The beginning of all the Constitutions . . .

[Tf15 0]

Quote

Quote

The Mayflower pilgrims left England and Holland because of THEIR religious intolerance. They were puritans who wished to impose their lifestyle on everyone else. Everyone else wasn't about to comply, and the puritans didn't like it.

Shows how they were free to do as they pleased here....

A freedom they would apparently have denied to those "back home". The pilgrims were more intolerant than the folks they left behind.

Three times is enemy action

[Ron 7]

Quote

A freedom they would apparently have denied to those "back home". The Pilgrims were more intolerant than the folks they left behind.

Ok, so what?

My whole point is that the US was founded on religion...Thats all..And I have shown that.

Im not going to get into if it was a good move, or a bad idea.

Im not going to discuss if the Puritans were good or bad. For my argument it does not matter.

The US WAS founded based on religion. Even if it was a screwed up section of the religion...It was still religion.

Austrailia started as a British prison colony....That also is fact. Good or bad its a fact.

Quote

The first inhabitants of Australia were the Aboriginal people, who migrated to the continent some 50,000 to 60,000 years ago. The continent remained relatively unknown to most of the outside world until the 17th century. The first permanent European settlement was established in 1788 at Port Jackson, in southeastern Australia, as a British penal colony; it grew into the city of Sydney. Australia developed as a group of British colonies during the 19th century, and in 1901 the colonies federated to form a unified independent nation, the Commonwealth of Australia

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

If you take out the "sinners by nature" I don't think anyone will disagree with your statement. Everyone has the capacity to do bad.

I agree that if I take out “sinners by nature” that most people would have agreed with my statement. It alleviates them from some personal responsibility. I also agree that everyone has the capacity to do bad. Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, Hindu, Muslim, or anyone else.

Quote

My It does. That standard is based on the 10 commandments, and a lot of other rules that go along with it. Some of the rules, as written in what's now considered to be the Bible, are contradictory between each other. There are people who are OK with this because the Bible as a whole is more important than the pieces; they have a variety of degrees of reliance on the rest of the Bible. There are people who reject the Bible because of this inconsistency. There are people who don't really care. And then there are the people who do say that every letter is the truth from God Himself. And they build ideological and behavioral castles and sandpits to justify the internal inconsistencies, and stuff that many people now think is just plain wrong.

Does everything you just said in any way discredit the 10 Commandments? I’m guessing that you’re referring to the laws of the Old Testament as opposed to the ones of the New. You’re throwing around accusations of inconsistency and unreliability but I don’t see any specifics references to back up your disbelief. In reference to the laws of the Bible and their supposed inconsistencies, I posted the following weeks ago in a Patriotism forum concerning gay marriage that relates to our discussion:

The commands of the Old Testament are divided generally into moral law, ceremonial law and civil law. The moral law (e.g., the 10 commandments) remain in effect and few people would question that. The ceremonial law (sacrificing 2 oxen, etc.) was fulfilled in Jesus' sacrificial death and the New Testament teaches that it is not binding anymore. The civil law (stoning for adultry, etc.) was the law of the nation of Israel, which operated as a Theocracy, and is not the civil law of any other nation.

The argument about gay marriage is a deep, dark hole in the ground from which there is no escape until there is some common ground from which the discussions can spring. I can agree that we're not going to stone homosexuals, just as Jesus didn't pick up a stone and start stoning the woman caught in adultry. Jesus didn't condone her conduct (in fact, he said to her "Go and sin no more"); it's simply that everyone in the crowd (other than Jesus) was also guilty under Jesus' standard (if you've looked at a woman and lusted after her in your heart, you've committed adultry). Interestingly, stoning for adultry was not acceptable under Roman law at that time and Jesus would have actually violated the civil law if he agreed to the stoning.

Different laws referred to different times and for different purposes, not all of which are required or applicable today or even from the Old Testament to the New. I’ll agree with you that many people today misinterpret much of what’s in the Bible. This is nothing new and has been the case for centuries. That doesn’t in any way discredit the source.

Quote

I If God did this for someone who rejects God, does that mean that his internal moral code is meaningless? And if God did this for someone who thinks he follows God, but who doesn't seem to pay much attention to morals, does that make him a better person?

If you're going to trust God to make people in His image, then you're going to have to trust that all of those people, even the ones you disagree with, have the same capacity for good and evil, and the free will to exercise it.

