The founding fathers don't care about you or your religious causes.
 

I want to see a compelling argument for an increase in the presence of christianity in our government. I don't care about the constitution. I don't care about your pretend notions of who the founding fathers are and what they would think about the current state of affairs.

Why is more christianity in goverment a good thing? Is more christianity in goverment a good thing? Does the idea of a christian nation even mean anything in light of the incredibly inconsistent, fractured state of contemporary christianity?

Also, given our continuing conflict with nations governed by religious bodies instead of political parties, do we really want to put ourselves in that same position?

I don't have a problem with our leaders being Christian per se... I have a problem if Christian lobby groups ideology takes precidence over the neccessarily secular country we live in...

Then again, I live in Canada and don't have the same issues as the US... ANY politician who wore his religion on his sleeve like Bush does would NEVER get elected...

Well, if one is truly Christian, and believes that Christianity is the only true religion than I can see where they would want the country to be a Christian nation. That way their God could show favor on us and protect us from our enemies and reward our faith by promoting our well being.

However if one is not sure about the religion thing then I can see many disadvantages in choosing one over the other. If we choose wrong the true God may take offense. For those of us who do not have a strong faith it is probably better for the country to remain neutral in these religious matters.

It is bad to assume that all "true" Christians believe that Christianity is the only true religion.

I agree and did not mean to imply that all do, but for those who do believe it a Christian nation seems to make sense.

My response to you is, why is it a bad thing? From my understanding and the statistics I've seen, Christianity accounts for well over half of the religious beliefs of adults in the United States. Therefore, it's not really surprising that a given politician falls under this category in a democratic system.

I'm sure many people use religion as a judge of character as well. People associate it with moral integrity. And why? Well, if over half of the total adults in the U.S. state they are Christians, obviously, over half of the amount of total adults feel their religion represents a certain sense of moral integrity.

However, I do not think your issue of whether Christianity, itself, should have a bigger presence in our government is really an issue at all. Most people feel that legislating morale is ineffective. I think you can take out a sample of any major rational organization that would have that same feeling towards religion in legislature.

Finally, remember that your final statement is just a normative statement. You really can't say whether it's fragmented or not. In fact, when a religion accounts for 33% of the world's population in such a diverse world, it's hard to really even have that idea taken seriously. Sure, some parts may not be as strong, but there definitely is evolving and innovative aspects existing today that did not centuries ago. To be honest, your final statement makes it very hard to interpret your entire post as a legitimate challenge rather than a direct attack.

please correct me if Im wrong...but dont a lot of middle eastern laws stem from THEIR religion? Especially the ones concerning women?

What i meant was that the term christianity as it is used commonly, refers to a vast mishmash of often contradictory factions whose only connection is some sort of belief in the messianic christ. Christianity is not consistent. Many of its various factions don't trust eachother. Ask a southern baptist how they feel about the united church of christ if you don't believe me. For many christians, salvation requires not only that someone be christian, but that someone be the right kind of christian. If you feel attacked, don't blame me, blame club christianity's loose entry requirements.

I would say that having any ruling class too in line with the religious beliefs of only a portion of their population increases the risk of oppression for all of those who don't share the ruler's belief system. Increases the risk. One need only look to iran to see the possible failures of a government too caught up in religious ideals. I don't care if politicians are christian. I see a problem in letting people attempt to create a government in their god's own image.

The moral integrity you attach to christians is meaningless. Morality is not a requirement for someone to self identify as christian. Nor is christianity a requirement for someone to act in a morally consistent fashion.

Yep thats the problem right there. It all comes down to oppression. A country that is ruled by religious beliefs is more prone to oppress it's people. Just look at what's happening with homosexual marriage today. Enough stuff is already illegal due to stupid (and in some cases unconstitutional) laws.

This country is supposed to be all about "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Instead it's being led toward "Fear, oppression and the praising of Jesus."

The redicuous thing is, many christians don't follow their religion's own beliefs. For example "Love thy neighbor as you love yourself". There sure are a lot of self-hating christians out there.

To be Honest....as a Pagan.....I hold a certain amount of Fear concerning the Christianization of America. Not that I find it Likely to continue much past the current Administration, But, You just never know. I actually have a contingency plan should things become.....unsettling for my faith in this country. This may seem paranoid to some....so be it. But I am not generally known as irrational , ignorant, or prone to overreacting.
It is unfortunate that religion has become a dividing force in this country, as that would seem the opposite of the desired effect.

Because then we would see a blossoming of compassion, equality, inclusion, forgiveness, tolerance, peace and -- most importantly -- love.

Jesus is a liberal, after all.


(only half a ;) )

I'm an atheist myself, though I went through a Jesus freak phase as a teenager. One thing I noticed during that phase was that I was a total outsider even in church. It became clear to me that the word "Christian" did not seem to have any fixed meaning whatsoever, and many christian leaders were, in my eyes, hypocrites.

I'm now a firm believer in the separation of church and state, regardless of the majority religion.

But I still do like those values I listed above, and wouldn't mind seeing them exercised a little more in government :)

Can you think of the last NON-Christian president we had?

Even Clinton was nominally a Christian...

