Within the Treaty of Tripoli, unanimously adopted by the United States Senate in 1797 and signed by President John Adams are the words:
“the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
Discuss.
Seems like Jesus lives rent free in your noggin.
Are you referring to the video of the Sunday sermon I recently posted in this space?
I’m referring to your habit of returning to topics related to this and how anxious you seem to be about it.
Yep, that pastor was pretty worked up. Jesus is living in there entirely rent free. Some walking around with that condition do have a healthy fear of the state pushing its point of view upon the citizens: https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/west-virginia-v.-barnette-the-freedom-to-not-pledge-allegiance
Others are perfectly fine with being ruled.
So do I. I’ve just got a feeling that’s not really what bothers you.
This is your opportunity to share.
What an opportunity.😆
I would suggest the founding documents, the Declaration and the Constitution, are absolutely based on Judeo-Christian principles. Does the Constitution give any religion preference one over another? No, but it also doesn’t say that religion doesn’t have a place in the public square.
Go look at the other rival political systems to our system. Every one of them attempts to wipe out religious freedom as early as possible.
Name one.
Why was representative democracy invented, and lost (for two millennia), both prior to the birth of Christ?
How did Christianity survive 1750 years without democracy? How did Judaism survive much longer than that?
What was sought was not a Christian Nation, but a democratic/republic that allowed citizens to believe and practice and worship whatever and however they want, including in a public square if one so chooses.
Hard to square deeply entrenched Catholic bigotry and antisemitism in a nation that values the Judeo and the Christian above all. If the idea is to incorporate the actual beliefs of the time why not say we were founded as a “Protestant Nation?”
Is it because it loses some electoral fuel?
But the point that proponents of this always seem to miss, intentionally or otherwise, is how is a Buddhist or a muslim or an atheist a proper citizen, or a fully formed citizen, in a Christian Nation?
Why the fuck did a Muslim fight alongside George Washington in his battle against a nation with a STATE SPONSORED PROTESTANT CHURCH called the Church of England?
Christian nationalism is a concept that is ahistorical, anti-factual and illogical.
Why is it that it’s ok for liberal Christians to use their belief system as a way to enact political change, but when conservatives do the same thing, it’s called out of bounds (Christian nationalism is just the phrase of the day)? I’m genuinely curious.
I think Hawley is a demagogue by the way just as the person he replaced was.
I don’t think anything is “out of bounds.” The question for me is never who is promoting the idea. My questions will always come down to:
does it work?
AND
is it consistent with the constitution?
And yes the left will use Christ’s teachings as a cudgel to get money to feed hungry kids. I have no problem with that. The good part is that you can share that value even if you aren’t a believer which is important. Its after all a human value not merely a religious one. If there is an equivalent on the right that you are referring to, share it.
Ok – you opened the door for this and I’m not going to get into a debate on this issue, but respect for life in the womb. I don’t think Christ’s teachings and the writings on those in the early church would agree that aborting babies is a good thing.
By the way, I believe this issue in particular is one to be decided at the state level based on the 10th amendment. If Alabama wants significant restrictions on the procedure and New York wants no restrictions, the citizens in the other state shouldn’t care.
Making someone else come to the same conclusion at the point of a gun isn’t, in my view, consistent with either Christianity or the constitution. I would never participate in that decision and have always encouraged others not to make that choice. I never thought: I wish I could call the cops on my pregnant sister cause I think she may sin if I don’t.
Federalism is in what Book?
I don’t think anyone thinks that abortion is a “good” thing. But, if it were an evil act, why would God provide the recipe for how to perform an abortion on a woman whose husband suspects has been unfaithful?
Numbers 5: 11-31
Grafton-
That passage is not a recipe for abortion. I don’t know where you got that from.
If a wife was unfaithful, her “womb would shrivel,” meaning she could not bear children in the future due to the “curse” from drinking the water with a little dust and ink in it. The water itself would not cause an abortion. This ceremony was prescribed for when a husband suspected his wife was unfaithful, but didn’t have proof.
If she were already found to be pregnant due to being unfaithful, the husband would have the proof needed to find her guilty and could have her stoned to death.
