Christian Government?

Yesterday, I had a disturbing conversation with an old acquaintance during which he commented, "This country was founded by Christians and it should be run by Christians."

Arg! Beyond explaining to him that, regardless of their religious persuasion, the founders of our country made it quite clear that they believed church and state should be separate, I really didn't know what to do with that comment. I had never heard anyone say such a thing!

While I'm sure many people would agree with him, it had honestly never occured to me that anyone would choose a political candidate based on their religion. That was probably hopelessly naive of me.

Well, first of all, I'd imply his logic was incorrect. The country may have been founded by men who labeled themselves as Christian, but mostly were reacting to a colonist government who strictly forbade any religious diversity. If you were not a Protestant, you could not own land. This means that the influential people in the society were either Protestant Christians, lying to the government, or both. I think most Americans would agree that lying to the government is not that unheard of. During the time of colonization, there were actually contracts that people had to sign saying that they weren't a Catholic before they would be given a grant of land to work that carried serious consequences like exile, death, confinement without a trial, or the deportation of your whole family if you were found to be a liar. That being said how can we look at anyone's religion based on what the founders believed? Also, how can we know the founders were telling us the truth? The ones we call forefathers were men who spun a good tale and could get the public behind them for an initiative.

If you want a real-life scenario, imagine a team-building event at work. You are in a group with 15 other people and you must choose a spokesperson to act as leader. You all know that this person will get the glory of the group, but regardless of his or her position on any topic worth discussion, you all immediately point to the company ham. Why? Because I don't want to risk messing up in front of my coworkers and my boss! I'm scared of groups! Public speaking is the #1 phobia in the US! Let the clown do it! This works the same for politicians: Let the clown do it.

However, people choose politicians in elections all the time based on a label. Hey, they're politicians, right? The party thought they were good enough. Let's choose: White, Black, Hispanic, or Other? Male or Female? Young or Old? Rich or Poor?

Sheeple (sheep people) prefer to choose candidates who on the outside appear to relate to them. The easiest way is by the label. My actual comment to a friend would be "well aren't you a f'n sheeple?" Then, when greeted with shock (meaning I got their attention), I would explain my viewpoint.

Imaginelove: My first comment to him was actually pretty tactless: "Just because you found God doesn't mean you had to throw out your brain!"

LOL! I love you! Will you be my friend?

Sure! I love you, too!

Yay! Someone loves me despite my purely tactless nature! :D Besides, I'm a big believer in shock therapy. Some people need it to push them out of the rut they have their brain in.

Well, if you feel like playing on his terms, you could ask him "WHICH Christians?" ... and then the discussion shifts to "just who is a Christian, and who gets to say so?"

If you want to fight on purely "American" terms, you could point out that he's believing lies, and ask him who benefits from persuading him of this lie.

Bob: My conversation with him has continued through emails over the past couple of days. Now we're on exactly that subject. He said something about fundamentalist muslims being scary, and I replied that fundamentalists of any religion tend to be scary because of their unswerving belief that their religion is the only "right" one (even excluding others who are also "Christian" or "Muslim" or whatever other label they may ascribe to). I'm still waiting for his response to that.

The whole conversation started because he had forwarded me some born-again Christian drivel about how horrible it would be for the country were Obama (who has a Muslim background through one of his parents) to be elected President.

Good luck with your friend.

(I too have an on-going email correspondence with a conservative pal of mine - it keeps both of us on our toes.)

Just a toss in from a Christian:

I disagree that anyone should be elected based on the labels that they choose for themselves. There is great variety under the label "Christian", as well as under the label "Muslim" or "Atheist". I am a pastor and have never, nor will I ever direct my congregation on how to vote, only that they should vote and vote their conscience, which I sincerely hope is informed by their intellect.

But I would like to assert that this nation was founded on Christian principles, although they were a break from some very common thinking of that day. The sanctity of the individual is a direct outgrowth of the Judeo-Christian ethic that goes back to man being created in the image of God. The value and the protection of the individual evolved from the Hebrew (and later Christian) sacred writings and overthrew thousands of years of totalitarianism that valued systems over individuals.

Now, does that mean that only Christians should run the country? Not even remotely. Probably the best "Christian" in an every day sense that has occupied the White House over the last 50 years was Jimmy Carter, and his presidency was an unmitigated disaster. But we should hold the ethic of the sanctity of the individual and his right to choose very close to our hearts. Good history would hold Christianity dear for that reason, even if you reject some modern forms.

Oakes,

I see your point about Carter's public works and I am not judging the quality of his personal devotion (as if I were qualified), nor have I read the book you referenced. I guess that I meant "best Christian" by classic, evangelical standards in terms the public performance of a religious looking life. I used that standard because I think that is the measuring stick that most people would use when testing Presidential candidates for orthodoxy.

Excellent point about the labels. You guys make me write such long responses because you want me to define my terms. Or perhaps I don't have the ability to think with much concision. Just depends on who I want to blame today. I guess I meant (since the person who wrote that yesterday is obviously deranged) that the typical labels we use in American politics contain a wide variety. But certain labels definitely would rule out any thought of election, if they were self-assumed or correctly applied by observers. I concede the point. Apparently my vacation from the site has dulled the edge of my communication skills. Arrgh...

As far as apologies, I'm just getting you to lower your guard. Long practice in psychological wars...

I actually think that you are on to something, but also Carter was a product of the spirit of the age in America. This was the middle of the Jesus freaks movement, the revival among the youth, a kickback against the 60's. Middle America was relived to hear this instead of one more riot, one more Beatle smoking pot with their guru in India, one more mass orgy in the backwoods of upstate New York. Jesus was white-bread, middle-class, and stable, and man, we dig that.

Despite the smile, Carter was completely and utterly humorless (which is a by-product of the earnestness of the evangelicals at that stage and liberals throughout history). He portrayed himself as completely righteous (see parentheses above). It is as if he had never been wrong and could never admit that anything in his past was wrong. Remember the shockwaves at his admission in Playboy that "he had lusted in his heart"? (What male hasn't? Why do you think Playboy exists at all?) Contrast that with the revelations of W's drunk driving arrests that came to light just before the election in 2000. It barely made waves at all.

The spirit of this age is anti-religious (even among the church folk. Just check out the newest incarnations of church. Of course, I'm not really one to talk). So, Bush takes hits for it because he associates himself with religion. But I also think that Bush gets points with the common man over his religion (and drunk driving). Carter, the Sunday School teacher who has never missed a Sunday, is busy telling the rest of us how to live. Bush, the drunk driver, is in desperate need of Someone to keep him from destroying his own life. That resonates with me a whole lot more than Carter's bully-pulpit.

Here's a thought: It is easier for conservatives to confess their own faults and change their ideas than it is for the so-called "progressive" liberals. Conservatives have the anchor of history to fall back on. In order for liberals to make changes, they and their ideas have to be right, despite the fact that they go against history. They are busy confessing the faults of society while conservatives are free to confess our own (not that confessing our own faults is easy or natural for anyone). By default, liberals have to be "self-righteous": Their basis for changing the world comes from making others believe in them and their ideas. Conservatives are espousing the ideas of those who have come before us. We are dependent on those outside of ourselves and we agree with them. Perhaps that is the reason that conservatives are historically more religious. Not sure all of that makes sense, but I think I like the thought...

Joseph Smith received those goofy tablets from God

And Moses received his goofy tablets from God.

"Oh wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursel's as others see us!"

Wow! This is a REALLY good discussion!!!

The only comment I'll make (at this point) regarding Presidents and religion, is that Regan, in his well-rehearsed speeches, would invariably makes references to God and Christianity; however, the tax-payer's money always went to high-dollar psychics -- Jean Dixon, for one, was consulted on many, many important issues. And they say that his Alzheimer's didn't start until AFTER he was out of office! HA!!! Regan was just a charismatic, passionate speech-giver (unlike our current President), but JUST like Bush, he was only the front-man – not the person actually running the Government.

But, that's not what I'd like to get into at this point. My pet peeve in the whole Christian Nation concern is this: Christian Values.

Do they (you know -- THEM) actually believe that living a moral life and being good to your neighbor, etc was a novel approach thought up by the philosophical son of a carpenter? Why is it that Christians think to have the corner of the market on ethical thought and behavior? Okay, maybe they don’t think so, but they sure SAY they do, and by golly, if you don’t have those same values, you’re damned for sure! What do they believe the behavior of the people of the known world was like 2,000 +/- years ago anyway? “Christian Values” are the same as anyone else’s values, providing for certain cultural variances. Everyone wants to live in peace; everyone wants to be happy and healthy and prosperous. Those are generalities, of course – there are some truly sick nut-jobs out there…

Being an Atheist here on the prong (the metal part that goes through the hole) of the Bible Belt, I am told almost daily that my ilk are dirt; shouldn’t be allowed to vote; that our kids are sub-human. Which of the Christian values is it that condones a person to treat another that way? These people don’t know that I cancelled my subscription to their theology decades ago. I don’t speak out because I KNOW how it will cause all kinds of grief for me and my family.

I’m a little verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves.

Oakes,
I meant that it ill behooves those who believe that God gives tablets to men to sneer at others who believe that God gives tablets to men. The Mormon tablets are "goofy" to you because you lack faith in them. Many highly intelligent otherwise rational people believe in Smith's tablets, just as many highly intelligent otherwise rational people believe in Moses's tablets. Both rely upon hearsay to accept the occurrence of a supernatural event.

I don't know if there is even any evidence of the existence of someone named Moses. It seems that scholars can't agree. As for fibbing, I once heard a Jewish man explain what really (smile) happened:

Moses could have assembled the Children of Israel and said "Listen, I've come up with some rules for our society." And most of them would have said "And the donkey you rode in on, Moses!" So he adapted the rules a bit, chiseled them on stone, slipped away and took them up on a mountain, came back down, assembled the people, and said: "Listen! G_d appeared to me and gave me these tablets with His laws that all must obey!"

Which historical claims of Smith have been definitively disproved? Not the stuff about the civilization in the Americas? If God can leave a fossil trail just to confuse the heathen scientists (or so I've heard), he can certainly mess around with archeological evidence. Once you accept the existence of an omnipotent god, you can't rule out his doing anything he takes a mind to do.