Who was the last president who made the poor and the sick their highest priority?

They were a pretty high priority to Lyndon Johnson - pretty much made up our armed forces in V-nam... Oh, you meant helping them.

I'm going to take a stab at this. How about because agree or disagree with it, the large majority of your populace considers themselves Christian, and that the presence of what they consider to be the highest power intertwined into government gives them confidence in the the handling of affairs. Ruling over people takes religion or fear, both when possible. A nation with no religious base, real or perceived, is prone to uprising and requires a much heavier hand to control. This leads to less individual freedoms, less satisfaction in daily life, and then we start affecting productivity which hits us in the pocketbook as a country. Did kings really believe that they were born from a "divine" family line or did it just make everyone a little more comfortable to buy into the whole hand of God thing?

If we thought that God hadn't given G.W.B. a sign that he was to run for president, I know that my confidence would be shaken a bit...

First paragraph fails to take note of the real problem. Homosexual marriage is more than just some Christian issue. It just reveals a huge problem that exists in all of society, which is legislating morals. You really cannot make a truly convincing argument of why gay marriage should be legalized or why it should be banned. The problem is with the government trying to legislate something such as marriage, which is already largely associated with morals.

Also, I really do not think what you describe in the second paragraph is accurrate either. First, let me explain that to my understanding, "...the pursuit of happiness" just refered to the right to own property upon it's original delivery. On your opinion, I think it's incorrect. To say people are more oppressed now than they were 200, 100, 50, or even 10 years ago is just ludicrous.

Also, I have very liberal Christian beliefs that are not agreed upon my most Christian churches at all. I have a friend that is Agnostic. I can say that neither of us feel oppressed, nor are we afraid of telling people our beliefs. I just do not think that the hysteria really exists.

Besides the fact that "the praising of Jesus" comment would really offend many people(whom also happen to make up the majority of the nation), I do not really understand what you mean. If you're that discontent, why do you put up with it? Exactly how many presidents has the United States ever had that did not claim some religious affiliation? How long has the majority of the nation responded as being Christians? My point is, it's not new. And, Christianity still accounts for well over half of the adults in America. That large of a percentage will not just disappear in your lifetime.

My belief is that there are isolated cases where problems may exist. However, I feel that these problems are being addressed and that is all you can do. Even if you are not a Christian, you cannot be ignorant to the fact that it is a huge part of the U.S. and does contribute largely to the nation's tradition.

Throwing money at a problem is not compassion. The War on Poverty is a bigger joke than the War on Drugs.

Who said anything about throwing money?


I understand that there has been a strong christian presence in this country from the get-go. I think this thread is more about a trend that i have recently noticed(probably should've been more clear about this), by which the leaders of our country have moved ever closer towards the words and ideologies of christian fundamentalism. If you accept the premise that christian fundamentalism is inherently closed minded and intolerant, which many do, than this trend's destructive possibilities are obvious. As it stands right now, i don't have ill will towards christians in general, just a certain portion of them who preach outwardly the message of christ, yet embrace the opposite of what christ apparently stood for.

It is the evangelical christian bent that concerns me, and the swagger with which it has been tossed into our policy making both here and in the middle east. A fundamentalist is rigid in his beliefs, but if I want to go to hell he is perfectly OK with that for the most part. Evangelicals are looking to convert the world and have some pretty scary ideas that are non-negotialble, from what I understand with limited knowledge from an outsiders point of view. I watch continuing escalations with Iran and can't help but believe decisions have already been made. I have friends there and scares the hell out of me.

Okay, cleared up a little. Exactly what trends are you referring to? The reason I ask is because I do not really see it in recent legislature. The examples people give are normally topics concerned highly with emotion and are defended primarily with emotion.

I don't think that many people would argue with you that fundamentalist thought could be a very scary thing. But, I do question their significant impact. I think it's overexaggerated.

There is going to be hypocrites and poor leaders in every group you look at. Even in the gay community you have Andrew Sullivan as a very good example. I think the concern that you and other people express just is blown out of proportion by the media.

Just wanted to add that there are only 3 presidents that could really be argued as non-christian although other research material would have you think differently. Grant and Lincoln and even Jefferson all had strong Christian influence. You could even say the same about Andrew Johnson. Those last 3 are the only ones that may could go either way.

The reason I believe more Christianity in the government is a good thing is because I believe the country should have a moral guideline. I believe that Christianity gives this framework. I also believe that Christian morals are what the majority of the people would claim to follow (or at least claim to use as a framework of right and wrong)I do not see religion as the stifling influence many here do. I think there should be allowed religious freedom, and people have the right to choose. But if the majority has certain beliefs, I personally think that as long as those beliefs don't run entirely counter to yours, or unduly cause harm allowing those to be recognised isn't wrong. Case in point-prayer in schools. I don't think people should be forced to pray, but if the majority desire it I don't see the problem with school prayer. You can feel free to not participate.

I believe the current anti-Christian climate in the country is the result of many negative things getting lumped in along with religion. People point out all the bad things that occured when there was mroe religion and throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. I don't associate racism, subjugation of women, or intolerance with religion, but many people do and that is why I believe so many people are so greatly opposed to religion. Many will usually try to use some slippery slope arguement to show how allowing religion in here will suddenly turn the country to some hyper-facist theocracy. They fail to see that the same slippery slope arguements can be used to shoot down their ideologies.