I say because a basic understanding of right and wrong is not good enough. The question was would I vote for a Non-Christian for President. I would not because I believe that all people are sinners, by nature. Yes, I believe God places a basic understanding of what is right and wrong in all people, however, if left to follow our own desires, we will always lean towards selfish needs and personal gratification (i.e. sin) (i.e. I don’t care what’s going on in the world as long as the economy is good, I’m making money, and my lifestyle that I’ve grown accustomed to doesn’t change). I’m not saying that all people will do selfish things all the time. I’m saying that it is in our nature to do so. I believe that once a person has a relationship with Jesus, there is an internal desire to know God, to think of others instead of ourselves, and to do things for His will and not our own. That is a characteristic that I require in a person I vote into the office of the Presidency.

• Quote

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

My whole point is that the US was founded on religion...Thats all..And I have shown that.

Im not going to get into if it was a good move, or a bad idea.

Well, apparently President John Adams disagreed, since he signed the treaty containing the statement that it wasn't. And the Senate at the time ratified the treaty, so it became the "supreme law of the land" that it wasn't, according to the US Constitution.

I suppose it all comes down to what you mean by "founded on religion". Maybe you understand it to mean something different than the folks in 1797 thought it meant.

I really don't care just so long as some politician doesn't try to force his morality and his religious views on me and my family.

I went to a state school in a country with an established church and had religion force fed to me every day for 12 years. The folks in the US that want this here would find the outcome very undesirable if they ever succeed in getting it. The worst thing that could possibly befall religion is getting it "established".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,471]

>Yes, I believe God places a basic understanding of what is right and
> wrong in all people, however, if left to follow our own desires, we will
> always lean towards selfish needs and personal gratification (i.e.
> sin)

We have a tendency to do that, I agree. We also have a lot of examples of people, both atheist and non-atheist, who resist that impulse and become philanthropists and civil leaders. Andrew Carnegie, a staunch capitalist and atheist, stared with nothing and made $400 million in the steel industry and gave away $330 million to schools, the arts, and libraries.

>I believe that once a person has a relationship with Jesus, there is
> an internal desire to know God, to think of others instead of
> ourselves, and to do things for His will and not our own.

I think there are some religious people who do indeed believe that. There are other religious people who believe that their religion requires them to convert, control or even kill the people who are not of their religion, which is about as far from "thinking of others" as you can get.

Similarly, there are atheists and agnostics who are models of humanitarianism and generosity, and others that are greedy, selfish misers. In both cases, the important thing is what morals they have, not what sort of god they believe in. And in both cases I'd rather have a leader who was a generous humanitarian over one that's greedy and selfish, even if the former is an atheist and the latter is a staunch christian.

It's a common fallacy that you need to have a moral system handed to you if it is to be valid. I have found that many people like that; they like a non-ambiguous moral system, based on a religious framework, handed to them. Doesn't take much thought. "Jesus wants you to . . ." Nietzsche called this the servant morality; a morality of simple obedience to a fixed set of rules. This in and of itself does not make it bad as long as the people think long and hard about what all that means, and as long as they are sure that it is what they want to do.

Many intelligent people have their own opinions on morality; these may not exactly square with the teachings of the church they belong to, or may even exist on their own without any reference to an established church. These people tend to be more intelligent simply because these are the people who are thinking on their own, outside the strictures of a codified morality. Again, this does not necessarily lead them to a better or worse morality, but at least it is their own. To quote a more modern philosopher:

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears, from kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose free will

[pajarito 0]

Quote

We have a tendency to do that, I agree. We also have a lot of examples of people, both atheist and non-atheist, who resist that impulse and become philanthropists and civil leaders. Andrew Carnegie, a staunch capitalist and atheist, stared with nothing and made $400 million in the steel industry and gave away $330 million to schools, the arts, and libraries.

This says essentially what I said in an earlier post.

(From previous post) “However, I know many nonreligious and moral people. I never said that if you weren't a Christian, you were immoral. I believe that God places in all of us a basic internal understanding of what is right or wrong (basically speaking).”

However, as in your example, works do not make you a righteous person. Even Carnegie with his very generous gift has sinned against God.

Quote

I think there are some religious people who do indeed believe that. There are other religious people who believe that their religion requires them to convert, control or even kill the people who are not of their religion, which is about as far from "thinking of others" as you can get.

Repeat. Refer to previous post. There are both religious and non-religious people who do bad and good things based on their morals. Hence, all men are sinners by nature. This is not in dispute.

