Should the US be a Christian nation?

fungotheclown wrote:

The 5th amendment was not written with fully automatic weaponry in mind.

I think you mean the second amendment, not the fifth.

0 Replies

Yeah, sorry, thanks. Not a whole lot of sleep. Point still stands.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

xingu wrote:
au1929 wrote:
fungotheclown

Quote:
The Constitution is a living document; regardless of how the founders intended it to be read, we need to interpret it to best fit our country in the modern world.

Does that mean that the constitution, you believe, can be reinterpreted with every change of administration or however the wind blows?

Yes, to a certain extent it can. Look at gay rights. At the time of our FF homosexuals were executed. Today, without amending the Constitution, we at trying to treat them as Americans giving them the same rights as other Americans, not as some animal that has to be destroyed.

Where in the constitution does it condone the execution of homosexuals. Or for that matter address them at all.

It doesn't but how you interpret it matters. Freedom today is not the same as freedom during the time of our FF. Without changing the Constitution we have changed our belief of what constitutes freedom. Gays is an example. So different administrations can interpret the Constitution in different ways without changing it. Kind of like Christians interpreting the Bible. They all see it a different way.

Tapping phones without a warrant; is it Constitutional or not? There's nothing in the Constitution that say's you can or can't but both sides use the Constitution to support their argument.

Our concept of what the Constitution says can change from one admiistration to another; from conservative to liberal. Congressman Paul says the IRS is unconstitutional.

Is he right?

0 Replies

fungotheclown wrote:

Yeah, sorry, thanks. Not a whole lot of sleep. Point still stands.

Again, even if I grant your point about the living constitution, it doesn't matter. Sure, it's true that the "living constitution" approach has historically served liberal judges to help along liberal social reforms. But nothing about the approach keeps religiously conservative judges from using it to enact conservative social reforms in the future. I don't see how a looser interpretation of the constitution would necessarily get you results that are politically more liberal.

0 Replies

We shouldn't be a christian nation any more than we should be an Olympian nation or a wiccan nation. Religion is detrimental to society, it is outmoded and unfounded, and we shouldn't use it to make political decisions. We should use evidence and reason.

0 Replies

fungotheclown wrote:

We shouldn't be a christian nation any more than we should be an Olympian nation or a wiccan nation. Religion is detrimental to society, it is outmoded and unfounded, and we shouldn't use it to make political decisions. We should use evidence and reason.

Since law and religion address the same questions (what is right/wrong? what should/should not be allowed?) , I think you will find that overlap and conflict between them is unavoidable.

Wishing for a society with laws unaffected by the religious views of any of it's members is simply unrealistic.

Your appeal to 'reason' is simply a code word for using YOUR view of what is right/wrong as opposed to someone else's view. Your view is 'reasonable' (because it's yours), theirs is not.

Isn't that about the size of it?

If you doubt that this is true, tell me , do you have any UNreasonable views that you think should be reflected in our laws?

Of course not. All of YOUR views are reasonable, are they not?

0 Replies

It depends on whether you separate the moral/ethical codes of a religion from its holiness codes. Moral/ethical codes can and do reflect civil law (thou shalt not kill and it's illegal to murder, for example), but holiness codes (pray five times per day, partake of communion, enforcement of religious observances as legal holidays, etc) have no place in the law.

Moral codes are those practices which have influence on society (or others) whereas holiness codes are between the observer and their god. Those moral codes that cross all or most religions are certainly incorporated into civil ethical systems. Saying that Christian moral codes are superior to any other religion's moral codes and are therefore the 'proper' codes for the US is ridiculous. The title of this thread, "Should the US be a Christian nation?" has a very simple answer, No, it shouldn't. That doesn't mean that the US shouldn't have any moral codes that influence its civil laws.

0 Replies

Actually, not all my views are reasonable. Not all of them should be reflected in law either.

The only reason wishing for a society with laws unaffected by religious views in unrealistic is because there are members of society (such as yourself) who insist on forcing your religious views on other people.

