July 4, 1776 - July 4, 2011

[TraneWreck]

I am well able to distinguish between hard science and human behaviour and law. Trying to cause confusion between the two doesn't mean that you can just dismiss my arguments.

It's a poor distinction, that's the problem. The only difference is the clarity of the break with Christian tradition. God so completely neglected to inform his chosen people of the best way to figure things out that the scientific method is an alien concept.

Most of the law and policy contained in the Constitution is similarly alien, the difference being that the Bible and Christian thought contain some laws and some social structure, even if they are infinitely mockable. The break in philosophy therefore superficially appears to be less drastic than the scientific differences, but they are as dramatic. Spend a thousand years reading the Bible and you'll never develop the notion of a bi-cameral legislature.

In the same way that Newton was a Christian who developed scientific theories, Descartes was a Christian who developed philosophical theories.

Hell, Descartes is a really good example of this. He CLEARLY believed in God, he was raised in the Catholic church. He never wrote anything that expressly contradicted Christian dogma, but he wasn't enthusiastic enough in supporting it. The fact that he rooted his epistemology in something other than God caused a great deal of hysteria. He left France for the much less extreme Netherlands, but nevertheless, he was so frightened by the CHurch comdemnation of Galileo that he avoided publishing one of his more important works.

How can you call his theories (which, though he was a rationalist, were hugely influential to empiricists like Locke who are directly represented in the Constitution), Christian theories? He had to censor and edit his work for fear of condemnation, and he fled his home country. It seems odd that you would credit "Christianity" for his theories when Christianity was prepared to pluck out his eyes for having the audacity to think about stuff.

 

[westprog]

It's a poor distinction, that's the problem. The only difference is the clarity of the break with Christian tradition. God so completely neglected to inform his chosen people of the best way to figure things out that the scientific method is an alien concept.

Most of the law and policy contained in the Constitution is similarly alien, the difference being that the Bible and Christian thought contain some laws and some social structure, even if they are infinitely mockable. The break in philosophy therefore superficially appears to be less drastic than the scientific differences, but they are as dramatic. Spend a thousand years reading the Bible and you'll never develop the notion of a bi-cameral legislature.

In the same way that Newton was a Christian who developed scientific theories, Descartes was a Christian who developed philosophical theories.

Hell, Descartes is a really good example of this. He CLEARLY believed in God, he was raised in the Catholic church. He never wrote anything that expressly contradicted Christian dogma, but he wasn't enthusiastic enough in supporting it. The fact that he rooted his epistemology in something other than God caused a great deal of hysteria. He left France for the much less extreme Netherlands, but nevertheless, he was so frightened by the CHurch comdemnation of Galileo that he avoided publishing one of his more important works.

How can you call his theories (which, though he was a rationalist, were hugely influential to empiricists like Locke who are directly represented in the Constitution), Christian theories? He had to censor and edit his work for fear of condemnation, and he fled his home country. It seems odd that you would credit "Christianity" for his theories when Christianity was prepared to pluck out his eyes for having the audacity to think about stuff.

If you consider anything that some Christian disagrees with as self-evidently not Christian thought, then there's no such thing as Christian thought. Descartes' mathematics had little to do with his Christianity. His philosophy obviously did. The fallacy lies in thinking that all philosophy is a march towards the pre-ordained and certain goal of atheism, and measuring Descartes et al according to how well they measure up.

 

[Complexity]

...there's no such thing as Christian thought...

Sometimes one can find a bit of truth in the wreckage...

(Yes, I edited it and left stuff out.)

 

[westprog]

You are still going with the:

X is a Christian
X has idea A
Therefore A is an idea influenced by Christianity​

theory.

But can we really find nowhere in Greek or Roman culture where the idea of a right of a citizen occurs? Didn't some Greek states give their citizens the right to vote?

Didn't certain rights and responsibility go with the various levels of Roman citizenship?

Yes, that's certainly true. If I'd insisted that the US Constitution was influenced only by Christianity, and that Greek and Roman ideas had nothing to do with it, then your point might be more solidly formed.

There were many influences on the formation of the US Constitution. It's odd that there's only one type of thought that has to be entirely excluded.