Quote

Similarly, there are atheists and agnostics who are models of humanitarianism and generosity, and others that are greedy, selfish misers. In both cases, the important thing is what morals they have, not what sort of god they believe in. And in both cases I'd rather have a leader who was a generous humanitarian over one that's greedy and selfish, even if the former is an atheist and the latter is a staunch christian.

Yes, but where do they derive their morals. Are they just based on societal norms? As you can see from current events, social norms change just like the shifting sands. What is considered obscene now won’t be in another 10 years.

Quote

It's a common fallacy that you need to have a moral system handed to you if it is to be valid. I have found that many people like that; they like a non-ambiguous moral system, based on a religious framework, handed to them. Doesn't take much thought. "Jesus wants you to . . ." Nietzsche called this the servant morality; a morality of simple obedience to a fixed set of rules. This in and of itself does not make it bad as long as the people think long and hard about what all that means, and as long as they are sure that it is what they want to do.

Why is it a fallacy that you might need to have a moral system handed down to you by God to be valid? Prove that. Humans are flawed and imperfect. Also, you’re inferring that attempting to lead a life according to the example set forth by Jesus is “simple” and, therefore, easy. I have to say, in my experience, it is much harder than living by my own rules. It takes a lot of thought.

Quote

Many intelligent people have their own opinions on morality; these may not exactly square with the teachings of the church they belong to, or may even exist on their own without any reference to an established church. These people tend to be more intelligent simply because these are the people who are thinking on their own, outside the strictures of a codified morality. Again, this does not necessarily lead them to a better or worse morality, but at least it is their own. To quote a more modern philosopher:

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears, from kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose free will

I catch that subtle attempt at condescension. Are you insinuating that you or others who are humanistic are more intelligent or have more insight than those who believe in divine guidance because they make up their own rules? Are you insinuating that you’re smarter than me and that I do not think on my own? Everybody has a framework or a “codified morality” that they work within. Even those who make up their own have boundaries set by themselves. I can tell you that my “framework” has opened my options up infinitely. I have a much larger vision of what’s possible than I had before.

To quote an older philosopher:

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:31-32

[billvon 2,471]

>Yes, but where do they derive their morals. Are they just based on
>societal norms? As you can see from current events, social norms
>change just like the shifting sands. What is considered obscene now
> won’t be in another 10 years.

Same thing in religion. At one time, it was considered a mortal sin to work on the sabbath or to use any form of birth control at all. Times change. Even religions change. The jewish faith has split off to become jewish and christian, which has further split to become the endless variations of protestant, baptist, lutheran, episcopalian etc. And each one has different rules. Some have women clergy, some have gay clergy even though the bible says homosexuals must be put to death.

Are they all wrong now, since none are like the original hebrew faith? Or is it sometimes OK to change like the shifting sands?

>Why is it a fallacy that you might need to have a moral system
>handed down to you by God to be valid?

It is a fallacy that only such moral systems are valid. People could be as moral in 500BC as they can be today, even if they didn't have a new testament to read. Hindus, agnostics, atheists, jews, and muslims can all be equally moral (or amoral.)

I do not doubt that some people may need to have a moral system handed to them; that does not make other people's moral systems invalid.

> Also, you’re inferring that attempting to lead a life according to the
> example set forth by Jesus is “simple” and, therefore, easy. I have
> to say, in my experience, it is much harder than living by my own
> rules. It takes a lot of thought.

I have had the opposite experience. I was raised in a catholic family, sent to sunday school every weekend, went to a catholic high school. It was easy to understand the morals they hand you. "Premarital sex is just wrong, so don't do it!" I remember one of the brothers telling us.

When I got to college I started to reconsider all those rules that got handed to me and realized that I simply did not agree with some of them. Yet others jibed with my own internal moral compass, a compass that had developed over the first 20 years of my life through seeing people interact with each other. So I had to make a choice - what goes and what stays, and how do I reconcile all of that with who I am? It took a long time to figure it out.

>I catch that subtle attempt at condescension. Are you insinuating
> that you or others who are humanistic are more intelligent or have
> more insight than those who believe in divine guidance because
> they make up their own rules?

Not at all. Many very intelligent people are religious, and they both understand and accept the set of morals they are expected to live up to. Many other intelligent people have developed their own set of moral rules that work for them. These are no more or less valid than the ones supplied by a religion.