But, this ritual was intended to protect women from a jealous husband. He couldn’t lawfully take action against his wife without proof. He had to go to a priest for this ritual, who acted as a third-party arbiter, and either the woman was fine or she wasn’t, and the husband was to accept that outcome.
Name one principle … the value and quality nherest rights of the individual. Flawed humans haven’t lived up to that … no doubt about it.
inherent
Would not Marx and Engels say the same thing as to their philosophy?
No, they valued the collective and class over the individual.
In order to allow the individual to prosper without being exploited by class systems capitalism tends to form. You can argue with whether it works as intended but the intention of communism was never: fuck the individual. It was intended to free the individual from being nothing more than a disposable worker bee.
It isn’t founded on the Christian religion, sure. Its system of laws, however, is based on the Judeo-Christian ethic. Many of the original pilgrims were searching for freedom from secularization, and after the abuses by the Kings in the Church of England, everyone decided a state religion was a bad idea. But, they didn’t agree that religion was a bad idea.
The idea of Christian Nationalism, though, is silly. Anyone touting this is using “faith” in a power ploy. Christianity doesn’t belong to any nation, nor does any nation belong to it. The Chrisitan Church is made up of individuals from all over the globe without respect to nationality, language, or tribe. Its mission is to see all who are willing come to salvation in Christ. That doesn’t mean you force it down everyone’s throat. But, Christians should still be able to influence the society in which they live through democratic means and cultural commentary. That means promoting Christian principles and beliefs about marriage, life, criminal laws, etc.
Christianity is not in direct conflict with classical liberalism. The ideas of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from government intervention in our lives, etc. are all in alignment with Christian values. Free and open debate is good. The free exchange of ideas is good. Identify the best ideas and scrap the rest. The issue is that classical liberalism is dead in our current political environment. The left is an amoral communist mess. The right is an amoral pluralistic mess. There is no place for Christian conservatism. Christians who want to participate in and influence elections (and by result, society at large) are faced with siding with one of these terrible groups. (I would argue this is a waste of time that could be better spent sharing the love of Christ with a neighbor, but who am I to judge? I’m writing a comment on a blog.)
Do I think the answer to the world’s problems is found in Christ? Yes, I do. There is a better way. All ways are not equal. For example, God’s design for the family is a better way to raise kids. One man and one woman together in marriage. Following God’s design is better and leads to better outcomes, even if you don’t actually believe in God or seek to follow His ways. Focusing on family and community and serving one another instead of yourself… also good things. The inverse is also true: not following God’s design leads to problems. Divorce is bad. Drug and alcohol abuse are destructive. Murder, theft, violence, etc…. all evil. Societies that glamorize bad things and detest good things are destined to fail.
As Paul wrote to the churches in Galatia in Galatians 5:19-23 – “Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, moral impurity, promiscuity, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and anything similar. I am warning you about these things – as I warned you before – that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. The law is not against such things.”
I have no idea what you are trying to say with the link to Ayman A. Taha’s bio, but I appreciate his service and his sacrifice.
I normally reserve this comment for something that makes me close to spitting my coffee on my phone or keyboard, but this warrants a …
Post of the day!
That suggesting that he fought and died for a Christian Nation is an insult to his sacrifice and that the adherents to that Christian nationalism nonsense should recognize that you are eliminating quite a few potential recruits if you try to narrow of nation’s values down to a single religion. Why should people of other religions or without religion wear the uniform of a Christian military or sacrifice for a Christian nation? And btw, who decides who is a Christian? What are the qualifications? Who gets to decide? Is it that Robert Morris’s of the world?
I certainly would never suggest that religion is bad or that those beliefs shouldn’t be part of how one makes decisions as a citizen. I posted in this space that rights endowed by a “Creator” is an important concept. I would merely suggest that I don’t think my religion makes me a better American than an atheist or a Buddhist or a Muslim. What makes an American is two things in my view, also posted in this space, neither of which can be found in a religious text:
Egalitarianism and investment is what America is about. You deviate off that road and you’re going to quickly find yourself somewhere between full of shit and dangerous.
I’ve read that bio three times, and I still haven’t found a mention of his religion anywhere. Did you know him personally, or is he famous for being a Muslim or something? Is that the point you are trying to make?
