be very interested in seeing you try to substantiate that.

The tae de ching had no such affect on American's or American law.If you will look at the post you were responding to, the Tao Te Ching was mentioned as a substantiation of the point that "those natural human values didn't originate from the bible."

He made a point, and substantiated it. Perfectly relevant.

Prometheus

22nd April 2009, 09:31 AM

Of course they had values. Yes, they were replaced with new values found in the Bible. I don't understand how you can say that the Bible and religion in general, didn't have an impact on American society.

Who said they didn't have an impact. Certainly not me. Plato's Republic also has had an impact. So have hundreds of other books. What's so special about the bible?

I disagree that the U.S. is based on Christian values. If you want to say that I'm wrong, then you first have to define what a Christian value is, as opposed to a value held by some other philosophical/religious outlook, then you have to show that, whatever those uniquely Christian values are, they comprised a primary part of the American political/legal system.

Tricky

22nd April 2009, 09:37 AM

Of course they had values. Yes, they were replaced with new values found in the Bible. I don't understand how you can say that the Bible and religion in general, didn't have an impact on American society.

There are no "new values" found in the Bible. Just because the Bible also contains some of the "old values" that permeate much of world society that doesn't make them the basis for the US system of government. Heck, only three of the Commandments have any parallel in US laws: Killing, stealing, and slander/libel. You would be hard pressed to defend those as uniquely Biblical values.

And yes, the bible and religion had an impact on Amerian Society. So did tobacco. So did slavery. So did the Magna Carta. (Frankly, the Magna Carta had a lot more influence in the basis of our government than the Bible did). But to pick any one of those and claim it is the "basis" of our government is an extreme form of tunnel-vision.

Belz...

22nd April 2009, 10:19 AM

Recently every time I hear this I have an involuntary Tourette's syndrome style reaction. Usually it's just a short, loud, Eff Word.

I really wish people would quit using lies to "prove" their point

Until that day or until I develop some impulse control, I'll keep spouting off at the mouth.

Makes no difference. Christian values are based on older values, anyway.

drkitten

22nd April 2009, 10:30 AM

As already discussed, some of the laws on the books coincide with religious values. So if this all happened naturally, why are some tribes in Africa not evolving as fast as us?

This is exactly the same argument as "if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

It's a stupid and ill-thought out argument for exactly the same reasons.

uruk

22nd April 2009, 10:35 AM

I'm not arguing that the morals in the Bible are original. I am arguing that the morals in the Bible effected the laws of America, which affects who we are today. The tae de ching had no such affect on American's or American law.

That is if the bible itself wasn't influenced by the tao te ching. The bible has many similarities to the stories and ideas of much older religions and culture. The ten commandments are very similar to laws and codes of much older civilizations.

China is on the same land mass as the Middle East. More than just spiceses and textiles were exchanged on the trade routes. Ideas also get spread by the interactions of different cultures.

The idea that America was founded on Christian values caused by the mistaken assumption that our founding fathers were christian. Some were but other were not. At least not int he strictest sense. If you were to read some of our founding fathers thoughts on religion and god you would find that thier beliefs are not quite in line with present day christianity.

Jefferson believed Jesus existed But he did not believe in the divinity fo Jesus. He did not believe that Jesus was holy or that he performed miracles. He saw Jesus as a moral teacher. Nothing more.
Jefferson saw the new testament as "so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture".

Hamilton was a agnostic and diest but turned christian toward the end of his life after his son's death.

John Adams started out evengelical but ended up Unitarian. Colonial Unitarianism did not believe in religious hierarchies or the divinity of Jesus.

Washington waffled on some issues of religion. He believed in miracles and agents of god but was not considerd devote by any stretch of the imagination. I guess his religious aspect was more inline with the average man, secular when it served him and religious when he felt he needed it.

Franklin was a self proclaimed diest. He understood the purpose of religion in society. He was proud that he was able to get the town he was living in to build a multi-denominational meeting house inwhich a representaive of any religion could hold functions there.
Franklin's brand of Dieism was more "christian friendly" than other fellow diests.

Thomas Paine and Etah Allen were hardcore diests, meaning not as "christian firendly" as Franklin as were Madison and Monroe.

Samual Adamas was the only one who remained a practicing Calvinist.

Almost all the founding fathers attended either an Episcapalian or Anglican church, but most historians agree that they did so for reasons of community than religion.

Suffice it to say that when our founding fathers mention god in the Constsution and Bill of rights they were not talking about a christian god. They were talking about a "natural" or non-denominational god.

But wether they were religious or not thay all agreed that the church and state should remain separate. They thought that idea was so important to them that they made it a core ideal of this country and put it in writing.

My source for this info is Brittanica, execpt for Franklin. I'm a Franklin buff (even though he owned a house slave) I've read his autobiography and few other biographies.

Ricomise

22nd April 2009, 11:15 AM

Suffice it to say that when our founding fathers mention god in the Constsution and Bill of rights they were not talking about a christian god. They were talking about a "natural" or non-denominational god.

I feel I must point out here that, in fact, they mention god nowhere in the Constitution or any of the Bill of Rights. Religion is mentioned in the First Amendment, as in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.."

In fact, they went out of their way not to mention god. The preamble, where the source of power for the document is enumerated, and would be the traditional place to credit a deity, does not mention god, but begins "We the People of the United States of America..."

In fact, Article II, section 1, (regarding the executive branch,) sets out the oath or affirmation a president must make before taking office. It reads, in its entirety: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Notice what's missing?

It is more than obvious to anyone who has read the document and studied any history, that the founding fathers, in the end, decided that there was no place for god in the founding document of the nation.

The Declaration of Independence, of course, mentions a "creator," who likely refers to the deist idea you mentioned, but the Declaration was a list of grievences against King George III, is not a founding document of the nation, and has never had any force of law.

Sorry, pet peeve.

Carry on.

INRM

22nd April 2009, 12:17 PM

Skeptigirl,

I suppose religious morals are based on basic morality and ethics (don't kill, don't steal, don't rape). Most pack animals do have some form of code of conduct whether very basic, to us in which we have codified laws and rules with distinct punishments.

INRM

uruk

22nd April 2009, 01:10 PM

I feel I must point out here that, in fact, they mention god nowhere in the Constitution or any of the Bill of Rights. Religion is mentioned in the First Amendment, as in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.."

~snip~ Sorry, pet peeve.

Carry on.

Technicaly God, or rather the "Lord", is mentioned once in the U.S. Constitution.

It is in article 7 :

"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the
Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred
and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the
Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names."

It is an insignificant refrence to god to be sure, but technicaly a god refrence is in there.
I'm sure it was more a literary formality than an actual refrence to a god.

You are correct that the Bill of Rights contains no refrence to "god" or "lord" at all.

It is but a nit picked.

Cleon

22nd April 2009, 01:18 PM

Technicaly God, or rather the "Lord", is mentioned once in the U.S. Constitution.

It is in article 7 :

"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the
Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred
and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the
Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names."

It is an insignificant refrence to god to be sure, but technicaly a god refrence is in there.
I'm sure it was more a literary formality than an actual refrence to a god.

You are correct that the Bill of Rights contains no refrence to "god" or "lord" at all.

It is but a nit picked.

It's a convention, the equivalent of using the letters "ad" after a year.

Actually, it's not equivalent, it's the same damn thing..."ad" means "anno domini," Latin for "year of our Lord."

ServiceSoon

22nd April 2009, 01:19 PM

Kindly get your story straight.

I'd be very interested in seeing you try to substantiate that.

If you will look at the post you were responding to, the Tao Te Ching was mentioned as a substantiation of the point that "those natural human values didn't originate from the bible."

He made a point, and substantiated it. Perfectly relevant.I would be happy to get my story straight. It is my fault because I wasn't detailed enough in my writings. One-liners can be that way.

I know the majority of those rights didn't originate from the Bible. I believe that it was the bible who brought those rights to America. The founding fathers sought information from a variety of sources when creating the USA, the Bible was one of those sources.

Cleon

22nd April 2009, 01:21 PM

ServiceSoon

22nd April 2009, 01:34 PM

This is exactly the same argument as "if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

It's a stupid and ill-thought out argument for exactly the same reasons.If humans evolved from the bible, why are there still bibles. Nope doesn't fit. What else do ya got?

The argument is that these things just happen...naturally. We are a people of science. Science is used to explain why things happen. Isn't it considered woo if we accept that things just happen naturally?

Social science should be able to explain why something happened in the USA which hasn't happened in Africa. It isn't a trick or an argument designed to change the subject. Your quote above can be considered such a tool. It is an honest question, which begs an honest answer. If you don't know the answer you can admit that, it's ok to do that every once in a while.

uruk

22nd April 2009, 01:37 PM

It's a convention, the equivalent of using the letters "ad" after a year.

Actually, it's not equivalent, it's the same damn thing..."ad" means "anno domini," Latin for "year of our Lord."

I know. I said it was a literary formality ( "convention" was the correct word I was trying to remember).

But technicaly speaking, the word "lord" (which is a refrence to god or Jesus) is in the Constitution though it is just an insignificant refrence.

I am just nit picking.

ponderingturtle

22nd April 2009, 01:38 PM

If humans evolved from the bible, why are there still bibles. Nope doesn't fit. What else do ya got?

The argument is that these things just happen...naturally. We are a people of science. Science is used to explain why things happen. Isn't it considered woo if we accept that things just happen naturally?

Social science should be able to explain why something happened in the USA which hasn't happened in Africa. It isn't a trick or an argument designed to change the subject. Your quote above can be considered such a tool. It is an honest question, which begs an honest answer. If you don't know the answer you can admit that, it's ok to do that every once in a while.

Well then it is not christianity as africa has had it longer, look at the Copts.

Fiona

22nd April 2009, 01:40 PM

As already discussed, some of the laws on the books coincide with religious values. So if this all happened naturally, why are some tribes in Africa not evolving as fast as us? The idea is that through force of government, religion compelled people to follow their rules and shaped society the way we know it today.

What "tribes" are you talking about? Most of africa is either christian or moslem so far as I know

Cleon

22nd April 2009, 01:44 PM

What "tribes" are you talking about? Most of africa is either christian or moslem so far as I know

Animism is still very big, especially in central Africa.

Third Eye Open

22nd April 2009, 01:47 PM

As already discussed, some of the laws on the books coincide with religious values. So if this all happened naturally, why are some tribes in Africa not evolving as fast as us? The idea is that through force of government, religion compelled people to follow their rules and shaped society the way we know it today.

It has a lot to do with environment. What crops are able to be grown in the area, what animals are available for domestication. The book Guns Germs and Steel goes into great detail about why some tribes never became 'civilized'.

joobz

22nd April 2009, 01:47 PM

Well, there's two levels of "founding" here. Are we talking about the founding of the American government or the founding of American laws?

1.) American Government
It would be rather silly to make any claim that the American government was founded on Christian values. There is nothing in the bible or in the Christian faith that prevents monarchies, dictatorships, oligarchies, republics, communism, etc. In fact, if there is any single form of government that the bible accepts, it's that of kingdoms. Jesus was a descent of a human king (and god). This wasn't just to fulfill a prophecy. It was also to show his pure lineage to Abraham. Kingship meant a lot in the bible and the modern deviation from kingship is certainly not a biblical creation.

2.) American Laws.
Now this is the interesting part. We must ask what we mean by "America was founded on Christian values". Is this meant as "as opposed to European values" or simply that both European values and American values are founded on Christian values. The former is obviously nonsense. Europe nations have State Christian Churchs. Any claim that their laws aren't founded on Christian views would be a simple disregard for logic. I do not know if anyone thinks this, but simply want to cover my bases.

But then if we accept that Europe was founded on Christian values, than American values were founded on European values which were founded on Christian values. this is a two step effect, but one that is important. The most accurate statement would be to say that the American Values are founded upon the values of the colonists who were Christian. They clearly felt that the Christian values were the RIGHT values, BUT they did something extremely interesting in the codification of these values. And it is this that makes all the difference. They did not single out any religion as the basis for any law. In Fact, they wrote the constitution to expressly prohibit such religiously imposed rules. Certainly, they did this because they believed that the Christian values were the best ones and would naturally rise to the top. But they allowed the selection process to decide that and did not force it upon the country.

If I was to say there was a guiding principle that America was founded on, it was allowing a free marketplace of ideas to naturally select what is best, most moral, most just for all. And indeed, they allowed this openness of ideas along side simultaneously permitting slavery. Sure it was hotly contested, but it was still permissible by the government upon ratification.

America was started as a series of self contradictions. equal rights for all, except women and blacks. All could vote, but we need an electoral college to prevent bad choices. Slaves aren't people, but count as 3/5th in the census. Indeed, If there was any validity to the claim that America was founded upon Christian values, it would be best demonstrated by these contradictions. The bible itself is a teeming mass of self contradiction. The Golden Rule, next to parables about keeping slaves. Turning the other cheek, while damning a fig tree. Screaming "My God, why have you forsaken me" and shouting "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit"

It is these contradictions that America is founded on and is what is seen in the bible. The beautiful mixed with the horror. If we are to accept America as being founded on Christianity, it is these contradictions that we received as a result of that founding. But, we have one advantage that the bible doesn't. The bible is immutable in its imperfection. America isn't. We are not part of a society built perfectly for us, but rather a work in progress that we are expected to improve upon. America can be improved and has been improved. I think we must respect our origins, but we should not pretend that this origin was perfect. So, while we may (in the loosest terms) say that our nation was founded on Christian values, It is also proper to say that we have progressed beyond these imperfect roots.