On the other hand, there are people who cannot create a set of moral rules that work for them due to a lack of introspective ability or a lack of understanding of how a moral person can live in an immoral world - or indeed how anyone can _have_ independent morals in an immoral world. Often, these people find religion and take that set of morals pre-packaged and live their lives according to those morals. While there is nothing wrong with that, I think some of these people are missing out on a chance to examine their morality and see if it truly matches with who _they_ are. I think it's important to be able to examine your own morals, drives, wishes etc and see them for what they really are.

"Without vision, we perish."

>Everybody has a framework or a “codified morality” that they work
> within. Even those who make up their own have boundaries set by
> themselves.

Exactly! And the ones that are created by independent minds are no better or worse than ones that come in a book.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Same thing in religion. At one time, it was considered a mortal sin to work on the sabbath or to use any form of birth control at all. Times change. Even religions change. The jewish faith has split off to become jewish and christian, which has further split to become the endless variations of protestant, baptist, lutheran, episcopalian etc. And each one has different rules. Some have women clergy, some have gay clergy even though the bible says homosexuals must be put to death.

Are they all wrong now, since none are like the original hebrew faith? Or is it sometimes OK to change like the shifting sands?

I’m speaking for Christianity and not other religions. The basis for Christianity has not changed and some foundation morals shouldn’t either. The interpretation of tradition and the way a particular church or denomination delivers the message has and will. Like I said before, this in no way alters the source. There are churches that even go against the fundamentals, however (i.e. gay clergy), but this does not make it right in the eyes of God. It certainly does not follow his written Word.

Quote

It is a fallacy that only such moral systems are valid. People could be as moral in 500BC as they can be today, even if they didn't have a new testament to read. Hindus, agnostics, atheists, jews, and muslims can all be equally moral (or amoral.)

I do not doubt that some people may need to have a moral system handed to them; that does not make other people's moral systems invalid.

I have stated before and I agree that non-Christian or non-religious people have the ability to know right from wrong and in fact may lead moral lives. I never said that you had to be Christian to be moral. I think I’ve said that before….

Quote

I have had the opposite experience. I was raised in a catholic family, sent to sunday school every weekend, went to a catholic high school. It was easy to understand the morals they hand you. "Premarital sex is just wrong, so don't do it!" I remember one of the brothers telling us.

When I got to college I started to reconsider all those rules that got handed to me and realized that I simply did not agree with some of them. Yet others jibed with my own internal moral compass, a compass that had developed over the first 20 years of my life through seeing people interact with each other. So I had to make a choice - what goes and what stays, and how do I reconcile all of that with who I am? It took a long time to figure it out.

It seems to be very common for some Catholics to be turned from the Catholic faith and sometimes even from Christianity. That would be an interesting topic of discussion. In my opinion, if someone told you in Catholic school that “Premarital sex is just wrong, so don’t do it!” then they were doing you an injustice. Especially in a religious setting, I’m surprised that they didn’t quote “Jesus warned, you have heard…’You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” The Bible says that adulterers and fornicators (those who have had sex before marriage) will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Christian churches, whatever denomination, should teach from the Bible.

Quote

Not at all. Many very intelligent people are religious, and they both understand and accept the set of morals they are expected to live up to. Many other intelligent people have developed their own set of moral rules that work for them. These are no more or less valid than the ones supplied by a religion.

Again, this is not debated.

Quote

On the other hand, there are people who cannot create a set of moral rules that work for them due to a lack of introspective ability or a lack of understanding of how a moral person can live in an immoral world - or indeed how anyone can _have_ independent morals in an immoral world. Often, these people find religion and take that set of morals pre-packaged and live their lives according to those morals. While there is nothing wrong with that, I think some of these people are missing out on a chance to examine their morality and see if it truly matches with who _they_ are. I think it's important to be able to examine your own morals, drives, wishes etc and see them for what they really are.

"Without vision, we perish."

I did examine my own morality for a long time and lived by my own rules and came to the realization that I fall very short of a higher standard. I didn’t become a Christian until 98 and I’m 34. You’re generalizing when you say, “Often these people find religion and take that set of morals pre-packaged and live their lives according to those morals” and insinuate that religious people have a “lack of understanding of how a moral person can live in an immoral world.”

Exactly! And the ones that are created by independent minds are no better or worse than ones that come in a book.