I didn't know that the Mormons said that God started out as a flesh & blood person, and attained godhood later. That's interesting. I see nothing any more goofy about the notion than about other tales of gods.

Also, the name of that angel--”Moroni”--is exceptionally goofy. Sorry, but it is.

Did someone appoint you to decide what God should call his angels? :-) The fact that a name sounds "goofy" to a person is attributable to cultural background, not to the name. "Oakes" would seem odd to some. There may be cultures where the names of some of the angels, prophets, etc. in the bible cause people to roll around laughing. Moses might sound like a "dirty word" in some language.

Now, I grant that there are many things in the Old Testament that are weird and strange, and yes, perhaps even “goofy”--the text is so long it would be surprising if that were not the case.

So I guess you don't believe that it was divinely inspired.

I think religious traditions and texts should be evaluated independently without prior prejudice, letting the chips fall where they may, so to speak.

A very good idea. But no one can make an "independent evaluation" of texts which he or she already "knows" contain "the word of God," or of others that he "knows" do not. Pretty rare for someone to pick up the text of a another religion or sect with the thought that the people who believe it could conceivably be right, and he wrong.

P.S. If you want to continue this debate, please try a bit of brevity. I'm a hunt and peck typist, and just can't give lengthy messages that get into several topics the time that the reply they deserve would consume --- not if I'm to get anything else done!

I don't know, I think he's entitled to some goofy-finding. Calling a name goofy, or finding some claims and laws so, doesn't offend me - or wouldn't, if he found those in the Bible which he suggests might lurk there. Disrespect to the whole would disturb me, but if I am to listen to others' 'allowable' scorn and hate, I can take some scoffing (or vote losses). Surely Mormons can, as well?

On the subject of goofiness: Obviously, not everything can be true, and not all claims, religious or otherwise, are equally reasonable and sane. That someone will believe them is not, outside of religion, often used as ennoblement. 'Yes, but I think so,' isn't good enough. Nor does every objection really have to be serious. Humans do get influenced by things like names that sound silly. (Within or outside one's own culture.)

Starting out with the idea that all religions are equally despicable - or equally worthy of respect - are both accepted modern viewpoints. Starting out with an open mind and a willingness to evaluate them all honestly is rather less common, but stays equally palatable if you end in one of the other two views. No one feels singled out, no one more criticized than the next, and the believers among us are easy to disregard. We cancel each other out. But I frankly and greatly prefer a set of opinions that recognizes that beside our great swathes of commonality, religions do differ in significant ways, and some do have more to be said for believing in their claims than others. I'll add to this: it does make sense, in that case, to confer more potential respect or wariness on those who adhere to various religions, based on what you find. They can certainly have an effect on who you're willing to elect to an office of stature and influence. If a matter of thought and reason rather than prejudice, I believe this is valid.

Having gotten sidetracked on all these issues, anyway: I like many others am tempted to smooth over all differences, and extend my respect for other people to a semblance of respect for what they believe, right, wrong, pernicious, valuable, or otherwise: but this is falsifying. Kindness and love and equal valuation of all people - whether they're athiests, or Mormons, or Hindus, or Christians, or Zarathustrians, even - does not validate everything they believe. With apologies to WholeHouseLibrary, people are terribly fallible, and I'm afraid tend to fall into the trap of either disowning their own belief or failing in the command to love others. It doesn't come with a neat exception appended, 'unless...'

(Thanks to myselves for reminding me where all this started.)

Apologies. I am not Oakes, to whom the comment was directed, but I also was not brief. :)

Eurydice,

The context was the election for President of the U.S. Oakes was saying that he would never vote for a Mormon, presumably because of those "goofy" beliefs. (Aside to any non-U.S. readers: Stop laughing!)

I'd forgotten, in the flurry of recent posts. :)

Why is it wrong not to vote for someone you feel hasn't evaluated their own stated beliefs effectively? If that is how they treat what is supposedly a defining truth, you can well be leery of how they would attack 'lesser' issues. This isn't the same as an 'I don't like X group' prejudice, or didn't seem so to me.

Besides, a lot of people would 'never vote for' one of those nasty theocons.... with their ridiculous and pernicious beliefs. It does work both ways.

Eurydice,

No one's belief in the supernatural can, by its very nature, be "effectively" evaluated. I don't know of any religion which claims that what it holds can be demonstrated to be true. Faith is required. For those who don't make the "leap of faith," what you say could be an argument for staying away from the ballot box forever, instead of trying to find a candidate who is less likely to try to impose his faith upon others. OTOH, I suppose that believers should vote only for those who agree with them about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and what sort of names are acceptable for those angels? Hmmm. That might be nice. If we could split the vote up among all of the warring sects, candidates might not have to go and suck up at Bob Jones University any more.

Myshelves,

In my own opinion, the supernatural can never be fully 'proved' in an intellectual sense, but a reasonable evaluation of a religion can bring you to the point of being willing to take the rest on faith - and so onward. I do NOT think we check our minds at the door. Nor do I recommend not embarking at all.

I don't, personally, vote based on whether or not religious beliefs match up with mine. It's one element, and I may or may not vote for a candidate in the face of an important disparity. But I do not cede to anybody the right to choose based on what I think is right, when a candidate professes belief I find ludicrous or pernicious*, or is likely to impose something I deeply oppose through their office. Like everyone else, I'm fallible, but I do know it. In that case, the idea that I would require even an appearance of perfect correspondence with my aims and belief is as ridiculous as you want to make it.