Fiona

22nd April 2009, 01:58 PM

Animism is still very big, especially in central Africa.
Can't find support for this Cleon: got a reference I can read?

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Africa_-_Religion/id/1282750

Approximately 40% of all Africans are Christians and another 40% Muslims. Roughly 20% of Africans primarily follow indigenous African religions.

http://worldviews.igc.org/awpguide/relig.html

African countries in which one belief system claims 50 percent or more of the population as believers
Traditional Religions Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Cote d'Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Togo, Zambia
Christianity Angola, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Equitorial Guinea, Gabon, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Namibia, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Uganda, Zimbabwe
Islam Algeria, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Gambia, Guinea, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisis
Mixed* Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo (Zaire), Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mauritius, Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania
* no belief system having 50 percent of the population as adherents

Prometheus

22nd April 2009, 02:02 PM

I would be happy to get my story straight. It is my fault because I wasn't detailed enough in my writings. One-liners can be that way.

I know the majority of those rights didn't originate from the Bible. I believe that it was the bible who brought those rights to America. The founding fathers sought information from a variety of sources when creating the USA, the Bible was one of those sources.

There's some debate as to how much was already here, actually. The Iroquois Confederacy included a lot of the values that were later enshrined in the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson did have extensive dealings with the Iroquois people, but there's no surviving historical evidence as to how well he understood their system or how much he may have been influenced by it.

Cleon

22nd April 2009, 02:04 PM

Can't find support for this Cleon: got a reference I can read?

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Africa_-_Religion/id/1282750

http://worldviews.igc.org/awpguide/relig.html

Those "indigenous African religions" that's mentioned tend to be animistic.

Animism isn't any one religion, but more of a "category" of religious belief. (I can't think of a better way to put it, as it's late in the day and I'm tired.)

pgwenthold

22nd April 2009, 02:06 PM

Technicaly God, or rather the "Lord", is mentioned once in the U.S. Constitution.

It is in article 7 :

"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the
Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred
and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the
Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names."

It is an insignificant refrence to god to be sure, but technicaly a god refrence is in there.
I'm sure it was more a literary formality than an actual refrence to a god.

You are correct that the Bill of Rights contains no refrence to "god" or "lord" at all.

It is but a nit picked.

But then, technically, there are other gods mentioned, too, if there is any mention of Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday, at the very least.

Is the word Saturday in the constitution? Is that a recognition of the god Saturn? And woe be it should Woden's Day be mentioned.

themusicteacher

22nd April 2009, 02:15 PM

I think where most people get the "christian values" thing from is that they're going back to the people who first came here, the pilgrims and puritans. Of course, those groups have little directly to do with the founding of America but people use them a (false) reference point. Further, those groups, as everyone knows, came to escape persecution (or were sent here by people tired of their uber-woo) and/or to practice their own religion. The irony is apparently lost on those who would have us all living in Jebus Utopia.

drkitten

22nd April 2009, 02:32 PM

If humans evolved from the bible, why are there still bibles. Nope doesn't fit. What else do ya got?

Wow. You can even misrepresent YOUR OWN ARGUMENT. That takes talent.

The argument is that these things just happen...naturally.

Not at all. The argument is that change in one area will not necessarily be reflecting by corresponding changes in other areas.

We are a people of science. Science is used to explain why things happen. Isn't it considered woo if we accept that things just happen naturally?

Not at all. For example, science can't explain why some people die from pneumonia while others recover, nor can it tell you which particular uranium atom will decay. What we can tell you, though, is that just because this atom has decayed doesn't tell us much about when that one will, but that it probably will (and we can quantify "probably" down to tiny fractions of a percent.)

Social science should be able to explain why something happened in the USA which hasn't happened in Africa.

And it can. Basically, because conditions were different in Africa. Guns, Germs, and Steel provides several arguments about why Eurasian/African cultures rocketed ahead of Native American and why Europe, in particular, rocketed ahead of Africa.

In other words, the same reason that some monkeys stayed monkeys and other monkeys became humans. Because they were in different environments and responded differently.

It isn't a trick or an argument designed to change the subject.

Yes, it is.

It is an honest question, which begs an honest answer.

No, it isn't.

If you don't know the answer you can admit that, it's ok to do that every once in a while.

Except I do know the answer, and I recognize a deceptive question when I see one.

Fiona

22nd April 2009, 02:41 PM

Those "indigenous African religions" that's mentioned tend to be animistic.

Animism isn't any one religion, but more of a "category" of religious belief. (I can't think of a better way to put it, as it's late in the day and I'm tired.)

Yes I understand that, I think. But they do not seem to be a majority in many places nor anything like it. One of those references shows some few places with 50% animist but it seems to be rare and on the continent as a whole they are 80% abrahamic

drkitten

22nd April 2009, 02:43 PM

I know the majority of those rights didn't originate from the Bible. I believe that it was the bible who brought those rights to America.

On what basis do you make that claim?

Most of the "rights" enumerated in the constitution are not at all Biblical; in fact, quite the opposite. They're practices that are nowhere mentioned in the Bible (such as trial by jury, the right to counsel, freedom of speech, and so forth). Similarly, the idea of a representative assembly or a supreme executive who is elected instead of appointed by God is nowhere found in the Bible.

Where those ideas are found are in the various documents underlying English common law. For example, the idea of enumerated rights comes from the Magna Carta, as do many of the fundamental rights such as "habeas corpus" or the right to trial by jury.

The founding fathers sought information from a variety of sources when creating the USA, the Bible was one of those sources.

I don't believe you can substantiate this. Indeed, I don't believe there's a single aspect of the US constitution text that you can derive from a biblical source for, for which I can't point to an equally credible secular source in either English common law or Enlightenment philosophical writings.

Hokulele

22nd April 2009, 02:47 PM

Yes I understand that, I think. But they do not seem to be a majority in many places nor anything like it. One of those references shows some few places with 50% animist but it seems to be rare and on the continent as a whole they are 80% abrahamic

I don't have the stats in front of me at the moment, but many Africans subscribe to both an Abrahamic as well as an indigenous religion. In several cases, the two will blend together. The Wiki article on vodun gives some examples.

About 18% of the population of Benin, some 1 million people, follow Vodun. (This does not count other traditional religions in Benin.) In addition, many of the 43% of the population that refer to themselves as Christian practise a syncretized religion, not dissimilar from Haitian Vodou or Brazilian Cadomblé; indeed, many of them are descended from freed Brazilian slaves who settled on the coast near Ouidah. In Togo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Togo), about half the population practises indigenous religions, of which Vodun is by far the largest, with some 2½ million followers; there may be another million Vodunists among the Ewe of Ghana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana): 13% of the population of 20 million are Ewe and 38% of Ghanaians practise traditional religion. According to census data, about 14 million people practise traditional religion in Nigeria, most of whom are Yoruba practising Vodun, but no specific breakdown is available.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_African_Vodun).

ETA: I would correct Cleon a bit and state that many indigenous religions are forms of ancestor worship, which is a bit different from pure animism. Several of the religions could easily categorized many different ways (pantheistic, animistic, shamanistic, etc.).

Fiona

22nd April 2009, 02:51 PM

drkitten

22nd April 2009, 02:52 PM

Yes I understand that, I think. But they do not seem to be a majority in many places nor anything like it. One of those references shows some few places with 50% animist but it seems to be rare and on the continent as a whole they are 80% abrahamic

I submit that 20% of the population of Africa is still "big."

India has less than 20% of the world population and it's still "big." Even the USA is "big" in terms of population.

Hokulele

22nd April 2009, 02:56 PM

Thank you Hokulele.

Since the claim is that it is the influence of religion on government that counts can you say if there are states which have these as national religions or where they are very influential in government circles? I have not been able to find that information

Personally, I think it is completely irrelevant to the topic. The issue that started this derail was a comment regarding "tribes" in Africa being less evolved than elsewhere and laying the blame/credit at the feet of religion. As others have stated, I don't think it is primarily a religious issue, and I would be extremely hesitant to lump all of Africa into a "less evolved" category.

ETA: To better answer your question, no I do not have that information. Sadly, I am a poor student of politics.

joobz

22nd April 2009, 02:58 PM

Personally, I think it is completely irrelevant to the topic. The issue that started this derail was a comment regarding "tribes" in Africa being less evolved than elsewhere and laying the blame/credit at the feet of religion. As others have stated, I don't think it is primarily a religious issue, and I would be extremely hesitant to lump all of Africa into a "less evolved" category.

This is exactly what turns me off to the comparison. Although, if we do accept that concept, then we must agree that Mormonism is the more evolved form of christianity.

Fiona

22nd April 2009, 02:58 PM

Yes drkitten: 20% is big. But as Cleon said this is not one religion and so it is not clear to me that they form a homogeneous group which would be a political or social force per se. Not saying they are not, for I do not know. The claim is "The idea is that through force of government, religion compelled people to follow their rules and shaped society the way we know it today" and I think this means that the different religion resulted in the difference we see in society and value systems. Which might be true for all I know. But 20% does not seem sufficient to me when the majority are abrahamic. Is there any evidence of different development of this sort within africa based on the prevalence of these religions?

drkitten

22nd April 2009, 03:10 PM

Yes drkitten: 20% is big. But as Cleon said this is not one religion and so it is not clear to me that they form a homogeneous group which would be a political or social force per se.

Goodness me. If you're looking for "political or social force," then you're looking on completely the wrong scale. As I believe Tip O'Neill is supposed to have said, "all politics is local." It doesn't matter if only 0.01% of the population of your country subscribe to a particular belief, if that 0.01% happens to include all of the local authority figures. Look, for example, at the Scientologists and their control of Clearwater, Florida, or the Rajneeshi cult and Antelope, Oregon. These are examples within the largely-Christian United States.

One of the characteristics of African (national) governments in general, even today, and the more so two hundred years ago, is that they are more or less powerless; the people who actually could compel other people to do things were the tribal chieftains and witch doctors and whatnot. And even when a particular set of chieftains is displaced (perhaps by the guns of Her Majesty's 21st Highlander Brigade), the cultural norms have a tendency to persist, in part because people have a vested interest in keeping the culture going.

But 20% does not seem sufficient to me when the majority are abrahamic. Is there any evidence of different development of this sort within africa based on the prevalence of these religions?

Quite a bit, but it's hard to distinguish the effects of colonization from the effects of religion. As you might expect, the Islamic parts of Africa were easily accessible to the Arabs and colonized fairly early -- and achieved moderate technology (such as sailing ships and large-scale trade) quickly. The Christian parts, of course, were easily accessible to Christian traders and missionaries from the UK, France, Germany, and so forth -- and tend to have even higher development as befitting European colonies. The parts that stayed "native" tended to be the parts where no one in their right mind could or would go,.... and as a result tend to be the more primitive.

All of this to a first approximation, of course. But look at the availability of "clean" water (which is usually quantified in various almanacs) and ask yourself who is likely to build a water treatment plant, and where in Africa it's likely to be built.

stilicho

22nd April 2009, 03:27 PM

It has a lot to do with environment. What crops are able to be grown in the area, what animals are available for domestication. The book Guns Germs and Steel goes into great detail about why some tribes never became 'civilized'.

The extent of navigable rivers is another variable in civilisation, too.

Fiona

22nd April 2009, 04:45 PM

@drkitten. I do not follow what you are saying, really. Is there evidence that the animists are in fact the authority figures in African society? Since Africa is not homogenous I find it hard to believe that this will be the case throughout. If it is not are there significant and consistent differences between those societies where animism is the religion of the authority figures and those where it is not. Can we separate that from the economic arrangements: from climate and fertility and the other things which have already been mentioned? Can you demonstrate from a comparison of countries where such things are relatively similar but there is a difference in the religion of the authority figures that the religion of itself leads to the kind of thing implied by ServiceSoon's post? Can you show that there is in fact a difference in the value system of animists as compared with christians or moslems in the terms which are under consideration here? Do animists approve murder or rape or theft as a consequence of their religion?

HansMustermann

22nd April 2009, 05:47 PM

I'd like to add that the funny thing about the Magna Carta was that it was denounced by Pope Innocent III as a "shameful and demeaning agreement, forced upon the King by violence and fear." The Pope released King John from the oath and declared it null and void.

The Magna Carta was _not_ "christian values" and was very much against the "christian values" at the time. It went right against the religious thinking of the time. It tried to make the King, in effect, a servant to the country, whereas the religious thinking of the time ranged from (A) the King being a loose vassal to the Pope, to (B) the King being supreme and divinely-appointed ruler over secular matters, while the Pope retained supreme rule over spiritual matters. The former was favoured by the Popes, obviously, and the latter by the Kings, and many conflicts brewed over that divergence in views, and many uneasy compromises were forged.

Making the King a servant to the people and the land, angered both the King _and_ the pappacy. The latter was cut off from any claim of suzerainty over Kings, by such an arrangement.

The First Barons' War was, in effect, not just a revolt against the tyrannical unchecked power of the crown, but also against the religious thinking that backed it.