 

[tsig]

Yes, that's certainly true. If I'd insisted that the US Constitution was influenced only by Christianity, and that Greek and Roman ideas had nothing to do with it, then your point might be more solidly formed.

There were many influences on the formation of the US Constitution. It's odd that there's only one type of thought that has to be entirely excluded.

No one said it had to be entirely excluded.

 

[TraneWreck]

If you consider anything that some Christian disagrees with as self-evidently not Christian thought, then there's no such thing as Christian thought. Descartes' mathematics had little to do with his Christianity. His philosophy obviously did. The fallacy lies in thinking that all philosophy is a march towards the pre-ordained and certain goal of atheism, and measuring Descartes et al according to how well they measure up.

Again, you're trying to draw clear lines based on subjects to avoid having to explain what you mean. This is getting more and more pointless.

Explain what you think "Christian theories" are.

 

[westprog]

How do you get rights of a citizen from the divine right of kings?

That's an excellent example. The divine right of kings first became prominent when Henry VIII wanted to break with Rome. In order to justify taking political and religious authority, Henry promulgated a theory that the monarch had divine authority, and was head of both the temporal and spiritual realm. This led to the formation of the Church of England. Initially, the opposition to the Divine Right theory came from Catholics who supported the spiritual (and temporal!) authority of the Pope. However, when the Catholic James II came to the throne, the total authority of the monarch became something that the Protestants found objectionable. Catholic James was overthrown and replaced by the Protestant William of Orange.

As part of the legalising process of removing James from the throne, The Bill of Rights was passed. This dealt explicitly with the religious questions of the day, and placed strong limits on the power of the monarch to interfere with the legal and political institutions of the country.

It doesn't take more than a cursory read of the Bill of Rights to see that it formed a prototype for the US Constitution. And this prototype came into being because of a conflict between two different Christian groups.

I suppose you could pick all the Christian influences out like a child picking the beans out of a chili to put them on the side of the plate, but it really doesn't help understand how the US Constitution came to be, and why.

 

[westprog]

No one said it had to be entirely excluded.

Er... that's what I was disagreeing with. If someone hadn't asserted that Christianity had no influence, I wouldn't have bothered disputing it. The level of influence is almost impossible to determine, and in any case, It Depends What You Mean.

 

[Robin]

Yes, that's certainly true. If I'd insisted that the US Constitution was influenced only by Christianity, and that Greek and Roman ideas had nothing to do with it, then your point might be more solidly formed.

I am a little confused by this.

You said earlier that the concept of rights of citizenship was one that was developed over many years by people who were Christians.

And then you agree that the concept existed in pre-christian times.

Both things cannot be true.

There were many influences on the formation of the US Constitution. It's odd that there's only one type of thought that has to be entirely excluded.

Can you quote the place where said or even implied this?

If not then please don't misrepresent.

Saying you cannot see where an influence is present is not the same as saying that influence has to be excluded.

I am still waiting to see the evidence that the influence is there.

 

[Robin]

Er... that's what I was disagreeing with. If someone hadn't asserted that Christianity had no influence, I wouldn't have bothered disputing it. The level of influence is almost impossible to determine, and in any case, It Depends What You Mean.

Hmm... so you are telling me that you cannot distinguish between the phrases:

Christianity had no influence​

and

The influence of Christianity has to be entirely excluded​

?

You are saying that those two phrases mean the same thing?

 

[TraneWreck]

That's an excellent example. The divine right of kings first became prominent when Henry VIII wanted to break with Rome. In order to justify taking political and religious authority, Henry promulgated a theory that the monarch had divine authority, and was head of both the temporal and spiritual realm. This led to the formation of the Church of England. Initially, the opposition to the Divine Right theory came from Catholics who supported the spiritual (and temporal!) authority of the Pope. However, when the Catholic James II came to the throne, the total authority of the monarch became something that the Protestants found objectionable. Catholic James was overthrown and replaced by the Protestant William of Orange.

As part of the legalising process of removing James from the throne, The Bill of Rights was passed. This dealt explicitly with the religious questions of the day, and placed strong limits on the power of the monarch to interfere with the legal and political institutions of the country.