I am probably (maybe certainly) presenting a whitewashed view of what a greater presence of Christianity would lead to, but I honestly am less afraid of that then the alternate.

Wow, so many opinions, so much said here of value. This really is a forum for varying ideologies. fascinating.

Wasn't the US established with the intent to give no religion a dominant stance? I could be wrong, but I thought that a few of the key players in the founding of the country were dualists and other "hip" religions of the time. Not so much a Christian ideology to bind it all together. The current administration seems to have the opinion that 95% of the American people are die-hard protestants, bent on saving the world through evangelization. I could have a skewed perspective out here in California, but last time I checked there were more soft-spoken, gentle Christians who don't consider evangelism as a pertinent practice - and at least 60% of the population aren't even Christian.

Having a moral base is awesome. Religion isn't necessary for a moral base. Morals are necessary for a moral base... Religion and politics just don't mesh. They shouldn't.

As an American living in an Asian country, I can say that one of the things I like best here is that religion does not determine politics or laws. Common sense does. There is no lack of a moral compass here. For instance, murder is against the law because the society says it is, not the bible. Sure there are problems here, but they are not a result of, nor would they be cured by, the presence of a strong Christian faith.

As being derived of Western tradition and civilization, it is clear that American law and morality has it's foundation in Christianity. America's moral basis is from Christian principles, that doesn't equate so much to evangicals and their missions, but as a means of foundation and tradition it's the truth.

Second off the founding fathers didn't intend for a state forced religion, the whole notion of Separation of Chruch is State has to do with Roger Williams a baptist preacher (I believe an early American exile even). The FFers remembered how in Britain the only church allowed was the Anglican church, it was forced on the people, hence you had people traveling across the ocean to get away. The second inference of "separation", most importantly the first time it comes up in America's history and tradition is Jefferson's letter to the Danbury baptists. The baptist's had heard that the government was plotting to install a state religion, Jefferson wrote them, using the words of one of the historic Baptist preachers to squash those fears. The original intent of the wall was a one sided wall, to protect the church from the state, this can be seen in the first amendment as in regards to religion it only states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".

Also just knocking off other things brought up in regards to break down of population I think current guesstimates put the Christian population in America between 65-70% of Americans, with 90ish% having some belief in a higher power(s). Also noting that you said California I would have a tough time believing 60% of the population isn't Christian seeing as to how many hispanic minorities you have there, because they are largely Catholic/Christian.

But you are largely right, you don't need religion to have morality. But it just so happens that most of our legal traditions are related to Judeo-Christian ideals and principles, they haven't done us wrong so far.

I always connect religious influence one politics with conservatism and a step backwards. Christanism has od course important values but they are not really up to date. It seems to me as if the country and the world is changing faster than the religion can adapt. Or if it does not want to do that, the gap gets bigger.
How can you only think about telling your citizens who to love? Would the society fall apart just because you see married homosexuals walking around, holding hands when all you see now is homosexuals walking around and holding hand? But this is gettin too much of a homosexuality discussion.
I do not trust the church. I trust my belief and I don't need anyone to govern it.
As long as people run a country with high values and apprciation of religious beliefs and values, the society will prosper. But religious lobbies are something that Jesus surely did not have in mind.

LBJ. The rest apparently learned from the mess he made of things.

Interesting point, Alan. Could you help me to better understand this by giving me 1 or 2 examples of how the current government is using a moral code, say, any of The Commandments as a guideline for the moral decisions they have made? Other than the easy ones like no working on Sundays I'm having a hard time with this.

Just wanted to add my tidbit that in the most recent reports I've seen, there was a clear 75% of the population that identified themselves as Christians and this was by a relatively unbiased source compared to most. Alot of people feel that the number is 75-80%. I don't think that number is too significant. However, if you're into the numbers game, thats a nice little bit of information for you.

There is more than one way to make those less fortunate a priority.

The writers of the Constitution were clear in the fact that they didn't want a government supported religion. They were against it.

there is nothing wrong with religion intermingled with government. it is the people who
interperate the religion to fit their own ideology and use it to push their agenda on the populous that is the problem.

look at our history . more people have been killed in the name of religion than from any other cause. is it the religions fault? no, its mans own interperatation of "holy" scriptures that leeds to fear,then hatred, then suffering.(didn't yoda say that?)

slavery was in part caused by religous interperatation. mentions of slavery in the bible were misinterperated as to mean it was ok in gods eyes to enslave your fellow man. what ive been told is that the "slavery" spoken of was more of a payment method, meaning that if you borrowed money from someone and couldn't pay them back you were obligated to work for them for "free" until the lender felt sufficiently
compensated.

another example of "misinterperatation"would be the nazis and the kkk.
there belief in racial supremacy is due to misconstrued religous beliefs.
i believe we are starting to see a form of this type of "supremacy" attitude in the far christian right.

now in no way am i comparing christians to nazis or the clan. im talking about a kind of spiritual supremacy witch leads to a sense of infalability, and moral superiority. just look up quotes by jerry fallwell, pat robertson,and Ralph Reed and you'll get an idea of what im talking about.

although its to early to really speculate, i'd say give about 10 years to see how much
influence the religious right has on government policies.

all in all the point im trying to make is that the actual religion shouldn't be the problem,
its the people that use it to legislate their own ideology.

here's few questions i'd like to ask people

1: would jesus condone the use of his name and teaching for personal gain?