* I am not speaking of anyone in particular, just stating parameters.

Oakes,

The “otherwise rational” is the key here.

Er . . . I used the phrase twice in that sentence :-)

As much fun as it may be to discuss the angels Moroni and Oakes, I don't think that "Libertarian and Market Liberals" is the group for debates about Joseph Smith, Moses, et. al. If you want to shift over to the Outside (as in "take it outside") Group. . . .

Eurydice,

As long as you don't want politicians to legislate your religious beliefs, or to pack the courts with people who will make decisions based upon religious beliefs rather than upon the constituition and laws, we have no quarrel.

I don't pop into Christian (or other religious) group threads, or to Political Conservative ones, to argue with the members. (Life is too short, and there are more enjoyable ways to waste time.) But this is a Libertarian group. It looked to me as if this thread, originally discussing the incorrect statement that the U.S was founded as a "Christian nation," had been turned into a discussion of which politicians have the proper Christian credentials. Being a "small l" libertarian who was active in local and state Libertarian parties more than 30 years ago, I resent the attempt by the "Christian right" to take over libertarianism as they have conservatism. (See disgusted comments by Barry Goldwater on the latter.)

To quote from Wiki: "The central tenet of libertarianism is the principle of self-ownership. To libertarians, an individual human being is sovereign over his/her body, extending to life, liberty and property." I'd suggest that libertarians should look for candidates who support that tenet, without applying any "religious test."

Geez, I have to work for one day and look at all the fun that I have missed. There's proof that God has a sense of humor, or that He doesn't exist, or that I am on His bad side, or...there is definitely proof of something here, I am just not sure what it is, yet (at which time I will become provincial and dogmatic).

To answer myshelves question about taking it outside, like any good argument in a marriage, the subject under discussion is rarely the subject under discussion for any length of time. Our beliefs are hopelessly intertwined and I think the only way to flesh them out is to follow them to their logical end. Besides, every discussion that I have seen on religion on these boards has ended in discomfort or name-calling. I am very appreciative of the tone that you three have used. Religion has become quite divisive in American society and if we can't find civil ways of hashing out the differences, we shall end up in a hopeless impasse. What we are doing is saving American society as we know it!

I think that origins is the question of our time. If we can't examine the origin of our faith, or our atheism, how can we go forward? I personally would prefer to build my life on a foundation that will bring the best results. So, bring it on. If we can prove that Moses took the "Divine Authority" route to power, let's smash the Commandments and embrace "me-centrism". Of course Eurydice is correct, there finally will be no verifiable proof of origins (including evolution). However, it will eliminate the pretenders. I think that is the assertion of Oakes regarding Mormonism. If you were choosing your faith based on historical feasibility, Mormonism wouldn't pass historical muster.

Oakes, while Reagan obviously wouldn't qualify as a mainstream Evangelical, from what I have read, his roots and core beliefs were very orthodox. You asserted that He wouldn't go along with "public confession" but that is exactly what he did in the Iran-Contra affair (as opposed to Clinton in the Lewinsky matter). And that public ownership of responsibility shot his approval rating through the roof. Americans know that our Presidents are flawed and simply want them to fess up and correct themselves when they are wrong. GWB did himself a world of hurt with his handling of the "WMD's" issue.

I agree that "public confession" must have the element of responsibility but also the element of change. In fact, I would argue that confession, ownership of your failure is the first step toward change. We would hope that GWB is no longer in need of "Someone to keep him from destroying his own life" through alcohol abuse 30 years after the fact. If his faith can't produce moral growth, it is flawed and needs to be reformed or rejected. But I would appreciate it if he looked outside of himself for guidance even in office, because he now has the power to destroy much more than his own life. If he has no humility in the face of ancient wisdom, he can destroy Rome in a day.

WholeHouseLibrary, I would take exception to the front man statement, if I may. All Presidents must be front men. (I take it that you mean to imply that Reagan was not in control nor had any real idea of what was being done in his name. I may have misread your post. If so, I am sorry and ignore the rest!) It is impossible to make every decision necessary for government. The best Presidents are those who effectively communicate a wholistic vision that permeates through the bureaucracy and the decisions that they make are consistent with that vision. And I believe that Reagan did that best of all recent presidents, back to probably Lincoln.

Oakes, that last paragraph in post 14 was quite cryptic and probably an outgrowth of some ideas that I am working on inside my little head. Perhaps a 10,000 word essay would help. But I'm betting it would end the thread...

Hi, I hesitate to enter the fray, in part because I have not read every word that has been written in this string. I skimmed. Sorry in advance if I repeat others' points.

A Christian nation is different from a Christian government.

The nation was obviously and predominantly Christian at the time of the secession and gaining of independence. But the government as such wasn't especially Christian. It was largely a product of the Enlightenment, as should be patently obvious. The biggest spectre haunting the Enlightenment mind was the religious wars at that time not long past. Hobbes excoriated "religious enthusiasm" as one of the great debilitators of social order, and the new watchword in politics was Toleration. This is not a Christian notion. Not really. Certainly the biggest churches did not practice it. It was up to secularists and schismatics to advance the notion of religious freedom, for the most part.