[yourmomma 0]

***To quote an older philosopher:

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:31-32
***

Lets not forget what He said about those Jews who didn't believe Him.........

[The Jews] both killed the lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contraty to all men.
1 Thessalonians 2:15


For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision. Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake. Titus 1:10-11

It doesn't take an exceptional mind to see the contradiction inherint in the concept of a loving saviour dying for ALL sins, while condeming a group due to poor judgment /skpeticsim.

[pajarito 0]

I completely fail to see your point. Both are essentially condemning sin.

[tbrown 26]

Thank you Gary for the Jefferson quotes, he was probably the origin of the phrase "a wall between church and state". Jefferson also said something to the effect that in his opinion the wal could never be high enough or wide enough.

The founding fathers lived in a world where people could be hanged, burned at the stake, headwhacked, or simpley drowned en masse in leaky barges for adhering to the "wrong" faith. Also imprisoned, tortured, their property confiscated and so forth. THAT was what the founding fathers wanted no part of in America.

The FF's were by and large God fearing men, though many of them were what would be called "deists". That is, they professed belief in an almighty God, but did not profess loyalty to any particular sectarian or orthodox religious doctrine or denomination. Their era was the time of the founding of the Unitarian Church and other like denominations.

All you have to do to observe a church state in action nowadays is look at Iran, or remember Afghanistan in its Taliban heyday, when adulterers were hanged at the soccer stadium (nice, huh ?). Or Israel, where the ultra-orthodox are trying to decree by law who is, or is not a Jew, or even whether a marriage is valid if not performed to THEIR standards.

Would you want to have some religious arbiter decide whether YOUR marriage was valid ? Or to hang your brother or sister at the local stadium for a little nooky they had on the side ? I think not. The FF's didn't think so either, so they decided their new country would never have an official church state.

One of the most PRECIOUS things about our revolution, that sets it apart from the other revolutions of history, is that it never tried to change human nature. The French tried to change human nature with the guillotine, but no matter how many people they killed, they couldn't "perfect" human nature. The Russians, Chinese, Cambodians, and many others all tried it too. All they ended up doing was killing millions of people, and human nature is still what it is. But we Americans decided to let people be what they are, and as long as we don't rob or kill each other, we'll let it go, and be the better for it. That's what makes us different. And a church state doesn't fit in that picture.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[billvon 2,471]

>I’m speaking for Christianity and not other religions. The basis for
>Christianity has not changed and some foundation morals shouldn’t
> either.

?? Well, it sure did change when it split off from judaism. Also, if you don't mind me asking, which particular version of christianity do you adhere to? Most of them have changed pretty radically over the years. I think this is a good, rather than a bad, thing. It doesn't always make a lot of sense to worship through not eating shellfish, for example, although it once did have very important health consequences. Now that that reason is gone, most people ignore that provision in the bible.

>I did examine my own morality for a long time and lived by my own
> rules and came to the realization that I fall very short of a higher
> standard. I didn’t become a Christian until 98 and I’m 34. You’re
> generalizing when you say, “Often these people find religion and
> take that set of morals pre-packaged and live their lives according
> to those morals” and insinuate that religious people have a “lack of
> Understanding of how a moral person can live in an immoral world.”

I think you missed my point there. "Those people" to whom I am referring are the people who lack introspective ability, the people who _need_ a prepackaged set of morals. I know some people who are, honestly, just plain dumb, and it is these people who benefit the most, I think, from a codified set of morals that can be explained in a pamphlet (or in ten commandments, or in a sermon.)

Like I said earlier, there are some very smart, quite religious people. Religion is not an indication that someone cannot consider questions of morality, sin and basic drives. It is, however, sometimes a crutch for those who cannot.

>AGAIN, this is not debated. I agree that morals created by
> independent minds may not necessarily be bad and, therefore,
> immoral compared to religious ones. It doesn’t mean that they are
> all good but it surely does not mean that they are all bad.

OK! I was mainly responding to an earlier comment you made:

"I believe that once a person has a relationship with Jesus, there is an internal desire to know God, to think of others instead of ourselves, and to do things for His will and not our own."

I think that basic sentiment (altruism) is as common in atheists, agnostics, hindus and muslims as it is in christians.

[Nightingale 0]

I don't think a moral code has to be based on religion to be valid.

I think even an Athiest can look at an action and realize that it is wrong, not because it hurts God, but because it hurts other humans.

