US founded on "Christian Principles"?

Could you please cite your New Testament sources for the above "Christian Principles?"
Click to expand...
Christianity is limited to the New Testament now? Last time I checked, it was a two-part deal, with the Old Testament included.
 
Last edited:
Safe-Keeper said:
Christianity is limited to the New Testament now? Last time I checked, it was a two-part deal, with the Old Testament included.
Click to expand...

It is a kind of "mythology buffet", where you get to pick and choose which bits you think should count, depending on how you feel on any given day.
 
Piggy said:
Surprisingly, no one has yet pointed out that this motto was adopted in 1956, and therefore is completely irrelevant to any discussion of founding principles.

It is more relevant to a discussion of the cold war.
Click to expand...

Most of us are about done with correcting DOC's lies... it isn't as though he pays any attention, after all. :rolleyes:
 
articulett said:
Aren't there two versions of the commandments? Either old and new testament or Catholic and Protestant versions?
Click to expand...

There are many versions of the commandments in that section of Exodus.

The redactors of the Torah preserved several threads of tradition, often splicing them together -- just look at Genesis 1-2 for a sample of that. And the differences between the oldest and newest traditions can be night and day.

For instance, compare the most ancient commandment text (from the nomadic period) requiring that altars be made out of earth and unhewn stone (with no steps) with the most recent text (from the national period) which lays out in great detail the requirments for a shrine elaborate enough to embarrass Liberace.

Reading the account of God's commandments to Israel is like seeing a dozen remakes of a film all cut apart and reconstituted, with the action stopping, restarting, stopping again, then restarting in a slightly or even radically different version.

The portion of Exodus which actually bears the designation "10 commandments" is not the bit that modern Americans think of when we use the term. If you want to win a bar bet, just wager that your mark can't name 2 of the 10 commandments. If you have a Bible handy, you'll win, even if your mark can recite Exodus 20 verbatim.
 
skeptical said:
I have heard this mantra, or something similar, repeated many times in recent days: "The US is founded on Christian Principles"

Now, I have read the US Constitution many times. I have taken a Constitutional law course. I have even waded through some of "The common law". And I cannot for the life of me figure out what this phrase is supposed to mean.

As far as I can tell, there are no Christian principles in the US Constitution, with the possible exception of the endorsement of slavery.

I understand that the people making these statements really aren't even trying to do an analysis, its just something they think sounds good. But is there even the remotest shred of evidence behind this claim?
Click to expand...
You are correct, it is a big lie and some clever revisionist history.

While the Wiki entry's neutrality is disputed, the following still depicts real events that are relative to the OP.

EvangelicalismWP
....Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court decision rendered in 1973 preventing states from making laws that prohibit abortion, is the most prominent landmark of a new era of conservative evangelical political action, unprecedented in its intensity and coordination. ...
Click to expand...
"Abortion and homosexuality are sins" is typical of the rallying cry. There is some dispute as to what role the revocation of a certain tax exempt status for religious institutions which discriminated in hiring practices played as the actual underlying political catalyst and whether or not the anti-abortion issue was merely a political ploy to rally the troops round the wagons. Regardless, that is the current catalyst for the movement. That and the well worn but continually successful, "Christians are persecuted" rally cry, that is.


The mass-appeal of the Christian right in the so-called red states, and its success in rallying resistance to certain social agendas, is sometimes alleged as an attempt to impose theocracy on an otherwise and secular society.[14] There are indications that the belief is widespread among conservative evangelicals in the USA that Christianity should enjoy a privileged place in American public life according its importance in American life and history.[15] Accordingly, those evangelicals often strenuously oppose the expression of other faiths in schools or in the course of civic functions. For example, when Venkatachalapathi Samuldrala became the first Hindu priest to offer an invocation before Congress in 2000, the September 21 edition of the online publication operated by the Family Research Council, Culture Facts, raised objection:

"While it is true that the United States of America was founded on the sacred principle of religious freedom for all, that liberty was never intended to exalt other religions to the level that Christianity holds in our country's heritage. The USA's founders expected that Christianity--and no other religion--would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples' consciences and their right to worship. They would have found utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism, be treated with equal deference."
Click to expand...


My personal assessment is that a number of power seeking men (sorry guys, point out the power seeking evangelical ladies and I'll modify my position) have simply seized on this theme to promote their own positions of perceived importance. In doing so they have built a mini empire of political strategists, political leaders in the Republican Party, well financed organizations seeking to influence political decisions such as the Discovery Institute and the Heritage Foundation, (a marriage of religious and financial motive interests), and a base of followers ready to support these men on their personal quests for power and influence.

The Falwells and the Dobsons nourished their egos on this damaging movement. It snowballed into the Neocon, right wing, Evangelical, anti-science, anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-your 'personal experience with Jesus' and 'waiting for the rapture' movement we see today. Cheney, Rove, and all the rest of the Bushies including GW have used this "base" to propel their own political power grabs with varying degrees of Evangelical convictions but certainly no qualms about sucking up to these believers. Of course McCain can't seem to quit them. He also seems to have no qualms sucking up now, despite previous claims of not being one of them in the past.