Further, a huge batch of the founders were Deists. They did NOT believe in Christian doctrine. And some, such as John Adams, were heterodox. Thomas Jefferson edited down the gospels, and could not get elected today; he would be bullied by evangelicals. He was certainly controversial at the time, but of course he had the support of Baptists, who were strongly for the SEPARATION of church and state. (Not what Baptists talk about today, about opposing the establishment of religion and supporting religious freedom; Baptists were all for erecting a wall of separation between church and state. Today's Baptists are almost to a man utterly ignorant of their history.)

Tom Paine went on to write the most famous attack upon all revealed religions, The Age of Reason. A little before that he also wrote the Treaty of Tripoli, and got Congress to sign off on it despite its central admission that the United States was no way, no how a "Christian nation"!

I have been arguing for years that we now live in a post-Christian society. I grew up Christian, and what I see popular now is very superficial. Very few Christians have a deep sense of sin. Most talk of "a Christian nation" is a substitute for real Christian zeal and activity. The churches of today, even fundamentalist, are depressingly anti-intellectual -- and even deeply secular -- clubs that support family life and the finding of sexual partners (a prime aspect of "family values" not often talked about: Christianity is, in a sense, "all about sex"; one of its chief social functions is facilitating sexual fulfilment -- I have little problem with this, but mention it because people tend not to see beyond standard prudish rhetoric what's really going on in religion).

There are exceptions, but I don't find modern, politicized Christians very Christian. I kind of miss the old days. Almost no one REALLY believes that Jesus could come at any time, with most expressions of that idea (so integral to early Christianity, now inexplicably nearly 2000 years old) shunted to the margins of Christian life, where it counts least (such as in that most irresponsible of realms, politics; hence the horrible, mind-numblingly foolish anti-environmentalist, Jim Watt).

Yes, you may have guessed it: I have a rational antagonism to Christianity. NOT (as was stated above) an "irrationally" hostile. I've studied the religions of ancient Egypt, Greece, Sumeria, and the Levant, as well as even the Americas, and I don't find the religious instinct all that impressive, and certainly find no evidence in any of element of its flourishing to encourage me to believe in any (even small thing) as supernatural or divine. The gods? They were and remain mere figments of man's fictionalization propensity among people who have trouble with honesty.

I recently finished Cicero's "The Nature of the Gods," and, had I not been an atheist before then, I would have become one after that pathetic batch of argumentation! Amusingly, this vast failure of a book was very much admired by medieval Christian scholars.

There's this idea, obviously of great import to Cicero, that Piety is preciously close to the summum bonum, and that this points to a supernaturalist doctrine. No, and no.

So, yes, I'm one of those awful secular humanist atheists. But I'd vote for Christian. And have.

What's interesting is how many Christians would never vote for an atheist, even if they agreed with them down the line on all political issues.

No surprise, but it does tell you something interesting about a person.

Of course, most Christian libertarians have voted for atheists, since many of the LP leaders, in any case, have been atheists. (Say, Harry Browne.)

But I do get along with most Christians, and keep mum about their wildly improbable (and often risible) beliefs when I dine with them, pal around. Etc.

When they talk politics, though, I don't let them get away with nonsense about the American government being based on Christian ideas.

And as for "the sanctity of the individual," well, that is an important idea. Is it important that it also has other sources than Christianity? Say: Stoicism and Epicureanism, both?

But that one notion remains a pretty weak reed on which to build a defense of the thesis that America's government is based on Christian ideas.

The central Christian notion, the Atonement, has no practical consequences for law and politicsl.

And you certainly can't go back to Jewish law to find a guide for political life. Most Jews as well as most Christians reject whole chunks of the law (most of which remains unread these days, anyway), and as for the Thirteen Commandments (uh, Ten Commandments), only two of them has any place in a court of law: Thou Shalt Not Steal, and Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against They Neighbor. All others, such as the "no other gods" clause, are either un-American (the U.S. allows mulitiple reliigions, that's key) or else unenforcable (honoring parents, coveting anything). Further, almost no Christian I know really wants to revert back to prosecuting adultery.

They just want to bad-mouth fags.

And of course most Christians I talk to don't even want to talk about heterosexual sodomy, or what churchgoers do with their mouths and genitals in the privacy of their marriage beds.

We live in, at best, a faux-Christian society. What people say in the polls about believing in God is almost meaningless. When it comes to living their lives, few would lay down their lives or take up the cross. Americans are comfortable hedonists, and will remain that way until the next Depression.

wirkman,

Welcome to the discussion. I enjoyed your post.

I like the distinction that you made between a Christian nation and a Christian Government. Although I would add that if the basic worldview of the nation is Christian, in a democratic society, that will inevitably flavor the government (as well it should).

I am not sure if all that follows applies directly to your arguments. It is just random thoughts that occurred to me as I read them.