2: would jesus support our current governments actions and attitude?

(incase you're wondering, no i'm not religous. spiritual ,yes, but not religious)

Just saying/reiterating for those who may have not read/ignored the first post...

The whole point of this thread was to have a discussion about christianity and the government without playing the tired old "the founding fathers wanted this" or "the constitution says this" game.

If you can't make an argument without citing the constitution or your convenient interpretations of who the founding fathers were then this is the wrong thread for you.

What's the point of the discussion then if you are dismissing the foundation and intent of those who made this country? If anything it has historical relevance because historically we have been a nation of christians.

At any rate I don't think it's an issue of more christianity. Many Christians in America are feeling attacked, in the midst of a culture war, they feel that people are trying to take something from them. So they do whats smart and they take their beef to the polls. They push on the issues that they feel matters, they appeal to those they put in power.

Why is less Christianity good or better? Despite the foundations of our country it still has been largely secular in the political realm, the moral issues are one thing, and it's now becoming an issue of political struggle amongst the various branches. Just because George Bush mentions god in his speeches, or says that religious charities should get money, or some judge wants the 10 commandments behind his bench, doesn't mean the nation is turning Fundamentalist Christian.

Umm, maybe 1 and 5 (no other GOD and honor father and mother) ... :hmm: . I am not stating that the current government is using a moral code, nor am I saying it is something that can feasibly be always followed. When I say a moral code, I mean a basis where all can feasibly work from. Im not just talking about things that most people can agree on (murder, rape, etc.) but more grey areas. I think the alternate (no objective morality) is worse than using religion to serve as a solid moral base. Then where there is wrongdoing, there is a basis to look back upon that is for the most part agreed upon.

This is the flaw in your logic. You don't need religion to have a moral base. Religion is simply an attempt to explore the nature of existence. Morality was included by the founders of the religion because it's the perfect place to insert rules that make society work, but you can adopt those rules (which can pretty much be broken down to the Golden Rule, incidentally) without believing in God. In the case of Christianity, the last six commandments are fine, but the government telling people to obey the first four is in violation of the First Amendment.

The point is that the founding fathers are irrelevant. I don't care what they wanted because they have absolutely zero idea what life in the 21st century is like. What politics were like in the late 1700's has very little relevance to what politics are like in the 2000's. Their intent? Who cares? They aren't in charge anymore. There comes a time in every child's life where the child must stop acting based on an idealized notion of their parent's expectations and must start thinking for him/herself. If you can't formulate your own opinion on this matter, sans founding fathers, sans constitution, than don't bother. Information on the founding fathers and the constitution is widely available on the internet. I'd rather look into it myself and make my own interpretations rather than relying on any of you to give me the crib notes.

How many americans feel attacked? I'd love to see a poll with a majority of respondents claiming that they felt attacked. Too bad i haven't. I asked you this once before and you tried to avoid it mojo, but i'll ask it again. How is christianity threatened in a country where 75% of the population self identifies as christian? How can a religion be threatened by anything other than a lack of pious faithful?

Well, i look forward to the day when i can agree with you in observing that the nation isn't turning fundamentalist. Unfortunately, right now i see a great many people in a great many positions of power who self identify as fundamentalist or evangelical.

Well here's a good one, the gay issue. Tell me that the majority of the people opposed to it are not Christian, and that they don't feel their America's "Christian Moral Fiber" is under attack by a bunch of crazy radical queers trying to do away with the most basic unit in society, the nuclear family.

Please we have secular people going after Christianity in the public realm, not religion in the public realm, christianity. I'm not going to bother going into specifics right now, it's a board statement that I would hope everyone could at least in principle agree on what's happening, if not I can throw some out there.

There's two reasons Christians may feel attacked.

I do not believe you understood the question.

It would be very simple to point to anything and state that it is "under attack". Somebody somewhere will disagree with anything. The concept here is not whether there is a single person attacking a single thing, or a small group of people attacking a extremely large group of people - the question "how is Christianity under attack" is quite specific to the size of the threat. How is Christianity under attack that it feels threatened to the degree that it is fighting for survival?

There is no answer to that question, because Christianity is not under attack in that manner.

Further, if you take a step back and recognize that Christianity, here in the U.S. in regards to power over government, has been growing rapidly over the past few decades, then you can see that it is not Christianity that is being criticized, but rather the power growth of Christianity that is being criticized. For example, I have no issue with Buddhism, but if the power over government of Buddhism started to increase dramatically, and we began to have policies enacted that were based on the philosophy of karma (which would alter our legal system), I would then begin to criticize Buddhism's influence on government. And there would almost certainly be many Buddhists who then claimed that Buddhism was under attack.