This is not to say all believers and all Republicans are part of this travesty. Unfortunately only recently have many Evangelicals begun questioning the notion, "the environment be damned, we'll be raptured before it matters". And it seems that, publicly anyway, only recently are many Evangelicals are beginning to recognize human rights abuses are much more atrocious sins than being gay.

Many Republicans are finally having a hard time with GW's f***** up war policies and outrageously wasteful and corrupt spending on that war. Even hard core right wingers must have at least been shocked, if not outraged at the aftermath of Katrina and Bush's, "Heck of a job Brownie" comments. Though I think it is still a tad too easy for those hard right wingers to buy the lie that people didn't leave when they could have. No transportation, no place to go is easily forgotten or disbelieved. I can't help thinking some of them must be thinking, Katrina could have happened to them.

Well, that's my perception of the claims we were originally a "Christian Nation".
 
Last edited:
Piggy said:
Covenants in that time and place were rather formulaic. The bit about being the Lord your God is not one of the commandments. Consider it a kind of preamble.

Carry on.
Click to expand...
You mean "God" had to introduce himself?? Doesn't seem very godlike if you ask me.
 
JoeEllison said:
Yeah... you can hate the gays, and still claim to be part of a "religion of peace" and be forgiven for all the crappy things you do.
Click to expand...
OK...topic swerve. I know a guy who is the stereotypical "flamer." He is a christian and unhesitatingly says that homosexuality is a sin according to his beliefs. He has actually buried or supressed his "activity" yet his feelings are still present and as i said extremely visible. How is that possible and can't he see that it isn't a loving god that threatens you with "hell" for being yourself.
 
I heard that many people think the "golden rule" (do unto others...) is a commandment. It's not, though, is it?
 
~enigma~ said:
OK...topic swerve. I know a guy who is the stereotypical "flamer." He is a christian and unhesitatingly says that homosexuality is a sin according to his beliefs. He has actually buried or supressed his "activity" yet his feelings are still present and as i said extremely visible. How is that possible and can't he see that it isn't a loving god that threatens you with "hell" for being yourself.
Click to expand...

You don't really want to know... it is probably a really, really ugly thing. :( I'll not derail the thread with a discussion of child abuse, if you don't mind.
 
~enigma~ said:
You mean "God" had to introduce himself?? Doesn't seem very godlike if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Well, that's because you have a modern notion of God.

Keep in mind, this was a god who lived on a mountaintop. Literally.

And in those days, Hebrew religion was henotheistic -- that is to say, their god wasn't the only one around, just the one that kicked the most ass.

Also, don't forget that the word "Lord" in "the Lord your God" is not the original text. "Lord" is a placeholder for the actual name of the god.

So the original text reads something like "I am Fred, your manager."
 
Piggy said:
Well, that's because you have a modern notion of God.

Keep in mind, this was a god who lived on a mountaintop. Literally.

And in those days, Hebrew religion was henotheistic -- that is to say, their god wasn't the only one around, just the one that kicked the most ass.

Also, don't forget that the word "Lord" in "the Lord your God" is not the original text. "Lord" is a placeholder for the actual name of the god.

So the original text reads something like "I am Fred, your manager."
Click to expand...
Actually in any notion of "God" the act of him (or her) introducing himself (or herself) is not godlike by any means.
 
articulett said:
I heard that many people think the "golden rule" (do unto others...) is a commandment. It's not, though, is it?
Click to expand...

Oh, boy, you're gonna make me have to dive back into the scriptures.

I recall in Matthew, Jesus responds to a Sadducee's question about the "greatest commandment" with a version of the golden rule (love your neighbor as yourself) as the second of the 2 great commandments, next to loving God with all your soul and mind.

It is unlikely that Jesus' response to this question would be original with him, i.e. would be his doctrine. The Sadducees and Pharisees questioning him would not have put any value on anything other than a direct reference to accepted scripture of the day.

I do not recall, at the moment, whether a source in the current Biblical canon can be associated with Jesus's reference here, or whether he is citing a writing which has been lost or is not included in the contemporary Christian Bible.

Maybe someone else can help me out here.

If not, I'll try to find time this weekend to look into it.
 
~enigma~ said:
BTW, I wouldn't be so quick assuming what my notions are...
Click to expand...

I'm not assuming.

If you find the need for the introductory pre-amble to be "ungodlike", then you are engaging in modern, not ancient, notions of God.
 
Piggy said:
I'm not assuming.

If you find the need for the introductory pre-amble to be "ungodlike", then you are engaging in modern, not ancient, notions of God.
Click to expand...
Ok...and how did you learn the ancent notion of god? Was it time travel?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom