Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 9/26/2005 1:08:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2005 8:33:55 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]
The US Consitution says in the First Amendment:

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.

So clearly the Constitution PREVENTS the establishment of a religious STATE or theocracy. And it clearly guarantees freedom OF religion in terms of choice.

Most would infer that includes freedom to NOT be religious but some have argued otherwise.

Most who argue that the US is a Christian country cite Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence and these words...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

As these are universal rights and apply to ALL men according to the FF I don't personally see this as the basis for a "Christian" country where a belief in God and the choosing of "a religion" is required.

To be sure this country was founded by Christians more than anyone else but that is simply a matter of heritage just like Greek mythology is the heritage of the Mediteranian.

So based on the words of Thomas Jefferson (who wrote the DOI) and the US Consitution's First Amendment, does anyone believe that there ISN'T Freedom FROM Religion in the US according to the intentions of our Founding Fathers?


PLEASE NOTE: By "Freedom FROM Religion" I mean being "subject to", I do NOT mean "exposure to."

I hope that clarifies things.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:14:15 PM EDT
The problem is if the population acts without a basis in Christian values then the system stops working. The FF and the whole system of government was developed upon an underlying assumption, that the population, no matter what the religion, would all hold Christian values dear.

The leftists know this. That's why they are desperate to remove Christian values and replace them with anything.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:15:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2005 1:43:42 PM EDT by SirDrinksAlot]
Edit: With this new title, that puts a completely new spin on everything. Nevermind.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:15:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:
The problem is if the population acts without a basis in Christian values then the system stops working. The FF and the whole system of government was developed upon an underlying assumption, that the population, no matter what the religion, would all hold Christian values dear.

The leftists know this. That's why they are desperate to remove Christian values and replace them with anything.



Very well put!

I was searching for words while reading Steyr's post but your sums my thoughts up nicely.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:22:13 PM EDT
Almost all of the world's major religions recognize some sort of "golden rule" principle towards all peoples, no matter what religion they practice.

Can you name the one major religion that doesn't?
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:24:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2005 1:25:45 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]
Editted because the board code cut off this portion of the title...

"OF Religion" And Not "Freedom From" Religion..?
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:25:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:
The problem is if the population acts without a basis in Christian values then the system stops working. The FF and the whole system of government was developed upon an underlying assumption, that the population, no matter what the religion, would all hold Christian values dear.

The leftists know this. That's why they are desperate to remove Christian values and replace them with anything.



So you do not believe the FF intended any Freedom FROM religion?
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:27:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By dport:
The problem is if the population acts without a basis in Christian values then the system stops working. The FF and the whole system of government was developed upon an underlying assumption, that the population, no matter what the religion, would all hold Christian values dear.

The leftists know this. That's why they are desperate to remove Christian values and replace them with anything.



So you do not believe the FF intended any Freedom FROM religion?


The 1st never set a requirement for people to have religion. However, if we all don't share a common set of morals, the system will fail.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:30:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2005 1:33:41 PM EDT by WildBoar]
As a Christian I would fight against any established theocracy.

We are free to worship as we please (unfortunately many anti religious folks will want to smash that).

Anyone who thinks a theocracy is a good thing needs their head examined. Mankind has shown its nature everytime they try to establish one. I dont care if they claim to be a Christian government, unfortuately there are too many different interpretations of just what that is and because of such, there will always be strong divisions.

Force my kid to pray in school? I will fight alongside those who are against it.

Supress my kids ability to pray in school? and I will fight to remove the government that sought to restrict it.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:30:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

The 1st never set a requirement for people to have religion. However, if we all don't share a common set of morals, the system will fail.



Do those morals need to be "Christian" or derived from religion? Can they be secular?

Currently only 2 (possibly 3) of the 10 Commandments are laws of the land.

Is that enough?

Did the FF and the author of the DoI intend for every US citizen to be "religious" in some form?
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:31:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By WildBoar:
As a Christian I would fight against any established theocracy,

We are free to worship as we please (unfortunately many anti religious folks will want to smash that).

Anyone who thinks a theocracy is a good thing neds their head examined. Mankind has shown its nature everytime they try to establish one. I dont care if they claim to be a Christian government, unfortuately there are too many different interpretations of just waht that is and because of such, ther will always be strong divisions.

Force my kid to pray in school? I will fight alongside those who are against it.

Supress my kids ability to pray in school? and I will fight to remove the government that sought to restrict it
.



I'm with you on both points. Actually all points.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:32:00 PM EDT
The problem is that the anti-religionists tend to take their "freedom from religion" bent and make it mean that I must keep all expressions of my faith out of sight, behind closed doors and drawn curtains.

Very similar to how Christians of dhimmi status were/are expected to practice their faith.

That interferes with the free exercise of my faith.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:32:06 PM EDT
sure
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:32:18 PM EDT
All I know is...

I'm wait for Pat Robertson marching orders...
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:34:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By dport:

The 1st never set a requirement for people to have religion. However, if we all don't share a common set of morals, the system will fail.



Do those morals need to be "Christian" or derived from religion? Can they be secular?

Currently only 2 (possibly 3) of the 10 Commandments are laws of the land.

Is that enough?

Did the FF and the author of the DoI intend for every US citizen to be "religious" in some form?


I don't know about your last question. I guess if you got a Ouji board you could ask him.

The point is morals shouldn't have to be laws. Even if 2 or 3 of the Ten Commandments are laws the values expressed in the rest, like honoring thy father and mother, should be universal.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:35:55 PM EDT
I think it's VERY CLEAR what they intended:



Congress shall not create a religion


Congress shall not ban or restrict a religion.

That's it. That's all.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:39:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2005 1:39:51 PM EDT by kill-9]

Originally Posted By dport:
The problem is if the population acts without a basis in Christian values then the system stops working. The FF and the whole system of government was developed upon an underlying assumption, that the population, no matter what the religion, would all hold Christian values dear.

The leftists know this. That's why they are desperate to remove Christian values and replace them with anything.



Wrong. The system of government was built upon the concept of individual rights. If each individual in the country respected everybody else's rights to life, liberty, and property, and the sole responsibility of government was defending these individual rights, then "the system" would work just fine. "Christian values" are what have led to, or at least allow for, the current welfare state. Many good people, people of conscience, believe deep down that they have a responsibility to care for those "less fortunate". Where do you think they got that idea? In church. And that feeling of duty is what allows the government to continue programs like welfare, social security, medicare, medicade, prescription drugs, etc, etc, etc... "Compassionate Conservatism" continues down that same road. And we see what kind of wild out-of-control spending that is leading to...
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:40:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
The problem is that the anti-religionists tend to take their "freedom from religion" bent and make it mean that I must keep all expressions of my faith out of sight, behind closed doors and drawn curtains.

Very similar to how Christians of dhimmi status were/are expected to practice their faith.

That interferes with the free exercise of my faith.



I agree that groups like the ACLU are seeking to restrict your First Amendment freedoms. And I think it's wrong.

But in the past on this forum there has been a contingent of certain Christians who have proposed the idea that we have the "Freedom OF religion" but nowhere is there a freedom FROM religion.

Just seeing if anyone agrees with the latter point of view.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:41:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HillBillySasquatch:
sure



Are you saying you agree that the FF did NOT intend for a person to have freedom FROM relgion?
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:41:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By dport:

The 1st never set a requirement for people to have religion. However, if we all don't share a common set of morals, the system will fail.



Do those morals need to be "Christian" or derived from religion? Can they be secular?

Currently only 2 (possibly 3) of the 10 Commandments are laws of the land.

Is that enough?

Did the FF and the author of the DoI intend for every US citizen to be "religious" in some form?



Look up what Adams said about it.

While there is a segment of our society that could be considered "moral, but not religious", stop and think where the system of morality came from.

The vast majority of people (almost entirely) in this country were Christian at one time, and that influence left a lingering impact on the culture.