I also think you would find a lot of left-leaning Americans would disagree with both of your bullet point qualifications to be an American.
2. I only speak for myself.
The 1st Amendment is undefeated the last time I checked. Not sure why this is news or worthy of discussion. Christians have always had a strong say in our way of life since we started this grand experiment. That said, anyone who can watch what is going on in western Europe….France in particular, and not be concerned has their head in the sand. Some religions consider us infidels and better off dead. They are not interested in our laws, human rights, or tolerance in any way and they are not interested in a debate about it. How about you opine about them instead of focusing on folks who, last I checked, do not cut non believers heads off?
Let’s have a debate on who is pro-Ayatollah? Why? If you’re taking the pro side I’ll consider it. Otherwise, I’m not sure how much we would have to talk about there. I think we’re all against religious zealotry as being hostile to human freedom and democracy, at least theoretically. Some of us allow themselves to become blinded if that zealotry is of our particular flavor.
Much to everyone’s discontent, you have managed to keep your little weekly sermon on this site. How? I have no idea. (Anyone have a theory? ) But instead of posting diverse, relevant topics that stir interesting discussion….as the Senator did, you are jusy taking low hanging fruit that you are well versed in, and using it to attack the values of the mostly southern conservative readership. As a long time visitor of GTP, I happen to know you have mild contempt for the majority of us. This is just really lazy in my opinion. Do better or leave us alone.
I’ll be around until the woke mob of cancel culture gets me.
I have contempt for stupid and for hypocrisy. I don’t care what your belief system is or whether I come to the same conclusion as you do about the topic. My question is: can you defend your position? Does it apply equally to every like circumstance? Or you changing your “rules” the moment the facts change? At bottom, the issue is: have you really thought this through OR are you mimicking everyone and everything around you?
As far as contempt for southern or conservative or both that’s just silly as that would be nearly everyone I am related to or have met in my life. In fact, as I have said in this space, that there is nothing worse than the intellectual left.
If I were doing this in San Francisco or Manhattan I would be getting called a fascist rather quickly. But I’m not. It I were, the topics would reflect that. For example, I was in Boulder, CO yesterday. No chik-fil-a. We know why. And that’s fucking stupid. I’d be happy to tell that to them. I did it in NYC when a magazine either the New Yorker or New York Magazine published the article “Chik-Fil-A’s Creepy Invasion of Manhattan” or some such nonsense. My commentary on that was as is typical “under appreciated.” Point is that I will argue with any one of any ideology no matter what if I think they are being full of shit. I am not running for office or passing a collection plate.
I am not seeking adherents, consensus or applause anywhere I go. As for playpen topics am merely trying to:
View his entire 30 minute speech. He clearly explains and justifies his position (giving context to the snippet posted). At the 25 minute mark he differentiates “Christian Nationalism”. There is much to like…and dislike…about what he says. An unvarnished appeal to populism some would like to see the Republican Party turn too. The far more interesting discussion is if America will see an emergence of a true 3rd party. The Republican Party is deeply fractured and losing its former unifying features. The Democratic Party has lost touch with centrist principles to appeal to the widest and most extreme points of view in order to grow the biggest tent. Will mainstream America pull one side back to one or both parties? Given how money buys votes it is more likely we see further fracturing of the electorate in 4 years with more than 2 viable candidates leading the way. Our two party primary system is an huge impediment (or protective wall?) to a more European style system of various groups forming coalitions, but that’s actually what our Founding Fathers foresaw more than the rigid two party system we have today.
I’ll believe third party when I see it. Without a parliamentary system, it just doesn’t happen. It will always be two. Not necessarily the same two, but always two.
In my view, that’s a pretty good outcome because both sides are incentivized to get to 50% plus 1 so they go to where the people are. Then that majority reaps what it sows and is rewarded or penalized the next cycle.
That assumes concession and peaceful transition of course.
Neither party seems interested in 50% right now. The “middle” is being taken for granted having to choose among the least worse. Someone with the money to back them could have a third party run as a centrist and grab just enough electoral college votes to make things interesting.
I disagree with that. Both sides have rationally decided that chasing undecideds is a waste of time and that what matters is enthusiasm. Whether its driven by fear or hope or both, the idea is to get your people out and make their people opt out.