I don't use reason as a code word for my views, although I do think most of my views are reasonable. I want my laws to serve the common good, and I want them to do so in a way that is both logical and supported by evidence. Laws with a basis in religion are neither of those.

0 Replies

There are some that believe that religion is the only thing that keeps man from being lawless and immoral brutes. One need only look at history to see that religion has more often than not has been the cause of that behavior. IMO the world would be a much better place if religion were to disappear from the scene. Or at least restricted to houses of worship.

0 Replies

You're a real believer in the First Amendment, aren't you? Rolling Eyes

The Founding Fathers wrote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Should freedom of the press also be restricted to the office space owned by the newspaper?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

You're a real believer in the First Amendment, aren't you?

The Founding Fathers wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Should freedom of the press also be restricted to the office space owned by the newspaper?

Your damned right I am. You and your religious bedfellows are in favor of the US being a Christian nation in direct opposition to the first amendment of the constitution. I on the other hand believe it has no place in government. Strict separation of church and state.
As for my wish that the infection of religion be cured or at least put in it's place is just wishful thinking.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

real life wrote:
au1929 wrote:

There are some that believe that religion is the only thing that keeps man from being lawless and immoral brutes. One need only look at history to see that religion has more often than not has been the cause of that behavior. IMO the world would be a much better place if religion were to disappear from the scene. Or at least restricted to houses of worship

You're a real believer in the First Amendment, aren't you?

The Founding Fathers wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Should freedom of the press also be restricted to the office space owned by the newspaper?

Your damned right I am. You and your religious bedfellows are in favor of the US being a Christian nation in direct opposition to the first amendment of the constitution. I on the other hand believe it has no place in government. Strict separation of church and state.
As for my wish that the infection of religion be cured or at least put in it's place is just wishful thinking.

Which of these will you be voting for?

Quote:

Mrs. Clinton Says G.O.P.'s Immigration Plan Is at Odds With the Bible

By NINA BERNSTEIN
Published: March 23, 2006
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton invoked the Bible yesterday to criticize a stringent border security measure that, among other things, would make it a federal crime to offer aid to illegal immigrants.

"It is hard to believe that a Republican leadership that is constantly talking about values and about faith would put forth such a mean-spirited piece of legislation," she said of the measure, which was passed by the House of Representatives in December and mirrored a companion Senate bill introduced last week by Senator Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican and the majority leader.

"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scripture because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself," she said. "We need to sound the alarm about what is being done in the Congress."..................

from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/23/nyregion/23hillary.html

Quote:

Obama: GOP doesn't own faith and values[/size]

"I think its important particularly for those of us in the Democratic Party to not cede values and faith to any one party," Obama told reporters outside the Redemption World Outreach Center where he attended services.................

Obama told an evangelical church in South Carolina: "I am confident we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

from http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/obama-gop-doesnt-own-faith-and-values/

0 Replies

The lesser of two evils. However on the part of Clinton and possibly Obama. That wass just electioneering speak

0 Replies

real life

Now it's your turn. Do you or do you not believe the call for the US to be designated as a christian nation violates the first amendment to the constitution.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

JPB wrote:
I'll be attending a lecture tomorrow night by the author which includes a Q&A period afterwards. Any questions you want asked?

Maybe it's too cruel to ask an author on a reading tour about other people's books, but my question is this: What's a good collection of primary sources on the Founding Fathers' religious views? One thing that annoys me in this kind of discussion is that most of the quote on both sides come from people's favorite pundids; quotes of the founders, and quotes about the founders by their contemporaries, are rare by comparison.

He wasn't the least bit taken aback and said, "Of course I can recommend a collection of sources -- I edited one a couple years ago!" It's title is, The Separation of Church and State: Writings on a Fundamental Freedom by America's Founders and is available online. Here is the intro (pdf).

0 Replies

Here's something you may want to read.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

real life

Now it's your turn. Do you or do you not believe the call for the US to be designated as a christian nation violates the first amendment to the constitution.

Be specific.