Although there are those today who reject the Christian faith, many share the same basic values of how we should relate to our fellow man (ie. run our society). Naturally there are exceptions, such as when debating a topic like pornography, but I think a good case could be made for traditional American values being shaped by the Christian influence that dominated this country for many years.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:42:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
I think it's VERY CLEAR what they intended:



Congress shall not create a religion


Congress shall not ban or restrict a religion.

That's it. That's all.




AMEN!!! HERE HERE!

Why oh why OH WHY is this SO difficult for people to understand? JUST LIKE THE 2ND AMMENDMENT! It says what it says. What happened to common sense? Actually, I know what happened to it. Congress passed SO many laws regulating SO many aspects of people's lives, that common sense was no longer required in day to day life. Don't know what to do or what's right or wrong? Just consult the law books to find-out.

If the Founding Fathers would be disgusted with anything, it's the COMPLETE lack of common sense that exists today.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:43:41 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:44:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:


The point is morals shouldn't have to be laws. Even if 2 or 3 of the Ten Commandments are laws the values expressed in the rest, like honoring thy father and mother, should be universal.



OK, do those values have to be derived from religion?

In other words is the stuff about not worshipping other Gods or keeping the Sabbath holy important?

Or can they simply be secular values that are important to civilization such as the concept of Filial Piety from Confucianism. And here I mean the secular pholosophy of Confuciansim and not the pseudo religion that was created by combining it with tenents of Buddhism.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:44:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2005 1:45:32 PM EDT by tc556guy]
THe FF knew enough about the hazzards of religion mixed with politics that I believe they would not want the government to espouse any particular religious belief.

Nothing stops you or any other person from practicing your own religious choices privately.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:45:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
I think it's VERY CLEAR what they intended:



Congress shall not create a religion


Congress shall not ban or restrict a religion.

That's it. That's all.



Do you thik they intended for a man to be free FROM religion?
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:47:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Brohawk:


Look up what Adams said about it.

While there is a segment of our society that could be considered "moral, but not religious", stop and think where the system of morality came from.

The vast majority of people (almost entirely) in this country were Christian at one time, and that influence left a lingering impact on the culture.

Although there are those today who reject the Christian faith, many share the same basic values of how we should relate to our fellow man (ie. run our society). Naturally there are exceptions, such as when debating a topic like pornography, but I think a good case could be made for traditional American values being shaped by the Christian influence that dominated this country for many years.



Absolutely. Just like Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism shaped the values of the Far East.

But did the FF intend for a US citizen to have Freedom FROM Religion if they so choose?
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:47:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2005 1:48:04 PM EDT by Red_Label]

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
"Freedom from" sounds like a big violation of "freedom to", to me.



Damn... that sig line worthy stuff there DF. Hard to argue against that!
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:48:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:
THe FF knew enough about the hazzards of religion mixed with politics that I believe they would not want the government to espouse any particular religious belief.

Nothing stops you or any other person from practicing your own religious choices privately.



What about observing no religion at all? Did they intend for that?
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:48:07 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:49:13 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:51:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:
THe FF knew enough about the hazzards of religion mixed with politics that I believe they would not want the government to espouse any particular religious belief.

Nothing stops you or any other person from practicing your own religious choices privately.



What about observing no religion at all? Did they intend for that?


Where is the harm in observing no religion in a governments daily secular routine? The civil government should show no favor for one religion over another. They can certainly take note of major holiday events of any number of religions, but for the government to make a steady diet of observing one religion over others gives that religion the appearance, no matter how unintended, of some degree of official support. Thats not acceptable.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:52:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
I think it's VERY CLEAR what they intended:



Congress shall not create a religion


Congress shall not ban or restrict a religion.

That's it. That's all.



Do you thik they intended for a man to be free FROM religion?

Yes and no.
More to the point: Is freedom from religion defined as the right to not be exposed to religion EVER?



I am NOT discussing freedom to not be EXPOSED to relgion.