The problem with chasing the middle is the “Rino” issue and that’s both sides have that problem. The second you seek broad appeal, you risk alienating your base, i.e, you risk your enthusiasm levels. So it doesn’t really happen. Everyone is on their team and no one knows what the few who say they are undecided are thinking.
It doesn’t matter if Taha’s religion was muslin or of some alien religion we’ve never heard of. He made a choice of donning an American uniform for a Christian army. I can promise you he was vetted left, right, up the middle and every way possible before he was allowed to wear the uniform with American soldiers.
There sure are a lot of not Christian symbols used by that army…
https://www.cem.va.gov/hmm/emblems.asp
Maybe you should write a letter.
I guess we can say we appreciate their service to our nation of different religions. How that?
Separation of one’s religious identity, if any, from the duties and responsibilities of citizenship would be preferable. No different rules for religion than for sex, race, sexual identity, etc… No category memberships make anyone more or less of an American. If I’m in a “forward area” I really don’t care if the soldier next to me likes both men and Allah yet rejects bacon. Silly though he may be, I’d be more interested in whether he can hit what he’s aiming at.
Tim Alberta touches on this in his book “The Kingdom, the Power and the Glory”. He dives into the marriage of the evangelical church and conservative politics, beginning with Jerry Falwell’s switch from pro-segregation to pro-life after segregation proved to no longer be a popular issue within the evangelical world. Alberta describes this as the final grasp for influence of a dying generation that’s seen its grip on the political and culture wane over the years. In their fear and desperation, they’ve become willing to hitch their wagon to anyone willing to give them the vision of America they believe belongs to them. If that means unwavering support for a philandering, thrice married, real estate developer from New York that has welcomed hard core Christian Nationalists into the tent, so be it.
Growing up in the southern evangelical culture in the 90’s, I distinctly remember church leaders repeating the phrase “character matters” in response to Clinton’s moral failings. They also propagated the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation and to be a good Christian meant being a good patriot. It’s quite the head scratcher now considering the unwavering support for a guy whose words and behavior are the antithesis of The Gospel. Particularly in light of his recent conviction for paying hush money to an adult film star to keep quiet about an affair. To them, he’s God’s anointed warrior and any attack on him is an attack of the faith and our nation. Any dissenting ideas or questions come with the risk of being labeled a leftist, a RINO and a heretic (Examples: Dr. Russell Moore, Beth Moore and David French).
Beware of the faith healer who wears glasses…all of this is bull shit …unless the guy has an explosive backpack and 72 rubbers he’s not there fighting for religion…the guys on the front line are fighting for Freedom and the people they are fighting want to take away freedom.
Ladies and gents,
I don’t know what SSG Taha would have wanted with regards to this conversation; I didn’t really know him even though he served in one of my sister battalions. I would, however, suppose that he wouldn’t want his ultimate sacrifice to be weaponized and cheapened by being a point of argument on an internet sports blog. Taha was a brother that gave his life whatever his religion and he deserves better than a link to prove a point.
To all sentient beings and all non-sentient atomic and subatomic matter across the entirety of the known, and unknown, universe, including, but not limited to, those to be found within undiscovered dimensions,
I should have thought about that before I undertook the duty of fully honoring the fallen soldier, as was obviously my goal, task and responsibility. An effort to illustrate that a sitting US Senator had insulted the sacrifice of all non-Christian service members, and that such examples actually exist, should never have been undertaken in the first place as it would necessarily fall short of the mark required leaving the Senator’s insulting words to stand in an unchallenged form for all us to just shut the fuck up about as is Jesus’s plan. Upon reflection and in retrospect, I apologize unreservedly.
btw, had I faked bone spurs to dodge a draft, questioned a POW’s status as a hero, insulted a Gold Star family, taken the word of a Russian dictator over that of US intelligence, and been quoted by a Marine General as calling our war dead “suckers and losers” would you send me a political contribution? Buy a hat maybe? Could I count on you for three straight votes for president, perhaps?
If not, how much time did you take out of your day to respond indignantly to something that actually fucking matters? Because, pro-tip here, I don’t.
Congrats, I think you may well have moved beyond contemplation into full participation.