What makes America "founded as a Christian nation" is embedded in the Declaration of Independence (written by the aforementioned Deist and editor, Jefferson). "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

He presupposes a Creator and argues that human rights flow from the dignity that derives from that creation. I would argue (as I have elsewhere on this site ad nauseum), that the only way human rights and therefore human laws can hold any power over us is if we were given dignity by creation. In other words, the founders of this country built this nation on laws and principles that were the direct consequence of their belief in a Creator, the Christian creator (and that does make a vast difference). Their belief was so strong that they were willing to plant the seeds of the possible destruction of the society and religion that loved in the Constitution, the establishment clause. It seems to me that their faith in the God of Christianity was greater than their faith in the church of Christianity.

Parallel to the American Revolution, the French were ready to throw off the bonds of tyranny but their basis was the Enlightenment alone (I agree that the Enlightenment had a powerful influence on the Founding Father's ideas, but Christianity stronger). The horror that transpired was predictable, as following historical experiments reiterated. Why? Without a basis for morality, man will always fall back on "will to power". Heck, even with a basis for morality, we go for it all the time.

I can see Paine as a great hero to libertarians (though, as a Deist, he had access to a reason for natural law) but am amazed that more atheists don't read Nietzsche as the logical outgrowth of their philosophy. I suppose that libertarianism is the most consistent choice for an atheist, but it seems to me that the far-right or the far-left would be safer in the long run! :)

I'll write a separate rejoinder for the church. Fascinating stuff!

wirkman,

Since you are new to the threads, I am a pastor of a traditional, southern, pentecostal church, (that does not bad mouth homosexuals, even if I don't agree with them). I am a conservative and was invited to this party as a resident foil and whipping boy, which I take great delight in. (My therapist will be racking up the billable hours...)

Where shall we start? A post-Christian society? In many important ways, absolutely. Especially among the University set. In other ways, we are more Christian than we have ever been before. Christians have been known to romanticize the past and ignore the plain facts. We have been electing heterodox Christians since the very beginning of our country. There have been periods of great religious fervor and periods of appalling apostasy, often overlapping. I'd say that the Christian influence in our country is close to as strong as it has ever been in history (perhaps with the exception of Prohibition, and that didn't work out too well). We have a populist government and people with Christian beliefs, so the influence is there, no matter how strong the denunciations from the Intelligentsia.

"What I see as popular now is very superficial" - Aren't those two the same thing? Or is "Dancing with the Stars" going to be around forever? But you are right. Most Christians are very superficial, as are most people in America. It is almost impossible to avoid it living in this culture. They don't have a deep sense of sin but that is mainly due to the church buying in to the therapeutic ideas of psychology (I'm OK, You're OK) and living in a culture steeped in self-esteem (did you see the headline about the narcissistic college students study? Ha! They should've taught school a few years. It would've saved them the need for the study!).

However, this has been the case throughout history. What matters is the leadership of any movement, of all the movements that are occurring at any given time. People follow their leaders, and there is a fresh leadership that is rising in American Christianity to take the place of the Falwells and Robertsons that place the emphasis on humility and servanthood. If that takes hold, you will see Christianity become a force again in culture. Remember, all Mother Teresa ever did was help poor people die with dignity. Yet, many great politicians gave her a stage to proclaim her faith and values to the world.

I, too, am depressed by the anti-intellectualism in the church, heck, in my church. All I can figure is that it is a kickback against the attacks the church has suffered at the hands of "educated" people. Poor response.

I love that stuff about church being all about sex. I have never heard it put that way and it gave me quite a chuckle. I've been sick for three days and I needed it. But, to some degree, you are right. Sex is integral to church because sex is integral to our humanity. It is one of our most powerful drives. As much as we would all like to picture ourselves as Vulcans, the truth is that our decisions are highly emotional and sex is often at the bottom of life-altering decisions. The church has been accused of de-valuing sex but I actually think that the "world" does that more (to echo G. K. Chesterton). Popular media would have you believe that sex is something that we can use casually, for enjoyment, the way we would an ice-cream. But the church recognizes the power of sex, the sanctity of sex, the beauty of sex, the holiness of sex. It is not Baskin Robbins 31 Varieties. Heck, even over-indulging or abusing ice-cream has life-altering consequences. How much more sex? I exist because of the back seat of a 57 Thunderbird. Our souls are intricately tied to what our bodies do. Don't take my word for it. Ask Bruce Springsteen, or any rock and roll band. Sex produces families. Building strong families are at the root of the church's mission at the root of what makes a great society, at the root of what makes a great nation. So, do we, as a church, exist to help find sex partners? You bet your booty, we do. And why do we not argue about what happens in a Christian couples bedroom? Hebrews 13:4. (Although, you know people argue about it. All the freakin' time and about anything they can think of. Why the heck do you think we are on this site to begin with? And you know that there are other scriptures that hold conditions. I have learned to clarify myself on this site, especially in the presence of Oakes.)

I did find your assertion that almost no one mentions Jesus coming anytime soon a little odd, considering the incredible success of the Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins. But I think that I know what you are talking about. I grew up in a poor mill town where the mill was dying and people didn't have much. We sang about Heaven, talked about Heaven, declared we didn't want any of "this old world's goods". Of course, we didn't know if we did want them or not, because we never had them. However, if we did get them, we immediately called it a blessing and thanked God for it. Well, since then, we have become rich. Atlanta grew this direction and now, we have money. And prospects for more. And earth looks pretty good if you have the cash. Of course, people aren't as happy now, divorces more common, more folk on anti-depressants, but if we had a little more cash, we could solve it. We have become so earthly minded that we are of no heavenly good. The 80's came, greed is good, and God is on TV. We can prosper if we give the right offering to the right televangelist. And so, no one much thinks about Heaven any more. It seems to me that those who care the most about Heaven often live the best on earth. That is a problem...