What do you mean by 'being designated a Christian nation'? By whom? And signifying exactly what?

I do not believe that ANY church should be the 'official church' of the US.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

real life wrote:
au1929 wrote:
real life wrote:
au1929 wrote:

There are some that believe that religion is the only thing that keeps man from being lawless and immoral brutes. One need only look at history to see that religion has more often than not has been the cause of that behavior. IMO the world would be a much better place if religion were to disappear from the scene. Or at least restricted to houses of worship

You're a real believer in the First Amendment, aren't you?

The Founding Fathers wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Should freedom of the press also be restricted to the office space owned by the newspaper?

Your damned right I am. You and your religious bedfellows are in favor of the US being a Christian nation in direct opposition to the first amendment of the constitution. I on the other hand believe it has no place in government. Strict separation of church and state.
As for my wish that the infection of religion be cured or at least put in it's place is just wishful thinking.

Which of these will you be voting for?

Quote:
Mrs. Clinton Says G.O.P.'s Immigration Plan Is at Odds With the Bible

By NINA BERNSTEIN
Published: March 23, 2006
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton invoked the Bible yesterday to criticize a stringent border security measure that, among other things, would make it a federal crime to offer aid to illegal immigrants.

"It is hard to believe that a Republican leadership that is constantly talking about values and about faith would put forth such a mean-spirited piece of legislation," she said of the measure, which was passed by the House of Representatives in December and mirrored a companion Senate bill introduced last week by Senator Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican and the majority leader.

"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scripture because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself," she said. "We need to sound the alarm about what is being done in the Congress."..................

from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/23/nyregion/23hillary.html

Quote:
Obama: GOP doesn't own faith and values[/size]

"I think its important particularly for those of us in the Democratic Party to not cede values and faith to any one party," Obama told reporters outside the Redemption World Outreach Center where he attended services.................

Obama told an evangelical church in South Carolina: "I am confident we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."
from http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/obama-gop-doesnt-own-faith-and-values/

The lesser of two evils. However on the part of Clinton and possibly Obama. That wass just electioneering speak

Oh, I see. So for Republicans to advocate a certain policy because it is in line with a religious belief is verboten.

But for a Democrat to do so is OK because it's assumed they are lying about it.

Is this what you mean?

0 Replies

real Life

Quote:

What do you mean by 'being designated a Christian nation'? By whom? And signifying exactly what?

Have you forgotten the question posed by this thread? If so let me remind you. "Should the US be a Christian nation"

Real Life wrote

Quote:

Oh, I see. So for Republicans to advocate a certain policy because it is in line with a religious belief is verboten.

Need I remind you that our president the republican has not only advocated policy based upon his religious beliefs but has wherever possible implemented it. A prime example is fetal stem cell research. In addition a substantial part of their support comes from the evangelicals. Who would like nothing better than turning the US into a Christian theocracy.

As to Clinton nothing in her resume would indicate that she would mix her religion with Government.

Regarding Obama, his resume is paper thin and I have no way to judge whether what he says is what he really believes. He would not get my vote.

0 Replies

Aside of the question if America should be a Christian country, governor Sunny Perdue (R-GA) appears to run Georgia as a Christian state. Faced with an unusually long drought, his government takes the initiative and ... administers a prayer ceremony.

The Boston Globe wrote:

ATLANTA --What to do when the rain won't come? If you're Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue, you pray.
more stories like this

The governor will host a prayer service next week to ask for relief from the drought gripping the Southeast.

"The only solution is rain, and the only place we get that is from a higher power," Perdue spokesman Bert Brantley said on Wednesday.

Full Article

It will be interesting to observe the future amount of rain in Georgia. We could compare it with the future amount of rain in a control group of states that don't host prayer services. If Georgia gets more rain than the control group (by a statistically significant amount), that's evidence that America should be Christian nation. If Georgia fails to attract more rain than its more secular competitors, that would be evidence against it.

Sound fair enough?

0 Replies

Should the US be a Christian nation?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know