I.E. Back off and there are no problems. Keep pushing the Christian philosophy on the country and you will be met with more and more resistance at every turn.

I know some christians feel attacked. I don't think they are a majority. Certainly there are some belligerent opponents of christianity, but there are probably just as many belligerent christian vocal opponents of secularism. Both are fringe elements of their respective groups. The difference in my mind is that currently, most shrill vocal opponents of christianity don't find themselves with nearly as much power as do christian evangelicals/fundamentalists.

Do you think that christianity itself is threatened, or do you just think the government imposition of conservative christian morality and the public display of christian paraphernalia are under attack? This is an important distinction. I could only guess that any ancient roman christian hanging out of your average ancient roman lion's mouth would get a hearty chuckle at your idea of what constitutes a threat to christianity.

wow... before i respond to this thread i'd like to you back up your fundamental assumption that christianity is playing a bigger role in government. the thread-starting premise is unsubstantiated.

it seems to me that, overall, the role of christianity in the government (and world politics in general) is in decline. the prevailing trend seems to be a growing opposition to the christian institutions already in place... not a increase of christian influence in total.

Well I would agree not the religion so much as a whole, but then again we disagree on the effect Christianity has played in American history and life.

From the start of this country, there was no Christian component to the gov't. So it is impossible for there to be less.

But here is an example of how there is FAR more Christianity in gov't today:
There is no chance that a document with content that states this country was not founded on the Christian religion would pass today, let alone pass unanimously and without debate or dissent and receive no public outcry. Because there is a very vocal group of Christians and there is a block of government officials who agree with that vocal group of Chrisitians or at the least, want those votes.

a hypothetical situation given without historical context? surely you can do better.

I declare that all of the above is grossly false.

One of my basic philosophies is that there is no real good or evil, there is only perspective. In order to judge something as good or evil, you must come from a background that takes issue with said thing. This current government is content to polarize the population by labeling everything as good or evil, based on a Christian set of morals.

"evildoers"
"they hate us for our freedom"

All these moral laws that are being pressed on us.. gay marriage, abortion, drugs, euthanasia... none of these things would be an issue if not for the strong religious 'morality' at work.

halx,

your position is essentially post-modern... the backbone of our legal and moral codes are firmly entrenched in modernity independent of religious dogma. if you were to say to the founding fathers what you posted you would be greeted with a mix of bitten lips and confused frowns. i'm not saying you are right or wrong... but that mindset would be completely foreign to the framers of our law.

As would every ammendment added to it since they died

there are differences between being foreign to an idea from a practical or cultural vantage point and being foreign to an idea from a moral point of view.

And now we're back to "Guess what the framers wanted and win!"

I would bet the farm that they wouldn't be down with Gay marriage...call it a hunch.

Then I am extremely happy we , as a society, have managed to evolve our understanding of human nature to the point where we are no longer bound by 16th century Dogma.
Perhaps it is best if we consider these situations in the context of the future....or at the very least....the present.

Some people don't agree that all change and evolution are always a good thing. Perspectives, right Halx?

And those people are entitled to the opinions they hold....I simply tend not to associate with them, as our communications tend to be dissapointing. Fortunately, we as a species have a wonderful history....short though it may be....of accepting change as a means of evolution of the population. I tend to think in terms of decades to centuries...not months to years.

No doubt times have changed and modern ways should be considered when enacting new laws. But I'm not so sure I trust today's polititians with our Constitution. They seem to be hell bent to ammend it with things that are probably better off leaving as is (marriage definition, abortion, gun control, etc..) Perhaps it's better to let it stand as the old guys wrote it (18th century dogma) rather than trust today's version of statesmen to mess with it.

So you believe that if the gov't attempted to write a document, today, that stated the country was not based on Christianity, that it would pass unanimously and without any significant debate or dissent from anyone within the government or from the populace?

I don't believe that you believe that.

I wish I lived in that country. Wherever it is.

"It was an act of cowardice
and it was evil. The United States will not tolerate it.
And I will not allow the people of this country to be
intimidated by evil cowards. " -Bill Clinton

The current admin isn't the only one using the term "evil" to describe folk.
That goddamn Christian bastard. How dare he try to force his perspective on me. I don't believe in that, just perspectives.

-fibber

Ah, ye olde "Clinton did it too" argument. This isn't about republican v. democrat, so you can take that tired old response back to limbaugh circa 2004.

You accuse me of unsubstantiated premise, then go on to put forth your own unsubstantiated premise. I don't care if you don't agree with mine, i never claimed it as fact, just my opinion. Though, if you'll notice our president, an evangelical who believes that all of his actions are divinely sanctioned...

Do you think a stronger fundamentalist/evangelical undercurrent is good for our country?


For the purposes of this thread, the founding fathers can fuck right off. Let's pretend that we all realize that none of use can speak for the founding fathers.

oh come on filtherton, your language clearly indicates you proposed it as a fact. another caveat, your original question asked if christian influence was a good thing... then you asked if increased fundamentalism in government was a good thing. you can't have it both ways because they are not the same thing.

for the record, i do believe that any increase in christian morality is a good thing for our country. i don't care if the inspiration for such thought comes from buddha, mohammed, confucious or john doe... as long as it aligns with christian moral principles i do not care an ounce for its source. being a christian myself, i don't believe that christ's message is just good for me... i believe it holds redemption for all of mankind.

when religion (not morality mind you) plays a role in government it tends to pervert both. that is why i support the moral standards of christianity being public policy though i would abhor christianity being established as a state religion or steps taken in that direction.

edit: i deleted part of this post because i was unsure of the meaning of the original post's intent.

Ummm, that point is valid as long as someone continues to try to force me to believe this admin is any better or worse than any other. If halx can say that this admin does wrong by labeling things as "evil" then I can certainly call instances that show that this isn't exclusive to this admin.

Of course this is repub VS democrat.

I would hope that those that don't identify with either group, like myself. Would be free to point out the complaints aren't new.

If you chastise a pres. for basing his morals on religion, you should be allowed to extend the same criticism to whatever makes up any leader's "moral compass" be they economic, diplomatic, charitable or otherwise.

I personally see no difference in religion or politics.
Both attempt to dictate my actions.
Both have certain parties who are absolutly certain they are right, and those who don't share their beliefs are either wrong, or not informed/intelligent enough to understand.
Both are primarily concerned with furthering their own interests.
Both have harmed countless people in the persuit of these interests.
and in an upstroke,
Both have done some real good mixed in with all the nasty.

Don't attempt to dismiss my argument by associating it with a blowhard with a bad rap here. I could just as easily say that this guy I know who raped babies said Dubbya is an "evangelical who believes that all of his actions are divinely sanctioned." and therefore I can't accept your point. Take it back to my baby-rapin' buddy circa last tuesday.

-fibber

I made clarifications further along in the thread about my original intent. It only seems like i want it both ways because you haven't been paying attention, as is evidenced by your mention of the founding fathers.
You assume that when i speak for myself i am speaking on behalf of the entire kingdom of facts. You doubt my premise all you want, it doesn't bother me. I didn't make this thread to convince anyone about an increase in the fundamentalism of our nation's leaders. Many people came to that conclusion without any help from me. Even so, that idea is peripheral to my point in this thread.

Fair enough, but what if those in power aren't the same kind of christian as you? Their christian ideals may be different than yours. There are many christians who believe that christ would endorse gay marriage. There are many christians who don't believe in war. Which christian morals would you want to see? Your own, of course. How does that work?

I see what you're saying, but christianity can't even agree on which morals are important and which aren't. How is christianity in any kind of position to be the standard by which moral standards are judged?

it just appears to me that you're still trying to have it both ways. on one hand or on one thread christianity is battered for being this monolithic moral force bearing down on society with great weight... now i'm told that it's fractured and inconsistent. of course i'm not quoting your single person specifically but rather those who i would imagine sharing your position.

i'm not sure where you got the idea that there are many christians who endorse gay marriage. that is just simply not so. an accurate statement would be that there are some.

a proper response to your question would require a couple hours and a few beers... but i think the argument, once again, transitions from a semi-relativistic post-modern view of truth versus a traditional one. the inconsistencies you perceive in the christian ranks are the inroads post-modernity (in large part anyway) have made in millenia old institutions. the very ideas that seem to be fractures are often the very same modes of thought that you employ in this thread. it's hard to discuss christianity as a cohesive whole in a societal sense because its impact on systems of thought is dying. there have been very recently conceived foreign things thrust into christianity that should not yet be judged part of the whole. gosh... i feel like roachboy being so ridiculously abstract. sorry, i'll think on this some more.

ok so i see i have been invoked here
following on that....

(maybe better to leave me out of debates i otherwise would not participate in, irate)

1.

where i agree with irate:

the thread is not really about christianity in general: it starts with a critique of the ridiculous doctrine of original intent floated by the far right in various guises--this doctrine of original intent--totally indefensable though it is---functions to open a space for a series of political outcomes, most of which involve a kind of collapse of any coherent boundary between secular and religious.

original intent operates in the interest not of christianity in general, but rather in the interests of a particular political formation--largely evangelical protestant--mobilized as political by organizations like the christian coaltion (and others). one of the quirks characteristic of this particular formation is that it claims to BE christianity.

the problem with recapitulating this claim in the context like a debate here is that it hopelessly blurs the analytic object on the one hand, and cedes political ground to a very particular group advancing very particular, reactionary claims behind the mask of christianity in general.

in other words, you cede something basic if you allow these particular people to effectively win a political battle by working their way into how you understand christianity.

no-one is really talking about say left-leaning methodists here--no-one is really talking about catholics---no-one is really talking about most mainline protestant denominations--these groups do not agree amongst themselves--each entails different types of politics--for example, as much as i find john paul 2 to be repellent, at least he is consistent in his "prolife" position and extends it directly into opposition to capital punishment and a refusal to endorse bush's war in iraq.
the evangelicals do not do this--they support both.

the term "christian" used in political debates like this wipe out the space even for the pope.
it is amazing.

2.
where i fundamentally reject his position:

what i think irate is talking about has nothing to do with the "post-modern" as over against something else--he is talking about the split that seperates those who believe from those who do not.

the "post modern" is a code that bundles (under a dubious term) the simple fact that people who do not believe in evanglical protestant ideology tend to relativize it.

there is nothing "post modern" (whatever that means--i know the range of options for the term--none of them are necessary or helpful here) about it.

the question of "truth" follows from a prior set of beliefs, which irate tries to erase by shifting the question onto more secular-seeming grounds.

what seems to grate on him--and on others who operate from similar positions--is that there is any diversity of belief at all--that everyone everywhere is not an evangelical protestant. because absolute uniformity of belief is the only condition that would make claims to absolute truth compelling.

the question of "absolute truth" is indefensable on philosophical grounds--it is something of a joke.
it has a history of being enormously destructive when translated into the basis of political theory/ideology
such claims have been situated for over 150 years as being central to ideology--such claims are of a piece with attempts to remove political conflict from history in general, and from the specific history of specific conflicts in particular.

the relation of this division between those who believe (and by believing flee from history) and those who do not (who for all that might well want nothing to do with facing history--but at least their position does not preclude the possibility a priori) plays out directly across the ridiculous debate, framed and advanced by the right, over "the founders" and their "intent"....it is obvious that there is nothing necessary about the right's position--except as it functions as a way to advance their particular claims to power, claims that are part of a particular history--this one, that we are moving through now.

I know that it started out treating christianity as a monolithic whole, but at some point i amended that and began to only refer to fundamentalism and evangelicalism, two mentalities that seem by their very definitions to be unable to accept the "live and let live" aspect of the golden rule to any great degree.

Certainly the christians who endorse gay marriage are in the minority number-wise, but their christian morals are just as valid as any other denomination.

I don't think you can blame post-modernism for the fracturization of christianity. The christian church has been fractured for centuries.
for example:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_deno.htm

or another section on homosexuality and christianity:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chur2.htm
The term "christian morals" doesn't mean anything specific.

As i said above, i have no problem with christianity in general. I don't have a problem with the legislation of morality. What i do have a problem with is one particular group attempting to use the power of the united states government to push a religious agenda. What the president fails to mention when he claims that he doing god's work, is that he isn't doing your god's work, he's doing his god's work. It's only a matter of time before his god tells him to do something that is in conflict with what your god tells you to do. The issue of freedom from religion is something most christians feel like they don't have to worry about, but they're wrong. Christianity as it exists today is also threatened by an increasingly fundamentalist/evangelical ruling class.

If someone can come up with a well reasoned argument as to why gays shouldn't marry, good for them. I should mention, though, that the criteria for an argument to be well reasoned, when debating public policy, doesn't involve bible citations.

I thought America was the land of the free, who says Christianity is the only religion in the us. Bible thumpers should stay home

Free to everyone except for Christians right?

Ok, ok, lets not resort to unsubstantiated, one-line attacks here. Let us all explain our positions lucidly, genially, and cordially, please.

That includes us on the left and those on the right, eh?

Maybe, but that's the perception that everyone has and they're not doing too much to squash it.

You guys give more trust and benefit to Muslims from around the world that they aren't all crazies, then you afford Christians in America, a group of people that make up at least 70% of the population.

Who are you talking too?

People here who get down on Christians in America, but adamently defend Muslims world wide. It's blatantly hypocritical.

Mojo, nobody's talking about muslims besides you.

I was talking about the pleathora of threads that touch on Islamic fundamentalism put against the threads of this nature.

He does have a very valid point that should not be dismissed lightly.

If you think that this thread is for bashing christianity than you need to pay more attention. In fact, the idea of christianity as a single belief-homogenous entity is a completely meaningless one. If you want to play the christian v. muslim game than by all means make a thread for it. As it stands, any mention of islam in this thread is a super-sized scarecrow.

how could the point(s) be valid if mojo has never--not once--acknowledged that there is a basic problem with the term "christian" in this political context, the one in which we live. i am not sure how ignoring attempts to raise these problems--often in quite careful ways--earlier in the thread can be equated with validity.

if you look more specifically at the entire range of denominations lumped behind this category--which the evangelical churches like to claim for themselves, as if they monopolize the entire belief system--then the idea that christians in the united states are in any way persecuted turns into a meaningless assertion.

that mojo chooses to construe an argument about the doctrone of original intent as it crosses with the interests of the types of christian organizations that are quite a powerful block on the right these days as an example of how christianity is somehow persecuted here is strange. maybe the problem is that not everyone believes as he does, and the sense of being persecuted follows from the fact of different beliefs.

if it is not that, i dont understand what he is talking about.
maybe he would care to explain?

In no dire sense of the word are Christians "persecuted" in America. I think we are all big enough to accept the fact that we all hold our opinions of America's foundation, I'm not talking about original intent. Historically, America is a nation that was founded by Christians (starting from Plymouth), inhabited primarily by people who relate and claim to the judeo more important Christian tradition, and established as a country with it's underpinning that touch under the Judeo-Christian influence and beliefs. I've said all this before, so it may or may not be a dead horse to you, but what I've stated above isn't my point.