That is the ACLU.

I'm talking about Freedom FROM Religion as far as obligations to observe or be subject to the practices that are EXCLUSIVE to that religion.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:52:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:
THe FF knew enough about the hazzards of religion mixed with politics that I believe they would not want the government to espouse any particular religious belief.

Nothing stops you or any other person from practicing your own religious choices privately.



What about observing no religion at all? Did they intend for that?



I think they'd be fine with that. However... have you ever heard the saying "when in Rome"? Of course you have. So the question is, does having the word "God" in the pledge or on money constitute forcing you to observe a religion? It sure does NOT to me. My wife worked at a Catholic school for a while. We are not Catholic. But by simply being in that situation, she was immersed in Catholic theology for a while. It was just part of the job. NO... the Founding Fathers did NOT intend to us to have freedom FROM religion. It's in the fiber of this country and to have freedom from the very mention of it or it's part in our history would require the government to advocate NO religion which is itself an infringement upon people's right to worship as they chose. You cannot have both freedom from and freedom OF religion.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:53:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By dport:
The problem is if the population acts without a basis in Christian values then the system stops working. The FF and the whole system of government was developed upon an underlying assumption, that the population, no matter what the religion, would all hold Christian values dear.

The leftists know this. That's why they are desperate to remove Christian values and replace them with anything.



Wrong. The system of government was built upon the concept of individual rights. If each individual in the country respected everybody else's rights to life, liberty, and property, and the sole responsibility of government was defending these individual rights, then "the system" would work just fine.



I disagree.

The American and French revolutions occurred in the same era. Compare the results. Here we produced a relatively orderly, stable society. France entered a period known as "The Terror."

What was the main difference?

Here, Christianity was the dominant system of morality and thought. In France, secular humanism ruled the day.


"Christian values" are what have led to, or at least allow for, the current welfare state. Many good people, people of conscience, believe deep down that they have a responsibility to care for those "less fortunate". Where do you think they got that idea? In church.


Again, I disagree.

At one time the church was the main source of charity, seeing to the needs of the needy. There is also a biblical principle that if one doesn't want to work, he shouldn't eat. In other words, take care of those who can't care for themselves, but no free loading fopr the able bodied.


And that feeling of duty is what allows the government to continue programs like welfare, social security, medicare, medicade, prescription drugs, etc, etc, etc... "Compassionate Conservatism" continues down that same road. And we see what kind of wild out-of-control spending that is leading to...


This is where the problem came in. Starting with FDR's welfare, through LBJ's great society fiasco, the government started taking over these functions. A fourth generation welfare family is not the result of Christian values.

Government involvement has always mucked up a good thing.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:56:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:


But did the FF intend for a US citizen to have Freedom FROM Religion if they so choose?




It would depend on what you mean by freedom from religion.

A freedom not to practice a religion if you so choose? Absolutely.

A freedom to tear down any religious symbol from public view? No.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:57:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
I think it's VERY CLEAR what they intended:



Congress shall not create a religion


Congress shall not ban or restrict a religion.

That's it. That's all.



Do you thik they intended for a man to be free FROM religion?





Did I SAY that? No.

They intended what they said. Congress doesn't create religions, or pass laws stopping their creation.


Beyond that, nothingness............


Obviously the FF knew religion was a deep part of this country, as it's interlaced through out our documents, courts, money, etc.....


They put in 1st Amendment to ensure that Congress didn't create their own religion, and didn't try to stop you from creating your own.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:57:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:
THe FF knew enough about the hazzards of religion mixed with politics that I believe they would not want the government to espouse any particular religious belief.

Nothing stops you or any other person from practicing your own religious choices privately.



What about observing no religion at all? Did they intend for that?

Sure they did. You don't have to pray if you don't want to.
Is hearing somebody else pray a violation of the rights of the man who chooses not to pray?



Again you are talking about exposure to, I am talking about be subject to those beliefs.

A Christian can see someone observe Islam and while being exposed TO it not be subjected to it.