It doesn't take more than a cursory read of the Bill of Rights to see that it formed a prototype for the US Constitution. And this prototype came into being because of a conflict between two different Christian groups.

I suppose you could pick all the Christian influences out like a child picking the beans out of a chili to put them on the side of the plate, but it really doesn't help understand how the US Constitution came to be, and why.

That is just such sloppy history. What was the source of the Bill of Rights in the 17th century? You may be shocked to learn it was the same Enlightenment philosophy that influenced ours a century later:

These ideas about rights reflected those of the political thinker John Locke and they quickly became popular in England.

All you've done is describe a religious motivation (anti-Catholicism) for adopting secular ideas. If you're happy with this being the degree to which Christianity "influenced" the Constitution, I'm fine by that. It wasn't responsible for any intellectual content, it was just the petty squabbles between sects that caused an adaptation of ideas that eliminated religious influence on state affairs.

I just find this part hilarious, "And this prototype came into being because of a conflict between two different Christian groups."

Yes, Locke and other thinkers, after centuries of religion stunting free thought and restricting science, witnessed their own society struggle with a dumb religious battle. Thus, they try to establish a social order distinct from religous sources, and this is "Christian thought."

It's such a bizarre idea.

 

[Robin]

It doesn't take more than a cursory read of the Bill of Rights to see that it formed a prototype for the US Constitution. And this prototype came into being because of a conflict between two different Christian groups.

So here is your argument.

The English Bill of Rights came into being due to a conflict between two different Christian groups.

Many of the elements of the English Bill of Rights are present in the US Constitution

Therefore the US Constitution was influenced by Christianity.

Yes? I don't think I have misrepresented you there.

You see the difference of opinion is right there.

When someone says that something is influenced by Christianity I would have thought that meant that Christian principles influenced it, not just that people who were Christians wrote it or that the motivation for producing the prototype of it was infighting among Christians.

So if we are to broaden the definition I can give a more direct example. James Madison, the principal author of the US Constitution was involved in defending the Baptists against persecution by the established church and this led him to institute laws to disestablish the Anglican church in his home state and this was probably the motivation for disallowing any religious test in the Constitution.

That is not what I really call a Christian influence - so I suppose it is a matter of interpretation.

I am still waiting to see you identify some specific element of the constitution and show the Christian influence.

...like a child picking the beans out of a chili to put them on the side of the plate...

Silly debating tricks like this just make you seem unsure of yourself.

 

[Robin]

Then you shouldn't. If Jefferson thought that Jesus' teachings were important, then he was undoubtedly influenced by that. It doesn't matter what he thought about other aspects of Christianity.

It's quite possible to be influenced by Marxism, say, or Montessori, or Dick Fosbury's high jump technique, without necessarily subscribing to everything they say. That's the difference between being influenced and being a disciple. I didn't say that the writers of the Constitution were only influenced by Christianity, or that all aspects of Christianity were equally important to them. I also didn't assert that Christian thought is just one homogenous thing, based on the Bible, which seems to be a tenet of fundamentalist atheism.

Let's take your Marxism analogy.

John disagrees with the fundamental principles of Marxism, but he agrees with some of what Marx and Engels said

John contributed to the Articles of Association of the car club to which he belongs.

Does it follow that the Articles of Association of his car club are influenced by Marxism?

 

[westprog]

Let's take your Marxism analogy.

John disagrees with the fundamental principles of Marxism, but he agrees with some of what Marx and Engels said

John contributed to the Articles of Association of the car club to which he belongs.

Does it follow that the Articles of Association of his car club are influenced by Marxism?

Why do you throw in his car club when you could make the analogy even better by writing:

John disagrees with the fundamental principles of Marxism, but he agrees with some of what Marx and Engels said

John contributed to writing the constitution of his country.

Does it follow that the constitution of his country is influenced by Marxism?

Maybe it doesn't, but it would be necessary to demonstrate just how John would be entirely uninfluenced by Marxism when drafting such a document.