Historically this country has ties to Christianity, in the modern sense less and less directly and overtly, this is ofcourse due to a secular push in our country. My rantings in this thread mostly are stemmed from the fact that myself and others in the past arguments have pointed out about the reality of fanatical and fundamental Islam, whether in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, etc or the growth of Wahabism at large and the real and corporeal problem it poses in the world. Then people from the board who tend to be the more left leaning types jump up and assert it's not the majority and that by and large all muslims are great and good, which by the way you'll get no argument from me, and that there isn't a problem (again not really the point). But the catch is There have been some shots in this thread (and others) that have been taken at Christianity directly by people like Hardknock jhkayakr, and less overtly (but more regularly outside of this thread) by people like Filth, Host, CShine, and Shakran. Many of you broadly and widely assert that there is some great problem with the "Christian right" in America, equating them to some deviant and plotting evil group of bigots, and frankly to me at least it's getting old. Hope that clears some of it up, I'm distracted atm and am desperately trying to make sense out of my words in this rant.

thanks for posting that, mojo:
for me at least it helped quite alot in making sense of your position.

some questions:
1.
i have never really understood the version of the history of america that starts with plymouth and then works its way outward--while it works formally, that is chronologically (chronology is in itself a factor, but not necessarily an explanatory factor, in ordering historical material)--what it also does it to drag the particular issues that motivated the particular factions within the english puritan movement to emigrate across the whole history of the states, and with that also drags the centrality not just of religion and the "escape from religious persecution" but radical protestant ideology across that history, as if everything that happened thereafter was somehow shaped by the same motivation, by the same issues--which even a cursory look at the diverse histories of the colonial period shows to be false empirically.
even in massachusetts, the puritan communities were not long the only game in town--the area around gloucester was founded on quite different, more commercially oriented grounds (though it might seem a strange book to cite here, charles olson's maximus poems are about this counterhistory, renarrating the early history of america around a different mythology)...the various stories of the colonies running north to south are well known, the distinctions between them obvious (e.g. the cavalier culture of virginis--a playground for the second sons of the english aristocracy who were doomed from birth by way of primogeniture has nothing to do with the puritans--the history of georgia has nothing to do with the puritans--the history of new york has nothing to do with the puritans--nor maryland (catholic)--and on and on.)

so the idea that from the outset the u.s. was geared around religion seems more an ideological than historical narrative. but you run into this ideological narrative in elementary school and later, presented as if it was The history of the states. if you keep going, taking university-level classes for example which do not work around the same assumptions, and then go back to the starting point, you find things are strange indeed.

the small (and still-marginal) "history" dear to some of the more important conservatives (from gingrich through--shudder--lynne cheney) is not only committed to the replacement of analysis with heroic mythology, but also would reinscribe the history of the states around this same plymouth narrative--but in their case, the motives for doing so are obvious--it is about the claims they are making in the present, which they want to backwrite. which brings us to the conservative instrumentalization of christianity....

secondly: for myself at least, when i react to posts in various threads about islam, it is usually motivated by either factual errors or by the sense that islam is now the object of "legitimate" racism--its "legitimacy" follows from its centrality in packaging the war footing that the bush administration has exploited and continues to exploit for its own ends. most assertions from folk who i take to be conservative about islam--about "fundamentalism" in particular (because this is almost inevitably the wedge that starts or anchors the arguments) are based on no research whatsoever, no attempt to figure out who people are where they come out of what their goals are. too often you see the slide from "fundamentalism" as anchor point to a whole series of arbitrary assertions about the "nature" of islam, etc--which have everything to do with the degenerate state of discourse in the present context in the states and little or nothing to do with its purported object (islam).

this kind of racism strikes quite close to home for me.

that said, i dont think that you can simply stand this on its head, mojo, when it comes to thinking about the treatment accorded the christian right even in this thread--the positions outlined here tend to work from a much different level of familiarity with the object, and work to split apart claims made to the basic category "christian". secondly, they are made from within a particular ideological context which is and has been the object of a sustained campaign mounted in the context of what the neocons have understood from the early 80s (at least) as being a cultural war. within that campaign, the rhetoric of christianity has operated in very particular ways to structure the belief system itself (conservative ideology) and as a trope within that system that tends to be associated with the most intolerant, more regressive aspects of conservative social policy.

for me at least, for what its worth, when i talk about the christian right, it usually has to do with this political correlation. the effects of the politics that tries to define the term christian in one way and one way only tend to be a problem in my view. i try to limit what i say to this register--whether i manage it or not is another matter, and comes down to obscurity on my part or a slipping in mode brought about by getting annoyed as i write--which are my problems.

i sometimes wonder what kind of correlation really exists between individual evangelicals and the ideology created and floated in the name of evangelical christianity. one of my oldest friends is an evangelical preacher--his particular politics are very very different from the ideology that would speak in the name of the religious position he occupies. but i find that he allows that ideology to structure his views on topics that are more removed from his immediate experience/involvements. i expect that there is considerable diversity of position within the actual evangelical protestant communities. it is curious that you do not really hear about such diversity as i assume exists.

thinking about these questions from this angle serves to isolate the ways in which the word christianity is used and manipulated by conservative ideology from the positions occupied by individual believers. i find that seperation strange.

once again, my apologies for the length of this post.