I don't mind being exposed to religion as it is practiced by others, I mind be subject to religion.

For example if a person believes that the US government has a Christian base and establishes laws that are soley based on that religion then I am no longer merely exposed to that relgion but am now subject to it.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:59:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Brohawk:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:


But did the FF intend for a US citizen to have Freedom FROM Religion if they so choose?




It would depend on what you mean by freedom from religion.

A freedom not to practice a religion if you so choose? Absolutely.

A freedom to tear down any religious symbol from public view? No.



Again, agree on both points.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:59:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
The American and French revolutions occurred in the same era. Compare the results. Here we produced a relatively orderly, stable society. France entered a period known as "The Terror."

What was the main difference?



While I haven't studied the founding documents of the French revolution, I'd be willing to wager that theirs said little or nothing about defending the rights of the individual. I'd also be willing to wager that theirs was socialist in nature.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 1:59:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
I think it's VERY CLEAR what they intended:



Congress shall not create a religion


Congress shall not ban or restrict a religion.

That's it. That's all.



Do you thik they intended for a man to be free FROM religion?





Did I SAY that? No.

They intended what they said. Congress doesn't create religions, or pass laws stopping their creation.


Beyond that, nothingness............


Obviously the FF knew religion was a deep part of this country, as it's interlaced through out our documents, courts, money, etc.....


They put in 1st Amendment to ensure that Congress didn't create their own religion, and didn't try to stop you from creating your own.



Didn't say you said that. Was just seeking clarification.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 2:00:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
For example if a person believes that the US government has a Christian base and establishes laws that are soley based on that religion then I am no longer merely exposed to that religion but am now subject to it.



Except that our laws are not based on Christianity, they are based on Roman laws and traditions. So that persons complaint is pointless. The legal beliefs that we as a secular nation "share" with Christianity ,we also happen to "share" with many other cultures and religions that happened to outlaw serious crimes like murder, rape, etc.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 2:02:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
For example if a person believes that the US government has a Christian base and establishes laws that are soley based on that religion then I am no longer merely exposed to that religion but am now subject to it.



Except that our laws are not based on Christianity, they are based on Roman laws and traditions. So that persons complaint is pointless. The legal beliefs that we as a secular nation "share" with Christianity ,we also happen to "share" with many other cultures and religions that happened to outlaw serious crimes like murder, rape, etc.



We have more than a few laws based on Christianity.

Romans didn't have laws against selling beer on Sunday.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 2:06:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By dport:


The point is morals shouldn't have to be laws. Even if 2 or 3 of the Ten Commandments are laws the values expressed in the rest, like honoring thy father and mother, should be universal.



OK, do those values have to be derived from religion?

In other words is the stuff about not worshipping other Gods or keeping the Sabbath holy important?

Or can they simply be secular values that are important to civilization such as the concept of Filial Piety from Confucianism. And here I mean the secular pholosophy of Confuciansim and not the pseudo religion that was created by combining it with tenents of Buddhism.



To work with our system, they have to be derived from the Christian religions. The vast majority of the FFs were Christians to some extent. They built the sytem with those values in mind. In other words, as smart as they were, their life experiences were limited to what they knew. They knew Christianity. They expected certain behavior of the people based on the Christian religion, which is what guided society at the time. Where there exceptions? Of course, a society can always handle exceptions. What it cannot handle is a mass exodus from the values upon which it was created.

Is a specific God important? Probably not. Is keeping the Sabbath important? Actually, it probably is, but not for the reason you might think. It is important to have time off for the people.

Think about it this way, even if you don't buy into the whole Father, Son, Holy Ghost thing, realize that society evolved the values inherent in that system. It evolved them because there was a need somewhere along the line for those values. They solved a problem that society faced. So God or the society, whatever you believe, put in those rules. (A sociology professor once posed the question:"Are the laws good because God gave them to us, or did God give us the laws because they were good? If you believe in God the former is true. If you believe in evolution the latter is true.)