As far as the religion having no relation to law and politics, I would accuse you of being rather short-sighted, my friend. Humans are not Vulcans (I've said this somewhere before) that make decisions based on what the law says or how this will affect the political system. In fact, I so rarely think of the law or politics it is quite shameful. And I would assert that most people are rather like me. But all politics are local. Political systems and laws only exist to facilitate social and legal relationships, to govern the interaction between people. If theology is what we believe about God and the nature of the Universe, then every law, every court decision, every election is making a statement about what we believe the Universe is really like, that life will be better if we hold and enforce this principle. Since I believe that objective truth exists, I believe that our choices either line up with that truth, and will bring good results, or contradict it and will bring bad results. This is the reason people vote the way they do, choosing what they believe is right and wrong, good and bad, fair or unfair, based on what they believe. The failure of Nazi Germany was not necessarily in the political system but in the choices and morals of the people. They chose those leaders, allowed those laws, no one (much) preached against it, stirred up the righteous indignation of the believers and non-believers. A little faith among the unwashed masses would've saved millions of lives.

As far as being hedonists, what's wrong with that? Everybody is a hedonist, even ascetics. The apostle Paul: "God, who giveth us all things richly to enjoy". Heaven: Eternal joy and plenty. In fact, hedonism is one of the great reasons that I believe in God. Maybe you can explain life and existence by evolution (I have my reservations, but maybe. That's all you get and it is grudgingly given.) but pleasure makes no sense in evolutionary terms. Pleasure is a gift. It is extra. The sun must set, says physics, but its beauty is a gift from God. I may be driven to sex for reproduction but the pleasure I get from my beautiful wife is a gift from God. Just to look at her makes me think that God was in a really nifty mood the day he designed women. Words can evolve for communication. But the wonderment of poetry is a gift.

The problem is that some have confused hedonism with licentiousness. Everything that your emotions crave will not bring you the pleasure and peace you desire. Ask your local crack addict. Or, watch Oprah this afternoon. We all are searching for peace of heart and body. Christianity makes the claim that we have the original owners manual, and that if we will live by it, we will find the peace that we desire. It also claims that we are fundamentally broken people. And without help and restoration from above and outside us, we can never achieve it. And I would say that the evidence that we are broken people is overwhelming. Otherwise, why would we need laws and government at all?

The thirteen commandments crack was an over-simplification of the facts. The law of Moses was much more involved than just the Ten Commandments. In fact, the first five books of the Old Testament is known as the law of Moses. Throughout it is contained a legal system that, according to the testimony of the founders, at least influenced the way they set up the American legal system. Of course, they were more influenced by the British system, which was also influenced by the Mosaic law, etc., until boredom reaches its height...

Now, I always write these long essays, and it is the fault of Oakes and his ilk. I know that I will have to explain myself more fully later, so I try to head it off. Sometimes, I think they do it just to see if I will write a long reply. But I will quit now and make excuses later. From the hedonist in me to the hedonist in you, have fun today.

markmobley,

Not really on topic, but that doesn't seem to be a requirement, so. . . . :-)

Apropos of current notions about heaven, I'd be interested in your comments on what seems to me to be a recent trend to regard "valuing life" as requiring that it be prolonged at all costs. Not many of the Christian spokesmen who get the TV time seem to think that heaven is preferable to artificial life support these days. I gather that some of them oppose living wills. While my Catholic religious education included the doctrines that abortion and euthanasia were sins, dying was not in itself considered "a bad thing." It was a joyous transformation for the person who was headed for heaven, and he was under no obligation to bankrupt himself, and then look to the taxpayers, to put it off as long as technologically possible.

myshelves,

I agree entirely. Most of the men you see on television espousing such have never been in the hospital room with a dying person and their family, nor have they seen the shell of a person hang on for months and years with no movement or feedback. I cannot find anything scripturally that would require me to value life to that point. In fact, I would assert that death is an integral part of life and should be done well. I have already instructed my wife that I do not wish to be on life support with the exception of very temporary circumstances.

The only life support that I can find in the Bible was for King David. they found the most beautiful virgin in the Kingdom and stuck her into bed naked with him. Now, I'm not sure what it means and you don't hear that one quoted or preached on much, but it is very funny.

I think most of what you see is a reaction against the fear of euthanasia slipping in. "Give them an inch and they take a mile". But some inches aren't really ours to defend.

Throughout the scriptures you see the patriarchs almost choosing to lie down and die. It is almost like they knew their mission was finished. They blessed their families, gave instructions, and gave up the ghost. And much peace came from it. All I see now is families torn by guilt if they don't bankrupt themselves and the country, and no peace with the suffering of their loved one who is being kept alive artificially.

markmobley,

I hope that you are part of a "silent majority." :-)

But the men I see on TV represent organizations that spend a lot of money backing political candidates and lobbying for legislation and for appointment of judges who agree with them. If others don't speak out. . . .