That's pretty much the basis of most moral codes. Don't do certain things because it hurts either yourself or other people.

Personally, I've been able to make my own religious choices and have been able to explore many ways of life and moral codes. I'm grateful for the opportunity. I'm against laws that require people to conform to an extremely explicit moral code based upon one religion's ideas of what is right.

Secular laws can be written quite simply. All one needs to ask is "does this action directly harm another human being?" If so, consider outlawing it. If not, leave the people to make their own choice, even if it may be a choice you consider wrong. If they're a friend or family member, by all means, talk to them about it, but don't outlaw their right to choose their own path. Sometimes we all have to stumble along on the wrong path before we find the right one.

According to the Bible, humanity was given the gift of free will. Who are we to legislate that gift away?

[Ron 7]

Quote

Well, apparently President John Adams disagreed, since he signed the treaty containing the statement that it wasn't

Adams was just ONE of several folks that helped form this country.

Quote

I suppose it all comes down to what you mean by "founded on religion". Maybe you understand it to mean something different than the folks in 1797 thought it meant.

Well the Declaration was 1776 and it mentions God. The first draft of the Constitution did not conatain the Bill of Rights that was 3 years later.

The FIRST Goverment that was established here was a religious settlement.

Quote

went to a state school in a country with an established church and had religion force fed to me every day for 12 years. The folks in the US that want this here would find the outcome very undesirable if they ever succeed in getting it. The worst thing that could possibly befall religion is getting it "established".

I agree it would be bad...But it does not change the FACTS.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[pajarito 0]

I'll answer you first because I think It's the easiest to respond to. Believe it or not, I think I agree with this entire statement. I've already stated a lot of what you just did. You'd have to define exactly what harms another human being in the last statment, however. But I think I agree with you.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

?? Well, it sure did change when it split off from judaism. Also, if you don't mind me asking, which particular version of christianity do you adhere to? Most of them have changed pretty radically over the years. I think this is a good, rather than a bad, thing. It doesn't always make a lot of sense to worship through not eating shellfish, for example, although it once did have very important health consequences. Now that that reason is gone, most people ignore that provision in the bible.

Did you read my quote concerning the laws of the Old Testament vs. the ones of the New? Did you read my comments on the differences between Biblical truths/laws vs. denominational tradition? Of course Christianity changed when it split off from Judaism. Jesus ushered in the new covenant with his people. Many of the old Jewish laws were cast aside. For instance, circumcision used to be a sign of the old covenant. It is an important tradition to me for personal reasons but I do not believe it is necessary today for religious reasons. Foundation morals are different from these. I’m talking about the 10 Commandments. I’m talking about Jesus saying to love your neighbor as you love yourself. I’m talking about love God with all of your heart, mind, soul, and strength. These haven’t changed in thousands of years. In reference to what denomination I adhere to, I would have to say Reformed Baptist. I hold to many Presbyterian (PCA; not PCUSA) principals as well as Southern Baptist.

Quote

I think you missed my point there. "Those people" to whom I am referring are the people who lack introspective ability, the people who _need_ a prepackaged set of morals. I know some people who are, honestly, just plain dumb, and it is these people who benefit the most, I think, from a codified set of morals that can be explained in a pamphlet (or in ten commandments, or in a sermon.)

Like I said earlier, there are some very smart, quite religious people. Religion is not an indication that someone cannot consider questions of morality, sin and basic drives. It is, however, sometimes a crutch for those who cannot.

Sorry if I missed your point. I agree with you but there are those types of people on both sides of the fence. Those with blind faith who hold to rules just because that’s all they’ve ever known and they can’t make their own decisions. There are also those who don’t adhere to any standards but their own because it’s too much of an inconvenience. It convicts their wrongs and they want to party and have fun. That could very well be considered a crutch. I think that even people with blind faith, however, are covered. I don’t think it matters how you get there as long as you are genuine. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it (Luke 18:17).

Quote

I think that basic sentiment (altruism) is as common in atheists, agnostics, hindus and muslims as it is in christians.

I agree.

*** By the way, I do think a discussion on why it appears that so many people raised in the Catholic faith later turn against it and sometimes against Christianity would be a good one. I notice that a lot. Maybe it's just me.

[wmw999 2,169]

Quote

The FIRST Goverment that was established here was a religious settlement.

The first government assumed that everyone was involved in some sort of religion. It also assumed that slavery was OK and that only men would vote.

