Our Judeo-Christian nation

[Shooter]

Great post, ABM. So much truth in what you have said. I'm a believer in Christ who falls short so much that it sometimes discourages me. But I try to keep my eyes on Him, because I know that He is "the way, the truth, and the life." When I focus on Him, I feel what William James described as "an inward paradise of tranquility." It's a calm reassurance that whatever happens in my life, God is in control.

 

[Denny Crane]

The people who came here originally were religious and were either fleeing religious persecution or seeking religious freedom. You can't just say someone flipped some switch and all that went away.

The nation was founded, basically, on reversing the things the British did that were source of grievances to the common man. There may be more to the 1st amendment being about "anything but a nation that has an official church like the Anglican"...

My beef is that religion is being squashed by people using govt. and laws, and that secularism is being pushed on people. It shouldn't be either way. Government should encourage all religions to flourish and it shouldn't be so pervasive that anything anyone wants to do is a violation of church and state.

I say this as an agnostic who doesn't like the idea of the govt. being misused for religious purposes or for secular ones.

 

[Shooter]

Jesus is the son of god a truly realized divine being. We are all capable of this and it is what will allow us to transcend our repetitive mistakes that the ego/mind (the voice of satan if you like) that tells us the lie that we are seperate from god. How COULD we be seperate from god if god is Omnipresent? How could we not be a part of god if god is Omnipotent? You can never be seperate from god find solace in that.

I wish we could sit down and talk sometime. What you are saying is very popular today, and has gained a lot of traction amongst religious people, but it's a foolish and dangerous way to think. Jesus said many times that sin has to be cast out of our hearts, and that we must turn to Him to be saved. No one is automatically part of God simply by being alive. There are choices to be made in life, and those choices have consequences.

Jesus told the Jews that, "He that heareth my Word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation." There are many, many texts like this in the New Testament, and I encourage you to read them for yourself.

 

[Stepping Razor]

The people who came here originally were religious and were either fleeing religious persecution or seeking religious freedom. You can't just say someone flipped some switch and all that went away.

Some of them came for those reasons. Other came for more secular purposes -- the original English settlement in North America was, of course, not Puritan Plymouth but rather Jamestown, Virginia, the profit-seeking venture of a joint-stock company.

And even those who did come seeking religious freedom tended to think about that concept in very different terms than we do today... Our histories tend to de-emphasize things like the fact that Puritan minister and Massachusetts leader Cotton Mather, for example, wanted to capture any Quakers who showed up in the colony and sell them into slavery in the West Indian sugarcane fields. That kind of "religious freedom" was narrowly and, indeed, violently sectarian. Which is one reason why many of the most fervent supporters of the separation of church and state by the time the US gained independence were deeply religious people who understood that Massachusetts-style intermingling of religious and state authority was *bad for religion.*

Today we almost always tend to think of "separation of church and state" as something designed to protect government from religion... but I think its more powerful effect over 200+ years of American history has actually been to protect religion from the worldly corruption of politics. I actually would argue that the reason why the modern United States is a such a remarkably religious country (compared to all other advanced Western democracies), the reason why even I, as an agnostic, think there is some validity to describing us as a "Judeo-Christian Nation" is precisely because we have been careful to defend the principle of secularism in the public sphere. I think the would-be theocrats of the so-called Religious Right (a recent phenomenon of the last 3 decades, really) better be careful they don't gain the world but lose their soul; we might end up like France, a country where everybody is nominally Catholic, a member of the state-sponsored church, but almost no one actually attends to mass and religion plays a minor role in shaping modern society.

Politics = corruption. Breaking down the wall between church and state is bad *for the church.*

SR

 

[Shooter]

Today we almost always tend to think of "separation of church and state" as something designed to protect government from religion...

"Protect the government from religion"? I don't know anyone who thinks of it that way. Most people want just the opposite: they want churches protected from government tampering and control. They wanted the freedom to worship in any church, at any time, without government interference.

I actually would argue that the reason why the modern United States is a such a remarkably religious country (compared to all other advanced Western democracies), the reason why even I, as an agnostic, think there is some validity to describing us as a "Judeo-Christian Nation" is precisely because we have been careful to defend the principle of secularism in the public sphere.

We defend secularism and we defend religion, equally. That's what freedom is all about.

We might end up like France, a country where everybody is nominally Catholic, a member of the state-sponsored church, but almost no one actually attends to mass and religion plays a minor role in shaping modern society.

I think (and I hope!) that the religious right is misunderstood. What they seem to object to most is the removal of all religious discussion from the public sphere. They're not fighting to make us more religious, they just want to preserve the religious foundation that seems to be crumbling all around us. I don't know any conservative who thinks that the government should demand religious observance of its citizens, though it may come to that eventually. If it does, I will fight it tooth and nail.