P.S. You'd better put those instructions to your wife in writing, in proper legal form, unless you want to put her through having to argue with doctors and maybe fight in the courts to carry out your wishes.

I don't know if I am in the majority or not. I know that I have very little political influence. But I do have influence over the people in my congregation, to some degree (TV has opened up a lot of new voices into their lives. Like everything else in this world, that is both a blessing and a curse). All I can do is teach simplicity. But like I said in the earlier post (which I applaud you for wading through), there is a changing of the guard. What comes out of it, I don't think is settled. But I don't cringe nearly as much when I see Rick Warren on TV as I do when I see Falwell or Robertson. There are younger men, like Rob Bell who may yet find a voice. Hope springs eternal.

No time for a full reply to the well-mannered pastor-poster, but I do wish to bring up one thing at the moment:

As far as being hedonists, what's wrong with that? Everybody is a hedonist, even ascetics. The apostle Paul: "God, who giveth us all things richly to enjoy". Heaven: Eternal joy and plenty. In fact, hedonism is one of the great reasons that I believe in God. Maybe you can explain life and existence by evolution (I have my reservations, but maybe. That's all you get and it is grudgingly given.) but pleasure makes no sense in evolutionary terms. Pleasure is a gift. It is extra.

That conclusion about pleasure making no evolutionary sense has me stumped. Evolutionary explanation in biology almost REQUIRES pleasure. And pain. These are the carrot and stick that help organisms adapt to their environments. Without pleasure, without pain, there would be no life. Adaptation, sexual selection . . . fight or flight, the territorial imperative . . . all these things depend on pleasure and pain.

Of course, my point about hedonism was not made in the spirit of foundationalist philosoph. My mention of hedonism was to contrast the ways of modern Americans with the other-worldliness of the basic Christian texts. Which I have read. I am quite aware of the assumed egoistic hedonism of the Beatitudes. My mention was not a foundational philosophical usage, but a simple, everyday contrast of the worldly ways of modern Christians with the other-worldy, messianic, Kingdom-of-Heaven fervor of the early Christians. And even the abstinence morality of the Puritans. Modern Christians lay up their treasures on earth like the rest of us, and their otherworliness leaks out only in a few weak spots. I'm not impressed. Sorry. But no one has reason to be impressed with my loose usage of the term, hedonism, either.

But, in my defense, I should note that the hedonism defined by the pastor has the same philosophical problems associated with it that psychological egoism has: there are, if believed, no counter-examples. So the term, if such arguments are accepted as foundational, has no ethical usage, no evaluative punch. Everybody's a hedonist, including the person who takes a whip and scourges himself, including the martyr burned on the pyre. Including, even, the man who scorns pleasure and abstains from all luxury. Including Job in the ash heap. At this point, hedonism as a practical word becomes meaningless.

My basic problem with Christianity is that its main doctrines are not true. Every day I marvel that people believe in an afterlife, in Heaven, in Hell, in a triune Deity, all that, and (less defendable yet) the quaint notion in the infallibility of an obviously contradictory (if in parts quite wondrous) anthology. All these beliefs for which there is no evidence whatsoever, and mounting counter-evidence!

NO evidence? Well, that's a strong claim. I stick by it. But must run. Sorry.

Of course, on a list devoted to liberty, I should not be attacking religion, eh? "All religions are valid" is what I'm supposed to say.

Just encourage religionists to respect liberty, and let the rest take care of itself!

Trouble is, there are a number of issues these days that I don't trust many religious people on at all. And some posts to this group strengthen my worries. These issues include:

1. Global Warming.

2. Education.

3. Marriage laws.

My biggest problem is with the top two. I have a great deal of trouble trusting anyone who believes the world was created ex nihilo six or seven thousand years ago or so.

This affects the question of global warming, since much of the evidence to compare is from Antarctic ice, core samples going back tens of thousands of years beyond Genesis, and the geological record, which goes back millions and millions of years.

Recommended book relevant to global warming? When Life Nearly Died by Michael Benton. There was a decadal extinction at the end of the Permian period. The author puts together the evidence for the mass extinction, and comes up with a reasonable theory as to how it happened. His tentative conclusion? CO2 increased as a result of massive volcanic action in Siberia (the evidence is there, and the dating seems accurate) to the point that global warming occurred and the ice caps melted enough to release trapped methane in the polar regions (particularly oceanic and shoreline) to create a series of "methane burps" that killed off most life on the planet.

This is interesting, and worth considering. It's real science, not Al Gore scientism, and it's a danger inherent in man-made (or other factor-made) global climate shift.

But can one honestly take seriously the thoughts of people who don't accept the evidence of ancient ice core samples or the geological record?

This being said, I have voted for Christians, and will probably continue to do so. But they won't be fundamentalists any longer. If you believe that the earth is less than 8,000 years old, what won't you believe?

(This last crack parallels something Chesterton said. But I've more reason to make the point. I try to believe things based on evidence. Not hope. Not faith. Not my group affiliation.)

I nominate Message 44 for the most ridiculous post of the year award.

In another thread the author of 44 admitted to being a troll. So I suggest just sitting back and enjoying the show.