The various clauses in it also went right against the medieval religion-based thinking. E.g., trial by jury or habeas corpus went right against medieval ideas where the Lord judged everything, and trial by some ordeal (in which surely the Lord will decide if you're innocent and deliver you if such) was trial and proof enough. It tried to put some _secular_ justice into the backwards abomination that "christian values" in justice were at the time.

So seeing the later offspring of those ideas presented as "christian values" is outright funny.

Tricky

22nd April 2009, 06:09 PM

uruk

22nd April 2009, 06:19 PM

Prometheus

22nd April 2009, 08:07 PM

Ducky

23rd April 2009, 07:15 AM

Ironically, the only typically Christian value I can find in the Constitution is the idea of "separation of church and state."* You know, "Render unto Caesar," and all that.

*yeah, I know that's not literally in there; it derives from the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment [/pedant]

Well......that depends on whether you want to take the narrow or broader interpretation of that clause.

At a bare minimum it does indeed establish sanctions against a state sponsored religion, but unless you also include the writings of Jefferson and Madison you don't fully get a wall of separation just from that clause. After all, that same legislative session opened with a prayer.

However, I personally cannot take a narrow interpretation of it. While not legally binding, the letters of Jefferson and Madison clearly state intent by the founding fathers to avoid any hint of theocracy. Whether that also means Christianity specifically is not expressly stated in the constitution itself, but the treaty of Tripoli is pretty telling (and legally binding between the US and Tripoli.) For those who don't know it, Article 11 of that treaty reads as follows:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The senate confirmation of this treaty was at the time only the third recorded unanimous vote. That's pretty telling, I think.

ETA: Page 3 and I'm the first to bring up the Treaty of Tripoli given the OP? That's surprising. Did I miss a post?

joobz

23rd April 2009, 08:04 AM

ETA: Page 3 and I'm the first to bring up the Treaty of Tripoli given the OP? That's surprising. Did I miss a post?
No. I find that it's not as effective as we'd like. You end up getting into side tracks about the effectiveness of the treaty, and how we still went to war. To the most devote, they use that as proof that when we stray from christ, we pay for those actions.

Actually, I'd like to hear comments on my argument below. Especially the point regarding moral contradictions in the bible and the United states. I'm sure it can be improved, but I thought it was an interesting take on the issue.

Well, there's two levels of "founding" here. Are we talking about the founding of the American government or the founding of American laws?

1.) American Government
It would be rather silly to make any claim that the American government was founded on Christian values. There is nothing in the bible or in the Christian faith that prevents monarchies, dictatorships, oligarchies, republics, communism, etc. In fact, if there is any single form of government that the bible accepts, it's that of kingdoms. Jesus was a descent of a human king (and god). This wasn't just to fulfill a prophecy. It was also to show his pure lineage to Abraham. Kingship meant a lot in the bible and the modern deviation from kingship is certainly not a biblical creation.

2.) American Laws.
Now this is the interesting part. We must ask what we mean by "America was founded on Christian values". Is this meant as "as opposed to European values" or simply that both European values and American values are founded on Christian values. The former is obviously nonsense. Europe nations have State Christian Churchs. Any claim that their laws aren't founded on Christian views would be a simple disregard for logic. I do not know if anyone thinks this, but simply want to cover my bases.

But then if we accept that Europe was founded on Christian values, than American values were founded on European values which were founded on Christian values. this is a two step effect, but one that is important. The most accurate statement would be to say that the American Values are founded upon the values of the colonists who were Christian. They clearly felt that the Christian values were the RIGHT values, BUT they did something extremely interesting in the codification of these values. And it is this that makes all the difference. They did not single out any religion as the basis for any law. In Fact, they wrote the constitution to expressly prohibit such religiously imposed rules. Certainly, they did this because they believed that the Christian values were the best ones and would naturally rise to the top. But they allowed the selection process to decide that and did not force it upon the country.

If I was to say there was a guiding principle that America was founded on, it was allowing a free marketplace of ideas to naturally select what is best, most moral, most just for all. And indeed, they allowed this openness of ideas along side simultaneously permitting slavery. Sure it was hotly contested, but it was still permissible by the government upon ratification.

America was started as a series of self contradictions. equal rights for all, except women and blacks. All could vote, but we need an electoral college to prevent bad choices. Slaves aren't people, but count as 3/5th in the census. Indeed, If there was any validity to the claim that America was founded upon Christian values, it would be best demonstrated by these contradictions. The bible itself is a teeming mass of self contradiction. The Golden Rule, next to parables about keeping slaves. Turning the other cheek, while damning a fig tree. Screaming "My God, why have you forsaken me" and shouting "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit"

It is these contradictions that America is founded on and is what is seen in the bible. The beautiful mixed with the horror. If we are to accept America as being founded on Christianity, it is these contradictions that we received as a result of that founding. But, we have one advantage that the bible doesn't. The bible is immutable in its imperfection. America isn't. We are not part of a society built perfectly for us, but rather a work in progress that we are expected to improve upon. America can be improved and has been improved. I think we must respect our origins, but we should not pretend that this origin was perfect. So, while we may (in the loosest terms) say that our nation was founded on Christian values, It is also proper to say that we have progressed beyond these imperfect roots.

ponderingturtle

23rd April 2009, 08:16 AM

Well......that depends on whether you want to take the narrow or broader interpretation of that clause.

At a bare minimum it does indeed establish sanctions against a state sponsored religion, but unless you also include the writings of Jefferson and Madison you don't fully get a wall of separation just from that clause. After all, that same legislative session opened with a prayer.

Wasn't that done by Franklin who was not exactly the most religious person?

drkitten

23rd April 2009, 08:35 AM

@drkitten. I do not follow what you are saying, really.

Let me try again, then.

Is there evidence that the animists are in fact the authority figures in African society?

"The" authority figures? Of course not? Significant authority figures? Yes.

Since Africa is not homogenous I find it hard to believe that this will be the case throughout.

That's sort of my point. Nothing is the case throughout, but there are very significant trends.

If it is not are there significant and consistent differences between those societies where animism is the religion of the authority figures and those where it is not.

Yes.

Can we separate that from the economic arrangements: from climate and fertility and the other things which have already been mentioned?

No. This is sociology, not lab science. There are no controlled experiments.

Can you demonstrate from a comparison of countries where such things are relatively similar but there is a difference in the religion of the authority figures that the religion of itself leads to the kind of thing implied by ServiceSoon's post?

No. There are no controlled experiments.

Can you show that there is in fact a difference in the value system of animists as compared with christians or moslems in the terms which are under consideration here?

A difference? Of course not. Given that neither Christians nor Moslems have a unified value system, it would be fooling to expect animists to, and equally foolish to expect value unanimity across groups in any meaningful sense.

Ducky

23rd April 2009, 08:55 AM

Wasn't that done by Franklin who was not exactly the most religious person?

Here (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp) are all the notes by Madison on the constitutional debates in the federal convention. I cannot find one note showing Jefferson to have done that.

Ducky

23rd April 2009, 08:56 AM

No. I find that it's not as effective as we'd like. You end up getting into side tracks about the effectiveness of the treaty, and how we still went to war. To the most devote, they use that as proof that when we stray from christ, we pay for those actions.

Actually, I'd like to hear comments on my argument below. Especially the point regarding moral contradictions in the bible and the United states. I'm sure it can be improved, but I thought it was an interesting take on the issue.

My point was to include more actions that just the Constitution in this, as it is not the entirety of US law. What also is remarkably stupid is the need to proclaim historical facts as cannon to US law, when we clearly have evolved our code of law to no longer reflect those moral standpoints (women's vote, slavery etc.)

Typicallucas

23rd April 2009, 05:29 PM

...
Actually, I'd like to hear comments on my argument below. Especially the point regarding moral contradictions in the bible and the United states. I'm sure it can be improved, but I thought it was an interesting take on the issue.

Here is my comment on your argument: Your argument is filled with deceptions and a lot of word play to work around your own original statement in 4 steps:

[Original Statement:]
"It would be rather silly to make any claim that the American government was founded on Christian values"

Step 1)
"if we accept that Europe was founded on Christian values, than American values were founded on European values which were founded on Christian values."

Step 2)
"America was started as a series of self contradictions...If there was any validity to the claim that America was founded upon Christian values, it would be best demonstrated by these contradictions."

Step 3)
"It is these contradictions that America is founded on and is what is seen in the bible... If we are to accept America as being founded on Christianity, it is these contradictions that we received as a result of that founding"

Step 4)
"So, while we may (in the loosest terms) say that our nation was founded on Christian values, It is also proper to say that we have progressed beyond these imperfect roots."

Don't think I didn't notice these two doozies that you slipped in there.

"The most accurate statement would be to say that the American Values are founded upon the values of the colonists who were Christian."

That isn't the most accurate statement. There are other statements that are more accurate. Like:
The idea that America was founded on Christian values caused by the mistaken assumption that our founding fathers were christian. Some were but other were not. At least not int he strictest sense. If you were to read some of our founding fathers thoughts on religion and god you would find that thier beliefs are not quite in line with present day christianity.

"[The framers of the Constitution] did this because they believed that the Christian values were the best ones and would naturally rise to the top."

Unless you have any reference to back this statement up I am going to write it off as a complete fabrication because from what I know about the Constitution this makes absolutely no sense.

joobz

23rd April 2009, 06:01 PM

Here is my comment on your argument: Your argument is filled with deceptions and a lot of word play to work around your own original statement in 4 steps:
such as?

[Original Statement:]

Step 1)

Step 2)

Step 3)

Step 4)
What's your point? Do you actually have a critique?

Don't think I didn't notice these two doozies that you slipped in there.

That isn't the most accurate statement. There are other statements that are more accurate. To find some look for a post by uruk that address this statement specifically (written several hours before you wrote your post)
which post by Uruk? You are merely being a contrarian.

Unless you have any reference to back this statement up I am going to write it off as a complete fabrication because from what I know about the Constitution this makes absolutely no sense.
Excellent. you have an argument. Well, Look into Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments". He was arguing against a bill that would have allowed the state sponsored teaching of the christian religion.

It's entire statement is basically what I said. But, here's a few good points from it.
Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. "
[quote]

Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.

uruk

23rd April 2009, 06:27 PM

Wasn't that done by Franklin who was not exactly the most religious person?
I think the idea of Franklin opening the legislative session with a prayer is considered apocryphal since there is no written account of it other than in anecdotal reference to Adams reply of "why do we need to appeal to foriegn aid" or something to that effect.

uruk

23rd April 2009, 07:07 PM

~snip~
which post by Uruk? You are merely being a contrarian.

~snip~

This one concerning the views on christianity held by the founding fathers:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4643658&postcount=55

Some of our founding fathers were not too "friendly" with Christian beliefs. Jefferson, Paine, Allen, Madison and Monroe were down right "unfriendly" with Christian beliefs.

Jefferson even went so far as to rewrite a version of the New Testament in line with his beliefs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/
In it he removed all references to Jesus' divinity. He removed any mention of miracles and the ressurection. Jefferson's bible simply ends with the crucifiction of Jesus.

He did not see Jesus as god or the messiah or the son of god, but simply as a moral teacher. What Jefferson admired were the secular moral teachings of Jesus.

You could try and argue that it makes Jefferson's contributions to the founding of America as being based on "christian" ideals, but it would be a weak argument. Christianity relies heavily on the divinity of Jesus or the "Christ" aspect of Jesus. Jefferson did not buy into the "Christ" or the messianic aspect of Jesus.

Almost all of the founding fathers were agnostic diests at the time of the writting of the Declaration of independence, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

Some did became more religious later in life though.

joobz

23rd April 2009, 07:41 PM

Some of our founding fathers were not too "friendly" with Christian beliefs. Jefferson, Paine, Allen, Madison and Monroe were down right "unfriendly" with Christian beliefs.Of course. But the founding of the nation wasn't by a single set of people with a unified view of rights. Washington and Patrick Henry were certainly not anti-christian.

Jefferson even went so far as to rewrite a version of the New Testament in line with his beliefs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/
In it he removed all references to Jesus' divinity. He removed any mention of miracles and the ressurection. Jefferson's bible simply ends with the crucifiction of Jesus.

He did not see Jesus as god or the messiah or the son of god, but simply as a moral teacher. What Jefferson admired were the secular moral teachings of Jesus.Of course. But note, that the Jefferson Bible wasn't simply an act of defiance against christianity. It was jefferson who said:
...the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills
He saw the moral teachings that was wrapped up in magical nonsense.

It was actually Jefferson's view which made me see the link between the biblical contradictions and the contradictions in the founding of america.
jefferson was at once a proponent to liberty but was also a slave owner. Moral Contradictions.

You could try and argue that it makes Jefferson's contributions to the founding of America as being based on "christian" ideals, but it would be a weak argument. Christianity relies heavily on the divinity of Jesus or the "Christ" aspect of Jesus. Jefferson did not buy into the "Christ" or the messianic aspect of Jesus.
I agree and that's not my arguement. I am not certain what you are arguing against.

Almost all of the founding fathers were agnostic diests at the time of the writting of the Declaration of independence, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
Exactly. But that's why I seperated the "founded on christian values" thing into
the government and the laws of the land.

THe government is clearly non-christian in it's development.

The laws, on the other hand, are an extension of the morality of the population. This isn't just the founding fathers but all early colonists at the time. As such, it would be silly to try and claim that christianity wasn't involved at all. But, like I said, the true legacy that christianty provided us was a legacy of contradictory morals.