These have all changed with amendments. I wonder why the fact that it assumed religiosity is more important than the fact that it assumed that white men were the only ones who could vote.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Ron 7]

Quote

The first government assumed that everyone was involved in some sort of religion. It also assumed that slavery was OK and that only men would vote.

These have all changed with amendments. I wonder why the fact that it assumed religiosity is more important than the fact that it assumed that white men were the only ones who could vote.

Wendy if you read all that I wrote...

My only point was to show that it is a fact that the Nation was BASED on RELIGION.

The Founding Fathers saw an issue with that and 3 years after they drafted and approved the U.S. Constutition they drafted the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights has the amendment about the Goverment not messing around with religion.

Now I agree with that, but it does not change the FACT that the 1st Governmet in the US was based on religion...It does not change that the Declaration of Independence mentions religion.

That was my only point.

Im not going to agrue to good or bad of it...But it would be the same if I pointed out how at one time Alcohol was illegal. The fact i was repealed does not mean that it was AT ONE TIME illegal.

Just like how the Bill of Rights does not change the history prior to that document...It may change the FUTURE, but it does not change the PAST.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

The FIRST Goverment that was established here was a religious settlement.

The first government assumed that everyone was involved in some sort of religion. It also assumed that slavery was OK and that only men would vote.

These have all changed with amendments. I wonder why the fact that it assumed religiosity is more important than the fact that it assumed that white men were the only ones who could vote.

Wendy W.

Oh, Go cook me a meal Woman!

Belief and social standard -

Please - I know it is hard to actually admit that Ron is right (because he tends to try to fall of the right wing,) but please, listen to your arguments. You are saying that " The first government assumed that everyone was involved in some sort of religion. It also assumed that slavery was OK and that only men would vote." You are noit debunking the FACT that the United States was founded hand in hand with a belief of God. There is no other way to look at the facts. Just say he's right and apologize for being wrong.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wmw999 2,169]

I disagree that it was based on religion. It assumed a religious context, but it did not use the Christian (or any other) religious rules as its in-any-way-obvious basis. It didn't reference the Bible or anything else, and the basics aren't an obvious rehash of the 10 commandments, or anything else that can be found in the Bible.

It did assume that everyone involved was likely some kind of deist, most of them Christians, most of them Protestants. But that's not the same thing. Religion was part of the background fabric.

Edit: maybe we're quibbling about terms. To me, "based on" means a clear identifiable inheritance type relationship; not that there is some fabric in common, or an assumption that everyone is the same.

The fact that they so quickly wrote the bill of rights to me is an indication that it was NOT based on religion, and they wanted to disabuse those who thought the mention of God meant it was of that notion.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

This is such a non-issue - everything back then was 'founded' on some kind of religion because of the nature of society. Ron's correct. Much the same way you'd be correct in saying that much of what happened back then was enabled due to people breathing.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Ron 7]

Quote

It did assume that everyone involved was likely some kind of deist, most of them Christians, most of them Protestants. But that's not the same thing. Religion was part of the background fabric.

The Declaration of Independence says:

Quote

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;

Now I will give them large amounts of credit that they didn't choose a religion...But it sure does mention God. The United States was based on many things, but one of them is religion...In this case it is freedom to choose HOW to worship God.

Which is what Artical I of the Bill of Rights says:

Quote

I - Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

All that says is that Congress will not make any laws that put one religion over another, and that you are free to worship how you want.

And even that is not true. If my religion tells me its ok to kill people that don't agree with me...I still can't do it.

Quote

The fact that they so quickly wrote the bill of rights to me is an indication that it was NOT based on religion, and they wanted to disabuse those who thought the mention of God meant it was of that notion

No I think it was a reaction to different religious zelots trying to become the "Offical" religion of the new country. And the Founding Fathers not wanting to repeat the mistakes of the past with the Church & Goverment enter mixed. It created problems in the past...Such as the King saying one thing and the Church saying another.

A powerful Church took power away from the Government....And that meant taking power away from the People here...Since were were by the People for the People.

It was a smart move....Religion has no place in politcs...

However, like it or not, most Governments and laws are based off of the religion that was popular in that area at that time.

No amount of changes, changes the simple FACT that religion has played...and in many cases still plays a large part in the shaping of a country and its laws, and in politics.

Lets face it, Lieberman didn't have a chance.

Just cause you don't like it....Just cause people try not to use it...Does not make it not TRUE.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334