 

[Denny Crane]

Some of them came for those reasons. Other came for more secular purposes -- the original English settlement in North America was, of course, not Puritan Plymouth but rather Jamestown, Virginia, the profit-seeking venture of a joint-stock company.

And even those who did come seeking religious freedom tended to think about that concept in very different terms than we do today... Our histories tend to de-emphasize things like the fact that Puritan minister and Massachusetts leader Cotton Mather, for example, wanted to capture any Quakers who showed up in the colony and sell them into slavery in the West Indian sugarcane fields. That kind of "religious freedom" was narrowly and, indeed, violently sectarian. Which is one reason why many of the most fervent supporters of the separation of church and state by the time the US gained independence were deeply religious people who understood that Massachusetts-style intermingling of religious and state authority was *bad for religion.*

Today we almost always tend to think of "separation of church and state" as something designed to protect government from religion... but I think its more powerful effect over 200+ years of American history has actually been to protect religion from the worldly corruption of politics. I actually would argue that the reason why the modern United States is a such a remarkably religious country (compared to all other advanced Western democracies), the reason why even I, as an agnostic, think there is some validity to describing us as a "Judeo-Christian Nation" is precisely because we have been careful to defend the principle of secularism in the public sphere. I think the would-be theocrats of the so-called Religious Right (a recent phenomenon of the last 3 decades, really) better be careful they don't gain the world but lose their soul; we might end up like France, a country where everybody is nominally Catholic, a member of the state-sponsored church, but almost no one actually attends to mass and religion plays a minor role in shaping modern society.

Politics = corruption. Breaking down the wall between church and state is bad *for the church.*

SR

I agree state/church combination is a two edged sword.

 

[Idog1976]

"Protect the government from religion"? I don't know anyone who thinks of it that way. Most people want just the opposite: they want churches protected from government tampering and control. They wanted the freedom to worship in any church, at any time, without government interference.

It is clear to me the founding fathers wanted to protect religion from government in the sense that they wanted to prevent a theocracy or "church of the state" type situation wherein one religion would use the government as a tool to wipe out other religions. Surely if say a Muslim group gained enough power in Government and began to suppress other religions and funnel government money and funding to mosques and Islamic faith based organizations you would be troubled by that?

 

[Idog1976]

Some of them came for those reasons. Other came for more secular purposes -- the original English settlement in North America was, of course, not Puritan Plymouth but rather Jamestown, Virginia, the profit-seeking venture of a joint-stock company.

And even those who did come seeking religious freedom tended to think about that concept in very different terms than we do today... Our histories tend to de-emphasize things like the fact that Puritan minister and Massachusetts leader Cotton Mather, for example, wanted to capture any Quakers who showed up in the colony and sell them into slavery in the West Indian sugarcane fields. That kind of "religious freedom" was narrowly and, indeed, violently sectarian. Which is one reason why many of the most fervent supporters of the separation of church and state by the time the US gained independence were deeply religious people who understood that Massachusetts-style intermingling of religious and state authority was *bad for religion.*

Today we almost always tend to think of "separation of church and state" as something designed to protect government from religion... but I think its more powerful effect over 200+ years of American history has actually been to protect religion from the worldly corruption of politics. I actually would argue that the reason why the modern United States is a such a remarkably religious country (compared to all other advanced Western democracies), the reason why even I, as an agnostic, think there is some validity to describing us as a "Judeo-Christian Nation" is precisely because we have been careful to defend the principle of secularism in the public sphere. I think the would-be theocrats of the so-called Religious Right (a recent phenomenon of the last 3 decades, really) better be careful they don't gain the world but lose their soul; we might end up like France, a country where everybody is nominally Catholic, a member of the state-sponsored church, but almost no one actually attends to mass and religion plays a minor role in shaping modern society.

Politics = corruption. Breaking down the wall between church and state is bad *for the church.*

SR

Wow, incredibly well said and spectactuarly spot on. I echoed it poorly below. Fantastic post.

 

[Idog1976]

I wish we could sit down and talk sometime. What you are saying is very popular today, and has gained a lot of traction amongst religious people, but it's a foolish and dangerous way to think. Jesus said many times that sin has to be cast out of our hearts, and that we must turn to Him to be saved. No one is automatically part of God simply by being alive. There are choices to be made in life, and those choices have consequences.

Jesus told the Jews that, "He that heareth my Word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation." There are many, many texts like this in the New Testament, and I encourage you to read them for yourself.

My reading and indeed my text of the New Testament is very different from yours. I put forth to you that you are reading a politicized version of the bible created by the roman empire to create a state religion out of a spiritual path offered by Jesus. I think the value of the bible lies in the numerous instances in which Jesus and some old testament authors point towards our capacity to find god within without the need of a church. It's difficult to say exactly what Jesus said because there is such a distance in time between what he wrote and the oft translated and changed texts since his death. That's why I look for the oldest translations and towards things like the ancient greek translations and things such as the Dead Sea scrolls. I think it's wonderful that the teachings of Jesus resonate with you. I think however it's easy to mistake the material for the spiritual especially when the Romans have altered things to meet their political goals. I'm assuming you are not Catholic (I was raised Catholic btw) in which case you must follow to some degree the thinking of Martin Luther who stated that the bible had been altered to cede power to Rome.

I find it amazing that the Bible so clearly shows that Rome is the 7 headed beast of revelations (Rome built on 7 hills) it was a Roman political apparatus that was responsible for Jesus' death and yet so few people bother to question the council of Nicea where what was included in the bible was voted upon. It was a political process that created the beginnings of Christianity as a state religion in Rome. This is in fact exactly what Stepping Razor was pointing to in the danger of the merger of state and religion...the corrupting power of politics on religion.

 

[Minstrel]

we might end up like France, a country where everybody is nominally Catholic, a member of the state-sponsored church, but almost no one actually attends to mass and religion plays a minor role in shaping modern society.

Hmm, can you source this? From what I can tell, France has a strict separation of church and state. I can't find any reference to a state-sponsored church in France currently.

 

[Stepping Razor]

Hmm, can you source this? From what I can tell, France has a strict separation of church and state. I can't find any reference to a state-sponsored church in France currently.

Great point, I phrased that horribly. I was speaking more historically; at present you are totally correct... my premise is more that the legacy of centuries of intermingling of church/state is a fairly irreligious populace. But as I think more about this it might be a poor example anyway...

EDIT: Maybe England would be a better example?

 

[Minstrel]

Great point, I phrased that horribly. I was speaking more historically; at present you are totally correct... my premise is more that the legacy of centuries of intermingling of church/state is a fairly irreligious populace. But as I think more about this it might be a poor example anyway...

Ah okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[mook]

Great point, I phrased that horribly. I was speaking more historically; at present you are totally correct... my premise is more that the legacy of centuries of intermingling of church/state is a fairly irreligious populace. But as I think more about this it might be a poor example anyway...

EDIT: Maybe England would be a better example?

Great posts. England is definitely a better example.

I'm really curious to see what Iran looks like in another 50 to 100 years. Their revolution is still too fresh in the minds now for many of the older folks, but you have to wonder how their theocracy is impacting the faith of a lot of kids....

 

[Shooter]

My reading and indeed my text of the New Testament is very different from yours. I put forth to you that you are reading a politicized version of the bible created by the roman empire to create a state religion out of a spiritual path offered by Jesus. I think the value of the bible lies in the numerous instances in which Jesus and some old testament authors point towards our capacity to find god within without the need of a church.

I'm not talking about a "church"--I'm talking about the many, many texts in the Bible that speak of sin and how it separates us from God. If you're going to ignore all of those texts, then you're ignoring the very thrust of the gospel. Jesus spoke of the sin problem over and over, and emphasized the need for repentance and "re-birth." This is so basic to his message that it boggles the imagination that someone could deny it.

Read Paul, and Luke, and Matthew. Read any of the New Testament writers. They all struggled with sin, and they knew how important it was to turn their back on temptation and walk with Christ. In Luke, Jesus said, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." He also said that salvation was not possible without Him, and that some people would reject him and be lost. In John 6, he says, "I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." It's very clear that He knew some people would choose to follow him, and some would not.

This idea that God is within us all, and that we are all part of Him, and that means everything is peachy fine is just wrong. Hitler certainly wasn't "Godlike," and neither was Stalin; both of them killed millions of people and chose the path of evil over the path of righteousness. Many others choose to vanguish evil from their life and accept the righteusness of Christ. Either way, it's our choice, and God leaves it up to us.

 

[boatsandstars]

Great post, ABM. So much truth in what you have said. I'm a believer in Christ who falls short so much that it sometimes discourages me. But I try to keep my eyes on Him, because I know that He is "the way, the truth, and the life." When I focus on Him, I feel what William James described as "an inward paradise of tranquility." It's a calm reassurance that whatever happens in my life, God is in control.

you cheer when people die. you fall short all of the time.

 

[Shooter]

you cheer when people die. you fall short all of the time.

Wrong. I cheer when terrorists die, and I will continue to do so. For every terrorist who dies, many innocent people will be saved.