Prometheus

23rd April 2009, 07:52 PM

Of course. But the founding of the nation wasn't by a single set of people with a unified view of rights. Washington and Patrick Henry were certainly not anti-christian.

Of course. But note, that the Jefferson Bible wasn't simply an act of defiance against christianity. It was jefferson who said:

He saw the moral teachings that was wrapped up in magical nonsense.

It was actually Jefferson's view which made me see the link between the biblical contradictions and the contradictions in the founding of america.
jefferson was at once a proponent to liberty but was also a slave owner. Moral Contradictions.

I agree and that's not my arguement. I am not certain what you are arguing against.

Exactly. But that's why I seperated the "founded on christian values" thing into
the government and the laws of the land.

THe government is clearly non-christian in it's development.

The laws, on the other hand, are an extension of the morality of the population. This isn't just the founding fathers but all early colonists at the time. As such, it would be silly to try and claim that christianity wasn't involved at all. But, like I said, the true legacy that christianty provided us was a legacy of contradictory morals.

However, it's not really correct to consider laws outside the Constitution as part of the foundation of the nation. They are secondary to it. The Constitution is the founding document of the U.S. Any claim at all that the nation was founded on Christian values can only be sustained if those values can be found in the original text of the Constitution and, arguably, the Bill of Rights.

Typicallucas

23rd April 2009, 08:20 PM

What's your point? Do you actually have a critique?

I know you put a lot of effort into your argument that the US is loosely based on Christian values, but I'm not going to give you a serious rebuttal because I think your argument is disingenuous and your line of logic depends on word-play more than reality.

I'm sorry, except for your interpretation of Madison's writing I'm not going to further critique your argument. Maybe someone else will.

which post by Uruk? You are merely being a contrarian.

Sorry again, I wasn't just being contrarian, I was being lazy. I edited my post to include the quote I was referring to.

Excellent. you have an argument. Well, Look into Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments"...."
You are cherry picking and misinterpreting his writing to suit your theory. James Madison wrote this inspiring and thorough argument against state supported religion. Sure, in paragraph 12 he says things that are very Christian, but it seems to me that he is using the Christian terminology to further his argument against state sponsored religion.

Here is what I mean, he says:
Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions;
Sounds like he is totally in the bag for this branch of Christianity, right? After all, he called all other religions "false Religions" (Including presumably his own.) But then he drops the hammer
and how small is the former!
This reads as sarcasm to me.

The first quotation you gave: Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us."

I seems to me he is using "the Religion" anybody's religion, "evidence" meaning evidence of anybody's particular religion, and "us" and "we" to mean anybody. Sure he was a Christian, but I find it doubtful he is saying everybody else is wrong about Christianity. As a lawyer, politician, and framer I highly doubt he would write about Christianity on a public document in the way you interpreted.

I find it highly doubtful that your interpretation is correct. Also, to say that the framers thought that Christianity would "win" even if they didn't write it into their documents is only saying that they personally favored Christianity. Most evidence clearly indicates that the religious of the framers deliberately set aside their religious beliefs when creating our government.

You would have to provide some explicit and compelling evidence to show that the goal of the framers was to promote Christianity by not writing it into our Constitution.

Typicallucas

23rd April 2009, 08:36 PM

The laws, on the other hand, are an extension of the morality of the population. This isn't just the founding fathers but all early colonists at the time. As such, it would be silly to try and claim that christianity wasn't involved at all. But, like I said, the true legacy that christianty provided us was a legacy of contradictory morals.

Early colonists? The founding fathers were not early colonists. There was about 150 years between "early colonists" and the signing of the Constitution. I would argue that there wasn't a single early colonist alive in 1787.

To paraphrase Prometheus: Who said christianity wasn't involved at all? Plato's Republic also was also involved.

What is silly is to say that a country that had "moral contradictions" is related to christianity because christianity contains a different set of "moral contradictions."

joobz

23rd April 2009, 09:02 PM

Early colonists? The founding fathers were not early colonists. There was about 150 years between "early colonists" and the signing of the Constitution. I would argue that there wasn't a single early colonist alive in 1787.
I was referring to the contemporaries of the founding fathers. Would you claim ALL of them were diests?

To paraphrase Prometheus: Who said christianity wasn't involved at all? Plato's Republic also was also involved.
Please show me where I disagreed with this view?

What is silly is to say that a country that had "moral contradictions" is related to christianity because christianity contains a different set of "moral contradictions."
Nope. The bible contained the exact same set of moral contradictions.
especially with slavery. Jesus both condoned slavery and the golden rule.

joobz

23rd April 2009, 09:22 PM

I know you put a lot of effort into your argument that the US is loosely based on Christian values, but I'm not going to give you a serious rebuttal because I think your argument is disingenuous and your line of logic depends on word-play more than reality.
Not word play but causal relations. I was simply trying to show that the christian influence is distanced by the influence of european culture.

My first statement you quote was questioning what is meant by "America founded on christian values". Should this be considered unique? Why not call Europe founded on christian values? This is much more accurate as the monarchies established in europe are directly in line with the concept of kingdoms in the bible.

If we wanted to claim anything about what our nation as founded on, it would be on the principles of the colonists who were of european christian descent.

I'm sorry, except for your interpretation of Madison's writing I'm not going to further critique your argument. Maybe someone else will.

Sorry again, I wasn't just being contrarian, I was being lazy. I edited my post to include the quote I was referring to.

You are cherry picking and misinterpreting his writing to suit your theory. James Madison wrote this inspiring and thorough argument against state supported religion. Sure, in paragraph 12 he says things that are very Christian, but it seems to me that he is using the Christian terminology to further his argument against state sponsored religion.

Here is what I mean, he says:

Sounds like he is totally in the bag for this branch of Christianity, right? After all, he called all other religions "false Religions" (Including presumably his own.) But then he drops the hammer

This reads as sarcasm to me.
Perhaps sarcasm. Perhaps brutal fact.
In either case, Madison follows it with
Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defence against the encroachments of error.
Indeed, seems like it's an argument for "let the market place of ideas allow the cream to rise to the top". Perhaps you mean to imply that Madison was being disingenuous with this line of reasoning. Well, that may be. But it was clearly intended to sway those who DO BELIEVE that christianity is the light. I mean, why bother invoking such religious christian imagery? Why bother with demonstrating that the best way to support christianity is to seperate it from state, unless, of course a significant fraction of the legislature you are trying to sway BELIEVES christianity.

The first quotation you gave:

I seems to me he is using "the Religion" anybody's religion, "evidence" meaning evidence of anybody's particular religion, and "us" and "we" to mean anybody. Sure he was a Christian, but I find it doubtful he is saying everybody else is wrong about Christianity. As a lawyer, politician, and framer I highly doubt he would write about Christianity on a public document in the way you interpreted.

I find it highly doubtful that your interpretation is correct. Also, to say that the framers thought that Christianity would "win" even if they didn't write it into their documents is only saying that they personally favored Christianity. Most evidence clearly indicates that the religious of the framers deliberately set aside their religious beliefs when creating our government.
But the entirety of the argument was geared to those who are christian and religious. There's no reason to frame the argument in such a way, unless of course, the majority body would be swayed by such rhetoric.

You would have to provide some explicit and compelling evidence to show that the goal of the framers was to promote Christianity by not writing it into our Constitution.
Now this is simply false. I didn't say they wrote the constitution to Promote christianity. I said they wrote the constitution to promote freedom of religion. Allowing a religion to rise to the top is not the same as saying they were actively promoting it.

joobz

23rd April 2009, 09:23 PM

However, it's not really correct to consider laws outside the Constitution as part of the foundation of the nation. They are secondary to it. The Constitution is the founding document of the U.S. Any claim at all that the nation was founded on Christian values can only be sustained if those values can be found in the original text of the Constitution and, arguably, the Bill of Rights.
Certainly.

But I find people who make the "Found on chrstian values' argument will typically devolve into claiming that they weren't refering to the constitution but to the laws of the land.

I was simply showing that, "Perhaps that could be true. But I wouldn't be proud of that fact."

Prometheus

23rd April 2009, 09:25 PM

Certainly.

But I find people who make the "Found on chrstian values' argument will typically devolve into claiming that they weren't refering to the constitution but to the laws of the land.

I was simply showing that, "Perhaps that could be true. But I wouldn't be proud of that fact."

I see, I misunderstood you. Cheers. :)

joobz

23rd April 2009, 09:28 PM

I see, I misunderstood you. Cheers. :)
No problem.
I know my argument was convoluted and not the best described. I'm quite enjoying You, typicallucas, and uruk helping me improve/destroy it.

Typicallucas

23rd April 2009, 10:04 PM

I was referring to the contemporaries of the founding fathers. Would you claim ALL of them were diests?

This wasn't about deism, this was about you calling them early colonists, which I disagree with. Thats all.

Please show me where I disagreed with this view?

I am responding to this:

This isn't just the founding fathers but all early colonists at the time. As such, it would be silly to try and claim that christianity wasn't involved at all.

Nope. The bible contained the exact same set of moral contradictions.
especially with slavery. Jesus both condoned slavery and the golden rule.
You say same set, I say different set. I would assert that there are loads of moral contradictions that weren't practiced in a notable way in America's history. You say the similarity means they are related, I say that is a bunch of malarkey.

Nice talking with you.

joobz

24th April 2009, 12:23 AM

You say same set, I say different set. I would assert that there are loads of moral contradictions that weren't practiced in a notable way in America's history. You say the similarity means they are related, I say that is a bunch of malarkey.
My point is that if one is going to claim that our laws (murder, crime) are based on christian morality, it is equally valid to claim that the contradictions in our laws is based on christian morality.

Nice talking with you.
Thank you for your comments!:)

Euromutt

24th April 2009, 01:06 AM

But then, technically, there are other gods mentioned, too, if there is any mention of Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday, at the very least.

Is the word Saturday in the constitution? Is that a recognition of the god Saturn? And woe be it should Woden's Day be mentioned.Well, it's interesting you should mention that, since a large chunk of American common law is based on English common law, which in turn is primarily derived from Germanic tribal customs. That's where the right to trial by a jury of one's peers comes from, and the right to keep and bear arms (with the concomitant obligation to use them in defense of the community in times of emergency), to name but two. And that cultural heritage is also where we get certain days of the week being named for Germanic deities (Tyr, Odin/Woden, Thor/Donar, Freya).

Unfortunately, there's no mention of what day of the week the Constitution was signed and presented to the states for ratification, but September 17th 1787 was a Monday anyway. Still, it's an excellent rejoinder to the oft-made claim that the phrase "year of our Lord" is somehow significant. No slam on you, by the way, uruk, but there are people out there who genuinely claim this.

A lot of the rest of early American law was based on Roman law, incidentally, notably stuff going back to the Roman Republic. Which explains why the republican form of government and the trial by jury are such important features in the American legal system, despite neither appearing anywhere in the Bible.

uruk

24th April 2009, 10:33 AM

Of course. But the founding of the nation wasn't by a single set of people with a unified view of rights. Washington and Patrick Henry were certainly not anti-christian. True, but as others have pointed out the concepts of rights and what they ultimately put into paper concerning rights were completely secular.
The people who forged this country on thier backs were religious. The colonists that had the most money and power at the time were quakers.

But when it came to codifying those rights and formilizing the government into law the leaders knew they had to keep religion out of it.

~snip~

It was actually Jefferson's view which made me see the link between the biblical contradictions and the contradictions in the founding of america.
jefferson was at once a proponent to liberty but was also a slave owner. Moral Contradictions. But does Jefferson's and others moral contradictions and the bibles contradictions necessarily mean that there is a link between the two? After all, Jefferson rejected quite a bit of the bible.

Exactly. But that's why I seperated the "founded on christian values" thing into
the government and the laws of the land.

THe government is clearly non-christian in it's development.

The laws, on the other hand, are an extension of the morality of the population. This isn't just the founding fathers but all early colonists at the time. As such, it would be silly to try and claim that christianity wasn't involved at all. But, like I said, the true legacy that christianty provided us was a legacy of contradictory morals.
I would say that there are laws that have come and gone that may have been inspired or motivated by religion. Prohibition and ant-abortion laws (pre Rowe-v-Wade) being acouple that come to mind. But I think that our countires core values are more secular than inspired by any religion.

And I think that our country's basic moral code is also more secular. Ideas of live and let live, freedom of press and speech, persuit of happiness, and jurisprudence and habeas corpus are not inspired by the bible at all.

joobz

24th April 2009, 11:09 AM

True, but as others have pointed out the concepts of rights and what they ultimately put into paper concerning rights were completely secular.
The people who forged this country on thier backs were religious. The colonists that had the most money and power at the time were quakers.

But when it came to codifying those rights and formilizing the government into law the leaders knew they had to keep religion out of it.
Certainly. They saw what happens when churchs are allowed to influence government directly and legally.

But does Jefferson's and others moral contradictions and the bibles contradictions necessarily mean that there is a link between the two? After all, Jefferson rejected quite a bit of the bible.
Certainly he did. But the parts he rejected were those of the mystical/magical variety. Not of the moral lessons.

I think to show a direct causitive relationship is impossible. But it's not hard to see the irony that Both Jefferson and Jesus promoted equal treatment of individuals. Jefferson expressed this view through government laws. Jesus expressed this view in how we are to work with others.