Our FFs were merely an extension of that evolution. They used the values and morals that had evolved under the Christian system as a base. If we stray to far from those basic values our system will fail.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 2:08:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By dport:


The point is morals shouldn't have to be laws. Even if 2 or 3 of the Ten Commandments are laws the values expressed in the rest, like honoring thy father and mother, should be universal.



OK, do those values have to be derived from religion?

In other words is the stuff about not worshipping other Gods or keeping the Sabbath holy important?

Or can they simply be secular values that are important to civilization such as the concept of Filial Piety from Confucianism. And here I mean the secular pholosophy of Confuciansim and not the pseudo religion that was created by combining it with tenents of Buddhism.



To work with our system, they have to be derived from the Christian religions. The vast majority of the FFs were Christians to some extent. They built the sytem with those values in mind. In other words, as smart as they were, their life experiences were limited to what they knew. They knew Christianity. They expected certain behavior of the people based on the Christian religion, which is what guided society at the time. Where there exceptions? Of course, a society can always handle exceptions. What it cannot handle is a mass exodus from the values upon which it was created.

Is a specific God important? Probably not. Is keeping the Sabbath important? Actually, it probably is, but not for the reason you might think. It is important to have time off for the people.

Think about it this way, even if you don't buy into the whole Father, Son, Holy Ghost thing, realize that society evolved the values inherent in that system. It evolved them because there was a need somewhere along the line for those values. They solved a problem that society faced. So God or the society, whatever you believe, put in those rules. (A sociology professor once posed the question:"Are the laws good because God gave them to us, or did God give us the laws because they were good? If you believe in God the former is true. If you believe in evolution the latter is true.)

Our FFs were merely an extension of that evolution. They used the values and morals that had evolved under the Christian system as a base. If we stray to far from those basic values our system will fail.



Bullshit. Freedom and liberty aren't based on religion. Freedom and liberty allow for religion. Not the other way around.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 2:09:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
We have more than a few laws based on Christianity.

Romans didn't have laws against selling beer on Sunday.


I wasn't speaking on Blue Laws,and for the most part in the civilized portions of this country, blue laws are no longer an issue.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 2:09:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CeramicGod:
Bullshit. Freedom and liberty aren't based on religion. Freedom and liberty allow for religion. Not the other way around.


I see you didn't actually read what I wrote.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 2:10:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Didn't say you said that. Was just seeking clarification.




I was trying to make a point - everyone trys to read in more than what it says.


(not saying you were thinking that, but the act of asking implies it)
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 2:10:19 PM EDT
I did, and I was replying to the last line


Our FFs were merely an extension of that evolution. They used the values and morals that had evolved under the Christian system as a base. If we stray to far from those basic values our system will fail.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 2:10:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
For example if a person believes that the US government has a Christian base and establishes laws that are soley based on that religion then I am no longer merely exposed to that religion but am now subject to it.



Except that our laws are not based on Christianity, they are based on Roman laws and traditions. So that persons complaint is pointless. The legal beliefs that we as a secular nation "share" with Christianity ,we also happen to "share" with many other cultures and religions that happened to outlaw serious crimes like murder, rape, etc.


Romans allowed human sacrifice, until their ceasar became a Christian. Roman law was influenced by Christianity.

What is more correct is to say the structure of our government came from the Greeks and the Romans.
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 2:11:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CeramicGod:
I did, and I was replying to the last line


Our FFs were merely an extension of that evolution. They used the values and morals that had evolved under the Christian system as a base. If we stray to far from those basic values our system will fail.


Do you think that the first amendment would have been the same without Martin Luther?
Link Posted: 9/26/2005 2:12:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2005 2:12:48 PM EDT by CeramicGod]

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By CeramicGod:
I did, and I was replying to the last line


Our FFs were merely an extension of that evolution. They used the values and morals that had evolved under the Christian system as a base. If we stray to far from those basic values our system will fail.


Do you think that the first amendment would have been the same without Martin Luther?



Or kept alive by people like Larry Flynt?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top