But both simply accepted the concept of slavery as a needed entity. With Jesus using it to explain our relationship with god and Jefferson using it to Lift the negro up to modern standards.

The irony is implicit in both.

I would say that there are laws that have come and gone that may have been inspired or motivated by religion. Prohibition and ant-abortion laws (pre Rowe-v-Wade) being acouple that come to mind. But I think that our countires core values are more secular than inspired by any religion.

And I think that our country's basic moral code is also more secular. Ideas of live and let live, freedom of press and speech, persuit of happiness, and jurisprudence and habeas corpus are not inspired by the bible at all.
I think they evolved into secular ideas. But it's near impossible to draw a clean knife through and say that this point is purely secular and this one purely religious.
Kings were given thier authority by god. People are endowed with thier rights by Thier creator. If principles, morals, governing views are really purely secular, why the appeals to religion?

I think it's a result of the fact of what religion is. Religion is nothing more than the formalization and ritualization of cultural customs. What we consider secular today may evolve into it's own kind of religion in the future.

Skeptic Ginger

24th April 2009, 12:58 PM

I'm not arguing that the morals in the Bible are original. I am arguing that the morals in the Bible effected the laws of America, which affects who we are today. ....Based on what evidence?

Skeptic Ginger

24th April 2009, 01:00 PM

Skeptic Ginger

24th April 2009, 01:07 PM

Based on what I have read about history, it wasn't a generous, overly moral time to live. Society didn't have that social contract thing going on yet.Based on what I've read in the Bible, nothing changed there. :rolleyes:

As already discussed, some of the laws on the books coincide with religious values. So if this all happened naturally, why are some tribes in Africa not evolving as fast as us? The idea is that through force of government, religion compelled people to follow their rules and shaped society the way we know it today.No offense but what a bizarre non sequitur.

First, as for physical evolution, Africans are equally as evolved as are every other group of humans on the planet.

If you are talking about social progress, I think you need to read a bit more on the spread of Christianity. It is a widespread religion in Africa.

You are confusing the effect of economic and political variables with the effect of religious variables. I think it's safe to say you can not demonstrate the religious variable is the cause of most differences in political and economic circumstances of major world population segments.

Skeptic Ginger

24th April 2009, 01:09 PM

Stone Island

24th April 2009, 06:39 PM

I'm just going to leave this here: Samuel West, [Natural Law: The True Principles of Government] (1776) (http://www.belcherfoundation.org/natural_law.htm)

joobz

24th April 2009, 07:23 PM

I'm just going to leave this here
Wow, what well thought you and detailed argument.
You must obviously be a political science doctoral candidate.

Typicallucas

24th April 2009, 07:38 PM

I'm just going to leave this here: Samuel West, [Natural Law: The True Principles of Government] (1776) (http://www.belcherfoundation.org/natural_law.htm)

Thanks for contributing nothing of your own to the discussion.

Why should we care about (what appears to be) the rantings of a Unitarian Reverend?

Stone Island

24th April 2009, 07:47 PM

Wow, what well thought you and detailed argument.
You must obviously be a political science doctoral candidate.

Thanks. I didn't think you'd appreciate it, but I'm glad you took the time to read it and digest its meaning. You don't know how much that means to me.
:)

Why should we care about (what appears to be) the rantings of a Christian judge?

In order, therefore, that we may form a right judgment of the duty enjoined in our text, I shall consider the nature and design of civil government, and shall show that the same principles which oblige us to submit to government do equally oblige us to resist tyranny; or that tyranny and magistracy are so opposed to each other that where the one begins the other ends. I shall then apply the present discourse to the grand controversy that at this day subsists between Great Britain and the American colonies.

Oh, and Editor John Wingate Thornton noted that West "was a member of the convention for forming the Constitution of Massachusetts, and of that of 1788, which ratified the constitution of the United States."

Typicallucas

24th April 2009, 08:23 PM

Thanks. I didn't think you'd appreciate it, but I'm glad you took the time to read it and digest its meaning. You don't know how much that means to me.
:)

I'm unmoved by your passive participation in this discussion.

I'm also unimpressed by West's credentials.

This man wasn't a framer, he wrote something for a state that signed the Constitution of the US. His views are not necessarily those of the framers and I doubt he had any real influence over them.

Stone Island

24th April 2009, 08:34 PM

I'm unmoved by your passive participation in this discussion.

I'm also unimpressed by West's credentials.

This man wasn't a framer, he wrote something for a state that signed the Constitution of the US. His views are not necessarily those of the framers and I doubt he had any real influence over them.
Oh, really?

joobz

24th April 2009, 08:41 PM

Thanks. I didn't think you'd appreciate it, but I'm glad you took the time to read it and digest its meaning. You don't know how much that means to me.
:)Oh, I didn't read the link. I was referring to your argument. It was well stated and completely convincing. I think anyone who disagrees with you is simply wrong. You are just too smart to argue with.

INRM

24th April 2009, 09:44 PM

Skeptigirl,

I was trying to say that I suppose all religions are based on basic morality

CORed

24th April 2009, 09:53 PM

Meekness is a disability now?

I think the official designation is "insufficient assertiveness disorder".

uruk

24th April 2009, 11:55 PM

Certainly he did. But the parts he rejected were those of the mystical/magical variety. Not of the moral lessons.

I think to show a direct causitive relationship is impossible. But it's not hard to see the irony that Both Jefferson and Jesus promoted equal treatment of individuals. Jefferson expressed this view through government laws. Jesus expressed this view in how we are to work with others. Equal treatment was not exclusively a teaching of Jesus and Jefferson was also influenced by other philosophers like John Locke et. al.
Jesus teachings seem more to do with personal conduct rather than social contracts.

But both simply accepted the concept of slavery as a needed entity. With Jesus using it to explain our relationship with god and Jefferson using it to Lift the negro up to modern standards.

The irony is implicit in both. I always felt Jesus explained our relationship with god as being parent / child rather than slave / owner. I guess I picked up something different.

I think they evolved into secular ideas. But it's near impossible to draw a clean knife through and say that this point is purely secular and this one purely religious.
Kings were given thier authority by god. People are endowed with thier rights by Thier creator. If principles, morals, governing views are really purely secular, why the appeals to religion? Clearly, Kings did claim thier authority was bestowed by whatever diety was around at the time. The god referenced by the founding fathers was not quite the same type of god as christianity. Deisim is far less a religion that Unitarianism and moreso Episcopalian Protestanisim.

I think it's a result of the fact of what religion is. Religion is nothing more than the formalization and ritualization of cultural customs. What we consider secular today may evolve into it's own kind of religion in the future. It depends on wether certain special interest groups have thier way.

joobz

25th April 2009, 04:16 AM

Equal treatment was not exclusively a teaching of Jesus and Jefferson was also influenced by other philosophers like John Locke et. al.
Jesus teachings seem more to do with personal conduct rather than social contracts.
Yes, but golden rule implies treating everyone as equals. And I think it rather irrelevant the uniqueness of the teachings. Just that the teachings were there and that the primary religion of the colonists was christian.

I always felt Jesus explained our relationship with god as being parent / child rather than slave / owner. I guess I picked up something different.
parent/children. Master/slave. Sheperd/Flock. More than one analogy was used. For the master/slave one, check out the parable of the servants. It's the one where jesus explains that it is just for god to punish someone for breaking a rule they were ignorant of, just as long as the punishment for the willful sinner was worse.

Clearly, Kings did claim thier authority was bestowed by whatever diety was around at the time. The god referenced by the founding fathers was not quite the same type of god as christianity. Deisim is far less a religion that Unitarianism and moreso Episcopalian Protestanisim. For some, yes. FOr others, no. It's a generic god that allows anyone to project whatever they want onto it.

It depends on wether certain special interest groups have thier way.[/quote]

Stone Island

25th April 2009, 08:48 AM

Oh, I didn't read the link. I was referring to your argument. It was well stated and completely convincing. I think anyone who disagrees with you is simply wrong. You are just too smart to argue with.
You didn't read the link? Odd. You would think a skeptic would take into account all available evidence. No matter.

As for the rest, so true!

Stone Island

25th April 2009, 08:54 AM

drkitten

25th April 2009, 09:08 AM

I'm just going to leave these here:

Ellis Sandoz, Political Sermons of the American Founding Era. Vol. 1 (1730-1788) [1991] (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=816&Itemid=28)

Ellis Sandoz, Political Sermons of the American Founding Era. Vol. 2 (1789-1805) [1991] (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=817&Itemid=27)

Yes. That's fairly typical of the God squad when they're losing an argument. Drop a turd and run away.

Stone Island

25th April 2009, 09:12 AM

Yes. That's fairly typical of the God squad when they're losing an argument. Drop a turd and run away.

What argument are you supposing that I'm losing?

drkitten

25th April 2009, 09:21 AM

What argument are you supposing that I'm losing?

The argument that the United States was or was not founded on Christian values.

Proof that you're losing it can be found in the obscurity of the "founders" whom you claim were so instrumental in arguing for their values -- so instrumental that mainstream historians completely ignore them.

Prometheus

25th April 2009, 09:25 AM

You didn't read the link? Odd. You would think a skeptic would take into account all available evidence. No matter.

As for the rest, so true!

Link dumping does not constitute evidence. You have to present, or at least refer to, an actual argument and then describe what it is about the link in question that supports that argument. Otherwise someone might just dump a load of bull...er...fertilizer...on your front porch and then act surprised if you don't take it as evidence that eating organically grown vegetables is good for you.

Stone Island

25th April 2009, 09:30 AM

joobz

25th April 2009, 11:02 AM

The argument that the United States was or was not founded on Christian values.

Proof that you're losing it can be found in the obscurity of the "founders" whom you claim were so instrumental in arguing for their values -- so instrumental that mainstream historians completely ignore them.
I find people like stone Island are impervious to rational arguments. He wants to believe that the U.S. was founded on christian beliefs, and any other view is simply nonsense.

In fact, I'm willing to let him make the claim, if he's also willing to accept the idea that the other. unsavory aspects of US origins (slavery, women's inequality) is also founded on the christian faith.

Stone Island

25th April 2009, 11:31 AM

I find people like stone Island are impervious to rational arguments.

Yeah?

Typicallucas

25th April 2009, 12:27 PM

You didn't read the link? Odd. You would think a skeptic would take into account all available evidence. No matter.

As for the rest, so true!

I didn't read the whole link, I just read enough to know that it wasn't worth reading.

I'm not going to read this bull-crep all afternoon. You posted a link to a sermon that has nothing to do with the subject matter and was given by a reverend who was not influential in the framing of the Constitution.

Further I won't even click on any of your other links until you put some of your own thoughts and interpretations into the argument. Have you ever tried to write a paper by writing "I'll just leave this here, see the bibliography."?

joobz

25th April 2009, 12:39 PM

Further I won't even click on any of your other links until you put some of your own thoughts and interpretations into the argument. Have you ever tried to write a paper by writing "I'll just leave this here, see the bibliography."?
This is the reason why I didn't bother to click the link. When I person won't even bother with creating an argument, you can be certain they won't be bothered with actually thinking about your arguments.
Yeah?

As I was saying...

Stone Island

25th April 2009, 12:51 PM

I didn't read the whole link, I just read enough to know that it wasn't worth reading.

I'm not going to read this bull-crep all afternoon. You posted a link to a sermon that has nothing to do with the subject matter and was given by a reverend who was not influential in the framing of the Constitution.

Further I won't even click on any of your other links until you put some of your own thoughts and interpretations into the argument. Have you ever tried to write a paper by writing "I'll just leave this here, see the bibliography."?

Oh n0es, the reading was 2 hard!

Typicallucas

25th April 2009, 01:35 PM

Oh n0es, the reading was 2 hard!

Not hard, a waste of time.

slingblade

25th April 2009, 01:39 PM

Oh n0es, the reading was 2 hard!

You're how old again?

Ducky

25th April 2009, 01:49 PM

You're how old again?

You shouldn't have to ask. It is a well known fact that everyone on the internet is a 13 year old.

paximperium

25th April 2009, 03:24 PM

You shouldn't have to ask. It is a well known fact that everyone on the internet is a 13 year old.
He claims to be a Political Science doctoral candidate...having met a few, I'm actually not surprised by the level of coherence behind his arguments. Parroting and regurgitating others ideas without any thoughts of your own is not that far removed from quoting other big thinkers to support your arguments.

This guys uses it like a sledgehammer and doesn't even bother to have an argument. Sad to say but someday he will "earn" the right to be called doctor.

Stone Island

25th April 2009, 03:43 PM

Not hard, a waste of time.
Of course you're going to say it's the text which is the problem, not you. Is that the proper skeptical attitude?

He claims to be a Political Science doctoral candidate...having met a few, I'm actually not surprised by the level of coherence behind his arguments. Parroting and regurgitating others ideas without any thoughts of your own is not that far removed from quoting other big thinkers to support your arguments.

This guys uses it like a sledgehammer and doesn't even bother to have an argument. Sad to say but someday he will "earn" the right to be called doctor.

What question do you have regarding the coherence of what I posted?

Given that the question was regarding the proper place of Christians, Christian theology, and Christian attitudes in the ideological origins of the American Founding, dinging me for an appeal to authority seems to be a bit out of place. It rather misses the point. The question was about authority in the first place. What else, pray tell, could one possibly present?

The Norseman

25th April 2009, 04:01 PM

What else, pray tell, could one possibly present?

How about your opinion on the subject instead of just putting forth someone else's?

drkitten

25th April 2009, 04:05 PM

Oh, really? Bernard Bailyn is just so much chopped liver, eh?

I believe the metaphor I used was a turd. It seems typical that you can't distinguish turds from chopped liver.

Foster Zygote

25th April 2009, 04:11 PM

Oh, I didn't read the link. I was referring to your argument. It was well stated and completely convincing. I think anyone who disagrees with you is simply wrong. You are just too smart to argue with.

Wait, I'm confused. Weren't you on Stone Island's ignore list?

Skeptic Ginger

25th April 2009, 04:12 PM

Skeptigirl,

I was trying to say that I suppose all religions are based on basic moralityWhich is the same as saying morality is a human condition, not a religious condition.

Foster Zygote

25th April 2009, 04:14 PM

How about your opinion on the subject instead of just putting forth someone else's?

One would think that someone claiming to be a doctoral candidate would be able to do just that regarding the subject of his degree.

The Norseman

25th April 2009, 04:19 PM

One would think that someone claiming to be a doctoral candidate would be able to do just that regarding the subject of his degree.

Exactly. In fact, it's usually really hard to shut one up.

drkitten

25th April 2009, 04:28 PM

Exactly. In fact, it's usually really hard to shut one up.

Unless they know "they got nuttin'" which I'm afraid is the case here.

The easiest way to shut them up is to put them in front of a group of very senior, very opinionated academics -- especially if you can find that legendary German professor who eats doctoral candidates on toast for breakfast. Of course, the good ones, the ones who actually have real results that they're not afraid to defend, are also the ones that will badger the beast at his breakfast table.

But there are unfortunately some incompetent doctoral candidates who don't really understand what they are doing and are just mouthing platitudes. If I thought Stone Island was a doctoral candidate at all, I know which group I would assign....

paximperium

25th April 2009, 04:59 PM

What question do you have regarding the coherence of what I posted? Why did you drop a turd without any explanation, context or argument and expect others to read it or to take you seriously?

Given that the question was regarding the proper place of Christians, Christian theology, and Christian attitudes in the ideological origins of the American Founding, dinging me for an appeal to authority seems to be a bit out of place. It rather misses the point. The question was about authority in the first place. What else, pray tell, could one possibly present? Someone with actual authority would be a start.
Evidence that the founders were using "Christian values" as a foundation for formation of the US would another good step.
Then show how those "Christian values" are unique in any way to Christianity.

Skeptic Ginger

25th April 2009, 06:30 PM

I'm just going to leave this here: Samuel West, [Natural Law: The True Principles of Government] (1776) (http://www.belcherfoundation.org/natural_law.htm)Well I looked at it. Nothing but a single religious man contributing his input the group. According to this biographical note (http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/samuelwest.html):Samuel West (March 3, 1730-September 24, 1807), a liberal minister of the Massachusetts Standing Order, was a theological opponent of the doctrines of Jonathan Edwards and an 18th Century forerunner of New England Unitarianism. An ardent patriot during the American Revolution, he played a small but crucial role in the ratification of the United States Constitution.

How does his opinion make the country's foundation Christian? No one is saying Christians didn't exist in the colonies.

Typicallucas

26th April 2009, 02:51 AM

Of course you're going to say it's the text which is the problem, not you. Is that the proper skeptical attitude?

I'll just leave this here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp

Euromutt

26th April 2009, 07:11 AM

INRM

26th April 2009, 09:58 AM

Skeptigirl,

I'm not even sure if it's just a human thing. Pack animals often follow rules of conduct in one way or another...

LarianLeQuella

26th April 2009, 11:04 AM

Prometheus

26th April 2009, 12:08 PM

Oh, really? Bernard Bailyn is just so much chopped liver, eh?

Never heard of him. Why do you think he's important?

Typicallucas

26th April 2009, 02:25 PM

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstateconstitution/p/Constitution.htm :cool:

Am I to assume that "separation of church and state" not being in the article about "what is not in the constitution" you provided means that "separation of church and state" "is in the Constitution?"

For the love of the Christian God that this country was founded upon, for the sake of Constitutional scripture, and all the holy politician saints please don't just drop links.

All joking aside, I think you may have been trying to give us this link:
http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/phrase.htm

But there are several interesting articles you can find on that site about the relationship this county has with religion.

uruk

26th April 2009, 02:43 PM

I'm just going to leave these here:

Ellis Sandoz, Political Sermons of the American Founding Era. Vol. 1 (1730-1788) [1991] (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=816&Itemid=28)

Ellis Sandoz, Political Sermons of the American Founding Era. Vol. 2 (1789-1805) [1991] (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=817&Itemid=27)
None of these people who wrote the sermons had anything to do with the founding of America. The sermons and essays were religious leaders trying to inject religious meaning to the founding of America.

Cavemonster

26th April 2009, 02:53 PM

You know, I think people are too hard on Stone Island. His methods of presenting arguments are very sound. A good piece of evidence can stand up on it's own.

That said, I do disagree with his conclusions,

read everything at this link (www.wikipedia.com)

and you'll understand.

Euromutt

26th April 2009, 08:03 PM

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstateconstitution/p/Constitution.htm :cool:Another two things that are "not in the Constitution" are "separation of powers" and "checks and balances." If by "not in the Constitution," you mean, not in those exact words.

Skeptic Ginger

27th April 2009, 12:51 AM

Skeptigirl,

I'm not even sure if it's just a human thing. Pack animals often follow rules of conduct in one way or another...Preaching to the choir there. I've posted lots of citations regarding the evidence for evolution of morality in non-human species. Which is just more support for saying the stuff does not originate in religious traditions.

Stone Island

27th April 2009, 10:37 PM

I'm just going to leave this here: Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html)

Stone Island

27th April 2009, 10:46 PM

I'll just leave this here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp

Founders: those who signed the DOI.
Framers: those who wrote the Constitution.

What I do you call the smucks who were involved in writing the Articles of Confederation?

To point to the Constitutional debates while ignoring everything that came before, everything that made that moment possible, in other words, to suppose that what happened in Philadelphia is the final word on the matter, is ignorant.

Oh, and the literature surrounding the question of slavery in the colonies is voluminous to say the least. To suppose that people weren't aware of the tragic disconnect between their own calls for political liberty, and the bondage in which they held their fellow human beings, is to ignore what was going on and what was actually written.

If anyone could direct me to a full text version of Johnathon Parsons' "Freedom from civil and ecclesiastical slavery, the purchase of Christ (3/5/1774)", described as Remarks on a discourse of the Rev. Jonathan Parsons, of Newbury-Port : delivered on the 5th of March last, and entitled, Freedom from civil and ecclesiastical slavery, the purchase of Christ : in which remarks, the civil government of this province is vindicated from that gentleman’s severe charges and accusations of spiritual tyranny and slavery, and he is shewn to be inconsistent with himself, in accusing the province of these things, while he aims at promoting the same evils I would appreciate it.

paximperium

28th April 2009, 03:31 AM

I'm just going to leave this here: Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html)
Well it looks like SI has left another turd.

I don't see too many people that are arguing against the fact that America was founded with the use of Christianity or that Christians played a major role in its formation since that is not the OP. I like the site, it shows how Christian played a role and used god-talk as a justification for the Revolution.

The question was the US founded on Christian values?
Dropping your turd without any explanation or argument towards this point does not give your "non-claim" much credence.

Tricky

28th April 2009, 05:22 AM

I'm just going to leave this here: Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html)

As far as I can tell, all of those articles are about the effect of the American Revolution on religion, rather than the converse. And of course no one doubts that there were some Christians who helped found the country and frame the Constitution. But it appears that their religion was not incorporated into the latter.

pgwenthold

28th April 2009, 07:47 AM

I'm going to call the bluff:

What are the uniquely Christian values that are part of the United States?

Don't give me the "all our laws are based on "love they neighbor"" or such. I want to know specifics. Give me an example of a law that is UNIQUELY a "christian value"? Laws against murder and theft, for example, aren't going to cut it, because they are ubiquitous in history, and do not have their basis in christianity.

For example, blue laws might be an example of "christian values," but then again, they aren't much of the foundation of the US.

drkitten

28th April 2009, 08:27 AM

I'm just going to leave this here: Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html)

Dropping another turd and walking away, eh?

Stone Island

28th April 2009, 09:53 AM

You might find this interesting: William Blackstone: Of the Nature of Laws in General (http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-002.htm)

This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original. But in order to apply this to the particular exigencies of each individual, it is still necessary to have recourse to human reason; whose office it is to discover, as was before observed, what the law of nature directs in every circumstance of life; by considering, what method will tend most effectually to our own substantial happiness. And if our reason were always, as in our first ancestor before his transgression, clear and perfect, unruffled by passions, unclouded by prejudice, unimpaired by disease or intemperance, the task would be pleasant and easy; we should need no other guide but this. But every man now finds the contrary in his own experience; that his reason is corrupt, and his understanding full of ignorance and error.

In this we find both the notion of rights as eternal and superior and the principle of limited government.

paximperium

28th April 2009, 09:54 AM

You might find this interesting: William Blackstone: Of the Nature of Laws in General (http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-002.htm)
That's nice.

Xulld

28th April 2009, 10:18 AM

Personally I do not think that any religion, any group, any human can claim to OWN any set of or even individual values.

I share many values with many different people that would call themselves followers of various religions.

This to me is nothing more then claiming preeminence for ideas which cannot be owned.

joobz

28th April 2009, 11:10 AM

Stone Island

28th April 2009, 11:27 AM

Do you care to prove the bolded section?
Do you need help moving those goalposts?

joobz

28th April 2009, 11:51 AM

Do you need help moving those goalposts?
You posted a quote which made a baseless assertion. It's fully acceptable to challenge any assertion made.

Foster Zygote

28th April 2009, 01:32 PM

Founders: those who signed the DOI.

OK SI, let's, just for the sake of argument, say that the Declaration of Independence is the founding document on which the existence of the United States is based, ignoring the fact that the DOI establishes no laws or institutions of government. Where, pray tell, is the word "Christian", or any word associated with Christianity mentioned in this document. If you're going to support the notion that the United States was founded on Christian values and claim that the Declaration of Independence is the document used to found the United States, then it would help to point out any mention of Christianity in said document.

pgwenthold

28th April 2009, 01:40 PM

I asked for that above, and all I got was silence.

To second what Foster Zygote said, what in the DoI could be construed as a uniquely Christian value? How is the DoI "Christian"?

I know the DoI gives a list of grievences - which are Christian-based? Does Christianity espouse no-taxation-without-representation?

Stone Island

28th April 2009, 01:52 PM

You posted a quote which made a baseless assertion. It's fully acceptable to challenge any assertion made.
I'm sorry, your moving of the goalposts has made me dizzy. What does your question have to do with the OP?

Maybe you should tell why Blackstone's work wasn't a key component in the American Founding.

Stone Island

28th April 2009, 01:56 PM

OK SI, let's, just for the sake of argument, say that the Declaration of Independence is the founding document on which the existence of the United States is based, ignoring the fact that the DOI establishes no laws or institutions of government. Where, pray tell, is the word "Christian", or any word associated with Christianity mentioned in this document. If you're going to support the notion that the United States was founded on Christian values and claim that the Declaration of Independence is the document used to found the United States, then it would help to point out any mention of Christianity in said document.
You're right, the DOI establishes no law or system of government. Rather, it recognizes the existence of natural law and points out how the King of England has systematically violated the natural law, calling for the founding of a new government.

And, while Christianity is only mentioned in the drafts, a rather sarcastic reference to the Christian King's method of warfare, I think the reliance on natural law thought, which itself has deep, deep Christian roots, is enough to show the Founding's reliance on Christian thought, philosophy, and values.

Oh, and Blackstone, Locke, and Montesquieu are all deeply indebted to explicitly Christian philosophy.

Stone Island

28th April 2009, 01:57 PM

You posted a quote which made a baseless assertion. It's fully acceptable to challenge any assertion made.
By the way, that's Blackstone's assertion. Why don't you take it up with him?

Prometheus

28th April 2009, 02:27 PM

You're right, the DOI establishes no law or system of government. Rather, it recognizes the existence of natural law and points out how the King of England has systematically violated the natural law, calling for the founding of a new government.

And, while Christianity is only mentioned in the drafts, a rather sarcastic reference to the Christian King's method of warfare, I think the reliance on natural law thought, which itself has deep, deep Christian roots, is enough to show the Founding's reliance on Christian thought, philosophy, and values.

Oh, and Blackstone, Locke, and Montesquieu are all deeply indebted to explicitly Christian philosophy.

Except that natural law thought does not have Christian roots at all. It pre-dates Christianity by centuries and has been incorporated into some Christian thought as well as quite a few non-Christian philosophical systems.

joobz

28th April 2009, 02:31 PM

I'm sorry, your moving of the goalposts has made me dizzy. What does your question have to do with the OP?
Oh, it was definitely off topic. But that doesn't make it a moving of the goal posts.

Maybe you should tell why Blackstone's work wasn't a key component in the American Founding.
But so was greek philosphy.
Oh, and Blackstone, Locke, and Montesquieu are all deeply indebted to explicitly Christian philosophy.
which was deeply indebted to jewish philosophy.

But none of this means that the US was founded upon Christian values.

Being influenced by and founded upon are two different ideas.

By the way, that's Blackstone's assertion. Why don't you take it up with him?
Can't. He's dead.

Typicallucas

28th April 2009, 02:40 PM

Dropping another turd and walking away, eh?

Seems like he's just hucking turds at the wall until one sticks.

Stone Island

28th April 2009, 03:22 PM

Joobz,

If a direct connection to an explicitly Christian natural law teaching isn't enough, what, for you, would it mean to be founded on Christian values?

Does it matter than during the decades of the founding period, roughly from 1760 until 1805, about 34% of the citations in explicitly political writings came directly from the Bible? In the 1770's this number jumps up to 44%. What about that during the same period (1760-1805) only 9% came from classical sources? Note: Montesquieu, Locke and Pufendorf comprise 16% of all citations by themselves (other enlightenment thinkers only garnered about 6% over the whole period).

You can always put Blackstone's writings to the question.

drkitten

28th April 2009, 03:28 PM

If a direct connection to an explicitly Christian natural law teaching isn't enough, what, for you, would it mean to be founded on Christian values?

I'd want to see a demonstration that natural law itself was explicitly Christian (which you can't give, because it isn't and never has been. In fact, the theory of natural law was developed in reaction to Christian teachings and then only later adapted by the Christians).

To put it another way, there is a French restaurant about two miles from my house --- quite a good one, actually --- that specializes in Provencal food. Of course, they've got a few other dishes on their menu; they have a quite good vegetable pizza appetizer, for example, and their Beef Burgundy is exceptional. Does this mean that pizza was "founded" in Provence?

Or Beef Burgundy?

Typicallucas

28th April 2009, 04:21 PM

...explicitly Christian natural law teaching...

Something that evolves over time isn't necessarily the originator of it's parts.

And since when have religious proselytizers been a credible, objective source of what effect their religion has on society, gov't, the world, etc.? W

If you quote reverends on the revolution and formation of America's own government you'll find religious rhetoric claiming credit for the whole affair if you look for it.

joobz

28th April 2009, 04:58 PM

I think Drkitten and Typicallucas addressed the primary points
But...

Does it matter than during the decades of the founding period, roughly from 1760 until 1805, about 34% of the citations in explicitly political writings came directly from the Bible? Not really.
Even in the research community as it is now, using citation numbers is a fairly unreliable indicator of the value of source material. Indeed, in many cases, highly controversial and downright false papers are quoted multiple multiple times over simply because they serve as a counterpoint to the truth.

Biblical quotes make great rhetorical devices. Such is the nature of religion.

In the 1770's this number jumps up to 44%. What about that during the same period (1760-1805) only 9% came from classical sources? Note: Montesquieu, Locke and Pufendorf comprise 16% of all citations by themselves (other enlightenment thinkers only garnered about 6% over the whole period).

You can always put Blackstone's writings to the question.
Yet, despite all that quoting of the bible, there was not a single reference to the bible (let alone the Christian god) in the constitution. In fact, the treaty of tripoli (a legally recognized document) clearly denounces the concept that the US was founded upon the Christian religion.

Stone Island

28th April 2009, 07:30 PM

I'd want to see a demonstration that natural law itself was explicitly Christian (which you can't give, because it isn't and never has been. In fact, the theory of natural law was developed in reaction to Christian teachings and then only later adapted by the Christians).

William Blackstone and John Locke are both explicitly drawing from Christian natural law teachings as such.

I think Drkitten and Typicallucas addressed the primary points
But...
Not really.
Even in the research community as it is now, using citation numbers is a fairly unreliable indicator of the value of source material. Indeed, in many cases, highly controversial and downright false papers are quoted multiple multiple times over simply because they serve as a counterpoint to the truth.

Biblical quotes make great rhetorical devices. Such is the nature of religion.

I think you're moving the goalposts again. This is a question of influence. The question wasn't, "Is Christianity True" it was, "Was the United States founded on Christian Values?" Whether Christianity itself is true is rather besides the point.

paximperium

28th April 2009, 07:37 PM

I think you're moving the goalposts again. This is a question of influence. The question wasn't, "Is Christianity True" it was, "Was the United States founded on Christian Values?" Whether Christianity itself is true is rather besides the point.Nope. The question is are there any unique values specific to Christianity and did those bits have any relevance to the formation of the US? So far, you've not been answer this simple question.

Ducky

28th April 2009, 07:43 PM

It is not shifting the goalposts to ask you to defend/clarify what you've posted.

Prometheus

28th April 2009, 07:48 PM

...I think you're moving the goalposts again....

I can see how it might seem that way to someone who keeps dropping the ball.

Bob Klase

28th April 2009, 08:29 PM

Was the United States founded on Christian Values

The simple is yes. It was founded on Christian Values in the same sense that Christianity was founded on pagan values which were founded on values beneficial to society.

Seems that you've proved that Christianity is not founded on Christian Values.

joobz

28th April 2009, 08:39 PM

I think you're moving the goalposts again.
I suggest reading what that phrase means before using it again.

This is a question of influence. The question wasn't, "Is Christianity True" it was, "Was the United States founded on Christian Values?" Whether Christianity itself is true is rather besides the point.My point was that you can't distinguish between a positive or negative reference to the bible.
For instance

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820
Jefferson referenced religion and christianity a lot, but it would be the hieght of dishonesty to claim he based his political views on christianity.

Typicallucas

28th April 2009, 09:33 PM

...Does it matter than during the decades of the founding period, roughly from 1760 until 1805, about 34% of the citations in explicitly political writings came directly from the Bible?..
...using citation numbers is a fairly unreliable indicator of the value of source material. Indeed, in many cases, highly controversial and downright false papers are quoted multiple multiple times over simply because they serve as a counterpoint to the truth...
I think you're moving the goalposts again...

From this exchange I don't see goalpost moving. I see Stone Island asked a question and joobz answered. I think in his answer "value" isn't calling into question the actual validity of the bible (I can see how it could easily be interpreted that way, though). He could have written "Not necessarily." but he did you the favor of explaining himself.

Just to remind everyone the OP is "'The United States was founded on Christian values' is a lie people use to prove a point."

I think one way to make a counterpoint against the OP is to: (I'm paraphrasing others here)

1) Define a specific christian value as opposed to a value held by some other philosophical/religious outlook or natural human value.
2) Show that, whatever those uniquely christian values are, they comprised a primary part of the American political/legal system.
3) Be prepared to support your claim with relevant and credible information.

I think it is up to a subsequent discussion to find out if any christianity in this country's origin should/does have an effect on the government today.

Foster Zygote

29th April 2009, 07:22 AM

You're right, the DOI establishes no law or system of government.
So, as we've already discussed in past threads, the Declaration of Independence is not a founding document of the United States. It is a piece of political rhetoric intended as much for rallying the colonists to the rebellion as for severing ties with the British Empire. It declares the intent to break from British authority, but it does not present any laws or institutions establishing any governmental entity.

Rather, it recognizes the existence of natural law and points out how the King of England has systematically violated the natural law, calling for the founding of a new government.
Common Sense called for the founding of a new government too. In fact, Paine's work was published six months prior to the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. There is just as much justification for calling Common Sense (which saw phenomenal distribution) the founding document of the United States as there is for claiming the same about the Declaration of Independence.

And, while Christianity is only mentioned in the drafts, a rather sarcastic reference to the Christian King's method of warfare, I think the reliance on natural law thought, which itself has deep, deep Christian roots, is enough to show the Founding's reliance on Christian thought, philosophy, and values.
Care to justify your claim of the "deep, deep Christian roots" of natural law? It seems more like Christians borrowed the concept, seeing as it can be traced back through the Romans and Stoics centuries before the rise of Christianity.

Oh, and Blackstone, Locke, and Montesquieu are all deeply indebted to explicitly Christian philosophy.
And which of them signed the Declaration of Independence?

Gaetan

29th April 2009, 08:30 AM

The United-States as well as others most contries were founded based on these values:

Animal sacrifices: Lv 1 Lv 3 Lv 4 Lv 5 Lv 7 Lv 8 Lv 9 Lv12 Lv 14 Lv 15 Lv 16 Lv 17 Lv 19 Lv 22 Lv 23 Dt 27

Discriminations :Lv 21.9 Lv 18.22 Lv 21.16-24 Lv 22 Lv 25 Nb 30 Dt 17 Dt 20 Dt 24

Food restriction and other tax: Lv 11 Lv 23 Dt 14 Dt 16

Eye for an eye law: Lv 24 Dt 19

War: Lv 26 Nb 31 Nb 32 Dt 2 Dt 9 Dt 20 Dt 31

Stoning: Lv 20 Lv 24 Dt 21 Dt 22

Amputations : Dt 19 Dt 25

So they were founded on devil's values

Gaétan

drkitten

29th April 2009, 08:55 AM

William Blackstone and John Locke are both explicitly drawing from Christian natural law teachings as such.

No, Locke, in particular, quotes quite extensively from the pagan philosophers as well -- the same philosophers from which the Christian natural law theorists drew their principles.

You have yet to point to a single "teaching" that is demonstrably Christian in origin.

Bob Klase

29th April 2009, 09:37 AM

You have yet to point to a single "teaching" that is demonstrably Christian in origin.

Well, there's the Christian teaching that Jesus was the son of God (and therefore God) and that he was crucified and came back from the dead and that you'll go to heaven just because you believe that's true no matter how many times you ignore the 10 commandments.

Go ahead, try to prove that's not in the constitution!

Belz...

29th April 2009, 10:20 AM

This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself

Who ?

Stone Island

29th April 2009, 04:46 PM

Nope. The question is are there any unique values specific to Christianity and did those bits have any relevance to the formation of the US? So far, you've not been answer this simple question.

Your dishonesty and willful ignorance is simply stunning.

I suggest reading what that phrase means before using it again.

My point was that you can't distinguish between a positive or negative reference to the bible.
For instance

Jefferson referenced religion and christianity a lot, but it would be the hieght of dishonesty to claim he based his political views on christianity.

Insofar as he based his thought on Blackstone, Locke, and Montesquieu, he did.

1) Define a specific christian value as opposed to a value held by some other philosophical/religious outlook or natural human value.
2) Show that, whatever those uniquely christian values are, they comprised a primary part of the American political/legal system.
3) Be prepared to support your claim with relevant and credible information.

Natural law. The Founders got their notion of natural law from the Christian natural law teaching. Whether there were other natural law teachings is besides, the point, the founder grounded their understanding in the Christian teachings. Please, pick up a copy of Locke's Two Treatises of Government. Read the section from Blackstone I posted above.

Bernard Bailyn, from doing some fairly in-depth textual analysis than, isn't sure that any of the Founders actually read the classics, at least not systematically. They tended to quote them without understanding, more for the rhetorical effect than anything else. They would do things like argue that Plato's Republic was a land of perfect freedom and liberty.

Stone Island

29th April 2009, 04:54 PM

No, Locke, in particular, quotes quite extensively from the pagan philosophers as well -- the same philosophers from which the Christian natural law theorists drew their principles.

You have yet to point to a single "teaching" that is demonstrably Christian in origin.

Oh, really? Where? In the Two Treatises? Extensively? EXTENSIVELY? Are you sure?

No, really. Sure? Like to back that up.

You know why I'm making a point of it? Because you're either stupid or lying.

Which is it?

He uses Aristotle, who was the house philosopher of the Catholic Church for what it's worth, a few times, and that's pretty much it.

Maybe you'd like to try again and make something up which isn't quite so ridiculous.

Stone Island

29th April 2009, 05:18 PM

Of course, if natural law teaching is not unique to the Christian thinkers, it really isn't unique to anyone, then. The cliche is that all of philosophy is a footnote to Plato. To say that because the Christian thinkers developed and expanded an idea they found in previous thinkers it isn't unique and thus doesn't count as theirs, is to disown all of philosophy of all its ideas and throw them all back to Plato. Which would be ludicrous.

Why the food analogy doesn't work, i.e., that even if I eat egg rolls in a French restaurant, they're still Chinese, is that egg roles reached the apotheosis of their development in China, and that the French didn't necessarily add anything to them. The natural law teaching of the Christian philosophers was developed, honed, expanded, and changed in important ways.

paximperium

29th April 2009, 05:31 PM

Your dishonesty and willful ignorance is simply stunning. Well thank you. Coming from you, I consider that a complement. I noticed you didn't answer the question at all.

I'll just leave your silence and non-answer right here.
Nope. The question is are there any unique values specific to Christianity and did those bits have any relevance to the formation of the US? So far, you've not been answer this simple question.

joobz

29th April 2009, 07:46 PM

Insofar as he based his thought on Blackstone, Locke, and Montesquieu, he did.
evasion noted.

I gave you examples of references to christianity which would not be considered very flattering. By the number games you attempted to play (34% of references...), there's no way of knowing what percentage of those references were positive, negative, neutral, and how central to the argument being made.

Foster Zygote

29th April 2009, 07:55 PM

You know why I'm making a point of it? Because you're either stupid or lying.

Strong words. But I doubt that Drkitten will be upset by them. I get the impression that he is as dubious of your claims to scholarship as I am. Thus, I suspect he feels a sense of irony regarding your above statement, as I do.

Foster Zygote

29th April 2009, 07:57 PM

Of course, if natural law teaching is not unique to the Christian thinkers, it really isn't unique to anyone, then.
Of course, no one claimed that concepts of natural law are unique to anyone. So you aren't even addressing the actual argument being presented to you.

joobz

29th April 2009, 08:01 PM

Of course, if natural law teaching is not unique to the Christian thinkers, it really isn't unique to anyone, then. The cliche is that all of philosophy is a footnote to Plato. To say that because the Christian thinkers developed and expanded an idea they found in previous thinkers it isn't unique and thus doesn't count as theirs, is to disown all of philosophy of all its ideas and throw them all back to Plato. Which would be ludicrous.
Of course, if natural law teaching is not unique to the founding fathers, it really isn't unique to anyone, then. The cliche is that all of philosophy is a footnote to Plato. To say that because the Founding Fathers developed and expanded an idea they found in previous thinkers it isn't unique and thus doesn't count as theirs, is to disown all of philosophy of all its ideas and throw them all back to Plato. Which would be ludicrous.

Stone Island

30th April 2009, 11:47 AM

If there was nothing new in the phrasing and ideas of the Declaration, wherein lies its great significance? First of all, Jefferson summarized the essentials of American political thought with a compactness and an eloquence that takes one's breath away. For sheer rhetorical power, the Declaration has few peers. Second, the Declaration of Independence was the instrument for breaking with Britain. In so doing, it created a new model as well as a universally valid justification for the erection of political societies. Third, it is the document that serves to create and define the Americans as a people. The Declaration contains the first part of the American national compact, defines basic American values and commitments, and is thus an essential part of the American national founding. Fourth, given that the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation but not the Declaration, Americans still live under a national compact, of which the Declaration is a part. Americans can turn to the Declaration of Independence for the grounding upon which their Constitution rests, as well as the values which underlie their system of government.
From, Lutz, Donald S. "The Declaration of Independence as Part of an American National Compact" Publius (http://publius.oxfordjournals.org/), Vol 19, No 1 (Winter 1989), pp. 41-58.

Stone Island

30th April 2009, 11:51 AM

Strong words. But I doubt that Drkitten will be upset by them. I get the impression that he is as dubious of your claims to scholarship as I am. Thus, I suspect he feels a sense of irony regarding your above statement, as I do.
Do you notice that he can't answer that claim? Neither can you. It's probably because neither you nor he have read Locke.

joobz

30th April 2009, 11:54 AM

From, Lutz, Donald S. "The Declaration of Independence as Part of an American National Compact" Publius (http://publius.oxfordjournals.org/), Vol 19, No 1 (Winter 1989), pp. 41-58.
That's all very nice, but how does that change the fact that the DOI isn't a legally binding government document?

Further, the DOI doesn't support the notion of a christian god, only a creator. As such, as far as the OP goes, The DOI doesn't represent any evidence of the US being founded on christian values.

Fireshadow

30th April 2009, 12:39 PM

From, Lutz, Donald S. "The Declaration of Independence as Part of an American National Compact" Publius (http://publius.oxfordjournals.org/), Vol 19, No 1 (Winter 1989), pp. 41-58.

This is a very interesting quote, but unless my reading comprehension skills are lacking, I don't see a single word in this quote that says that the Declaration was grounded in Christian morals. That may be implied by the source (I'm not familiar with Publius), and it may be there in other parts of the article--but the section you've quoted does not support any contention that Christian values were the basis of our country's laws and founding.

The Norseman

30th April 2009, 12:57 PM

Do you notice that he can't answer that claim? Neither can you. It's probably because neither you nor he have read Locke.

It is irrelevant whether or not they can answer your question to your satisfaction because you have yet to show anything which provides evidence that the United States was founded on Christian values. So far, I've seen some evidence which explicitly states that the US was not founded on Christian values.

joobz

30th April 2009, 01:09 PM

Do you notice that he can't answer that claim? Neither can you. It's probably because neither you nor he have read Locke.
Well, Considering that drkitten's last post was made at 2:53pm yesterday and your challenge to her was made at 6:58pm yesterday, there's a very good chance she hadn't read your post yet. I'd suggest simply doing the honorable thing and giving her a chance to actually read your post.

pgwenthold

30th April 2009, 01:18 PM

It is irrelevant whether or not they can answer your question to your satisfaction because you have yet to show anything which provides evidence that the United States was founded on Christian values. So far, I've seen some evidence which explicitly states that the US was not founded on Christian values.

I have been following the discussion, and thinking about it in light of my question above. So far, the closest thing I've heard to an answer is, "The US is founded on 'Natural Law,' which is Christian."

Now, I'm not sure that really gets to my request for a specific example of a law that we are talking about, but I'm willing to pursue the claim. Unfortunately, there have been conflicting views. While Stone Island claims that "natural law" is Christian values, others have claimed otherwise. Basically, that "christian values" derive from "natural law" and that the "natural law" aspect of the founding of the US isn't christianity based.

SI has basically argued that the US was founded on "natural law" as co-opted by christianity, ie the "christian version of natural law." Is there anything to show this? What part of US law or government or whatever is consistent with "the Christian approach to natural law" but not consistent with "extra-christian natural law" (i.e. natural law that is not part of the christian take)?

I don't want sermons or anything that just repeat the claim, I am looking for a specific answer to a specific question. Something like "An example of Christian values in the founding of the US would be X. It is NOT an example of "non-christian natural law" because of Y." My question, from the beginning, is what is something UNIQUELY christian, which requires that we determine not only that it is christian, but that it is NOT something else.

Foster Zygote

30th April 2009, 03:51 PM

Do you notice that he can't answer that claim?
That's rather premature, don't you think?

Neither can you. It's probably because neither you nor he have read Locke.
I've read Locke. But that was several years ago. However, I was not addressing the issue with Locke, Drkitten was. You need to keep your arguments straight.

Foster Zygote

30th April 2009, 04:18 PM

Well, Considering that drkitten's last post was made at 2:53pm yesterday...

And a quick investigation reveals that Drkitten was last active at a mere 13 minutes after that.

drkitten

30th April 2009, 07:52 PM

He uses Aristotle, who was the house philosopher of the Catholic Church for what it's worth, a few times, and that's pretty much it.

I'd say that the pagan philospher Aristotle doesn't qualify as a Christian. He was never a Christian and indeed never even heard of Christians; the Christians adopted his value system instead he theirs.

And Locke, in particular, took his inspiration and quotations direct from Aristotle instead of from the medieval Christianized version.

By your own admission, most of Locke's ethical theory was taken directly from a pre-Christian source.

Maybe you'd like to try again and make something up which isn't quite so ridiculous.

Nope. Don't need to. Go ahead and find a specifically Christian value in Locke.

As you yourself admit later, "natural law" philosophy predates Christianity. In no way, then, can you claim that it's a specifically "Christian" value. Unless you're going to claim that because the Catholic Church has adopted purple for some specific ecclesiastical uses, that means that any uses of purple are signs of "christian influence," for example, to signify insanity on the Japanese kabuki stage.

Although the parallels between Christianity and insanity -- to wit, the complete loss of the capacity for rational thought -- are intereting.

drkitten

30th April 2009, 07:54 PM

Do you notice that he can't answer that claim?

Not at all. It's answered. I do note, however, your desperation in trying to steal a victory. Apparently even you know when your answer is horsechestnuts.

drkitten

2nd May 2009, 08:50 AM

Do you notice that he can't answer that claim?

Should I jump up and down at this point in glee that it's been thirty-six hours since I refuted your last claim, with no response, and therefore you're clearly unable to respond?

Skeptic Ginger

3rd May 2009, 12:47 AM

Weird, SI has a quote from me in his sig. That may be a first for me. But I don't know what to make of it at all.

joobz

3rd May 2009, 05:27 PM

Weird, SI has a quote from me in his sig. That may be a first for me. But I don't know what to make of it at all.
That is quite bizarre. Normally people use ellipses to shorten a quote, aiding comprehension. He, on the other hand, ellipsesed your post into incoherence.

Typicallucas

3rd May 2009, 07:22 PM

Weird, SI has a quote from me in his sig. That may be a first for me. But I don't know what to make of it at all.

Is that a direct quote from you? I don't quite understand.......

paximperium

3rd May 2009, 08:21 PM

Is that a direct quote from you? I don't quite understand.......
It looks like he is using the quote as some weird justification for his habit of dropping turds and expecting people to read it.

kmortis

4th May 2009, 05:50 AM

Look, it's perfectly simple. Many of the people who helped form the US were Christian, many were not. Did Christianity have influence on the US's formation? Sure. Was it the sole influence, no.

ETA: Now for a little argument from Venn

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/549049feda24cc0c9.jpg

pgwenthold

4th May 2009, 08:35 AM

kmortis

4th May 2009, 09:17 AM

kmortis - perhaps you can help clarify something on your diagram:

What is an example of something that sits in the region of overlap between Christian Values and US Values? Presumably it is something that is NOT in the regions of overlap with the other parts of the diagram.

1) That Venn is a work in progress. Any suggestions to make it better, I'll gleefully accept. I whipped that out in about five minutes to help illustrate that last post.
2) An example of an overlap between Xian and US values? I think that the Golden rule could fit. Although, as I stated elsewhere, that's not exclusively Xian.

Paying your taxes is a Biblically supported Xian value ("give unto Caesar what is Caesars..."). ;)

A Calvinist value is one that hard work will lead to salvation. The early Americans definitely showed a Calvinist work ethic, even if they were not Calvinists themselves.

pgwenthold

4th May 2009, 09:23 AM

1) That Venn is a work in progress. Any suggestions to make it better, I'll gleefully accept. I whipped that out in about five minutes to help illustrate that last post.
2) An example of an overlap between Xian and US values? I think that the Golden rule could fit. Although, as I stated elsewhere, that's not exclusively Xian.

So then the christian/us overlap should also be overlapping with something else, right?

Then again, in what way is "Do unto others..." a US value?

joobz

4th May 2009, 09:26 AM

Then again, in what way is "Do unto others..." a US value?
Bill of rights has it in there.
More specifically, Amendments 1, 6, 7 and 9.

kmortis

4th May 2009, 09:31 AM

So then the christian/us overlap should also be overlapping with something else, right?
Yeah. Just what and how much can be debated. My point was more that there is some influence from Christianity, but wasn't the only influence.

Then again, in what way is "Do unto others..." a US value?

Bill of rights has it in there.
More specifically, Amendments 1, 6, 7 and 9.

Ichneumonwasp

4th May 2009, 09:44 AM

Um, natural law goes back to the Greeks and particularly the Roman moralists. Its entry into Christianity was largely through Stoicism. The early church rejected Stoic ontology but held onto many of the ethical doctrines.

It was Christianity that borrowed philosophically from pagan sources -- one strain from Plato, another from Stoicism, and a third later strain from Aristotle (all pagan).

Hamilton, Jay and Madison were well aware of this when they wrote The Federalist Papers (whoever asked about Publius, that was the name adopted by the writers of The Federalist), and they explicitly referred to the Roman models of virtue with many references to Livy and Plutarch. The idea of a Republic of Virtue was not Christian, but Roman.

The most explicitly Christian ethical standard (one not shared by most other religions) is this: if a man strike you on one cheeck, show him the other; if a man asks you to walk with him one mile, walk with him an extra mile as well; if a man ask for your coat give him also your cloak.

Those Christian ideals are neither the grounding of our culture nor our government.

pgwenthold

4th May 2009, 09:47 AM

Bill of rights has it in there.
More specifically, Amendments 1, 6, 7 and 9.

Is freedom of religion and the press really an example of "do unto others"?

Or is it more "don't do unto others what you would not have them do unto you?" which is NOT the Golden Rule?

joobz

4th May 2009, 10:49 AM

Or is it more "don't do unto others what you would not have them do unto you?" which is NOT the Golden Rule?
Refraining from an action is still an action.

Ichneumonwasp

4th May 2009, 11:20 AM

Refraining from an action is still an action.

It's a moot point really -- the sentiment "treat your neighbor as you treat yourself" is not only Christian. It was originally Jewish even in that tradition and is expressed in many cultures.

joobz

4th May 2009, 11:50 AM

It's a moot point really -- the sentiment "treat your neighbor as you treat yourself" is not only Christian. It was originally Jewish even in that tradition and is expressed in many cultures.
certainly, I agree. I was only addressing the issue of what aspects of US government could be considered inspired by the golden rule.

Really, I can't think of any aspect of our government that can find it's sole roots in christianity.

drkitten

4th May 2009, 12:27 PM

Really, I can't think of any aspect of our government that can find it's sole roots in christianity.

That's the problem.

The diagram by kmortis is deeply flawed in a number of ways (of course, it's a first draft and they're supposed to be flawed, so that's not a criticism so much as a comment).

In particular :
There is no overlap between "Christian values" and "Greek philosophers," or for that matter, between/among any of the sources. This, of course, is silly; the "Golden Rule" is nearly universal.
More seriously, it suggests that there is "stuff" in the intersection of Christian values and the US values that is NOT shared with any other influence, be it Greek, Enlightenment, or "other." I submit that THIS, in particular, is the point under discussion and is simply wrong.

In particular, I do not believe there are any values officially or implicitly expressed in the founding documents of the United States that are specifically Christian. I accept that there are, indeed, specifically Christian values -- the Protestant work ethic, salvation through grace, purgation of sin via Purgatory,... even "speaking in tongues." But I see none of them in the Constitution.