One could argue that Christian thought has as little to do with politics as Marxism with car clubs. It would be necessary to ignore the history of the last two thousand years, of course.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Yes, that's certainly true. If I'd insisted that the US Constitution was influenced only by Christianity, and that Greek and Roman ideas had nothing to do with it, then your point might be more solidly formed.

There were many influences on the formation of the US Constitution. It's odd that there's only one type of thought that has to be entirely excluded.

Er... that's what I was disagreeing with. If someone hadn't asserted that Christianity had no influence, I wouldn't have bothered disputing it. The level of influence is almost impossible to determine, and in any case, It Depends What You Mean.

The drafting of the Constitution was influenced by food. It is a fact that all the founding fathers ate food and a near certainty that many of them ate food the very day they signed it. James Madison probably consumed vittles while writing it, and if the signers not eaten at all for the two months leading up to that historic day, chances are many would not have signed it. It's odd that this type of thought has to be entirely excluded. Of course, the level of influence is almost impossible to determine, and in any case, It Depends What You Mean.

 

[Robin]

Why do you throw in his car club when you could make the analogy even better by writing:

John disagrees with the fundamental principles of Marxism, but he agrees with some of what Marx and Engels said

John contributed to writing the constitution of his country.

You are simply assuming your conclusion by saying this is a better analogy.

Perhaps your suggestion would be more apt if it were the case that Christianity was a proposal for a system of government.

Does it follow that the constitution of his country is influenced by Marxism?

Maybe it doesn't, but it would be necessary to demonstrate just how John would be entirely uninfluenced by Marxism when drafting such a document.

Why? Must we assume everything is true unless we can prove it false?

Why isn't is necessary for someone claiming that the influence is there to identify what elements were influenced and demonstrate the influence?

One could argue that Christian thought has as little to do with politics as Marxism with car clubs.

Indeed you could argue that a religion about redemption in the next world that teaches you to hate this world in order to have life in the next and which contains explicit disavowals to any influence on temporal authority has as little to do with politics as Marxism has to do with car clubs. Less even

I suppose you could say that Christianity has moral lessons too. But a Constitution isn't a document that tries to tell you how to be good.

So what does one thing have to do with the other?

It would be necessary to ignore the history of the last two thousand years, of course.

Just what is it in the last two thousand years that I would have to ignore?

Do you mean the involvement of various Christian churches in governments? Offhand I can't quite recall which of Christs teachings would involve the torture and burning of heretics or the murder of the Huguenots.

I can't agree that just because Christian churches have cosied up to various government it therefore implies that Christianity is a creed that has relevance to the organisation of a temporal government.

When we look for the influence of Montesquieu or Locke or of the republican Roman system or the classical Greek democracies we can point at specific parts of the Constitution and trace the influence to specific passages or works, or specific practices during specific periods in Rome or Greece.

But when you are claiming a Christian influence you don't seem to be able to do this but instead just wave your hands in the air and say it is bound to be in there somewhere.

Now remember I have not said that there is no influence, just that I cannot see it. If you claim there is an influence then you ought to be able to be a little more specific about which parts of the Constitution were influenced by which parts of the Bible or by which specifically Christian practices.

 

[Ladewig]

As if they were really Christians, then the Christian nation government would be some tyrannical Christian Inquisition Theocracy or something.

It is not hard for a Christian government to turn a bit tyrannical. Roger Williams ran afoul of the Christian government in the Massachusetts colony. The government ended up banishing him from the colony but not before it told the church at which Williams worked to fire him. Furthermore, oaths of office requiring elected officials to acknowledge God can be a bit tyrannical. The wall of church and state is a good thing.

And before I, too, get accused of missing the point (as so many other posters have been), I'd like a clarification. What exactly is the point of the opening post? Just a sentence or two should steer me in the right direction.

 

[Resume]

Let's not forget that "acquiring and possessing property" was also part of the FF's deal.

 

[bikerdruid]

Let's not forget that "acquiring and possessing property" was also part of the FF's deal.

...with theft and mass murder as acceptable tactics.
still claim that they were 'christian', jude?

 

[westprog]

The drafting of the Constitution was influenced by food. It is a fact that all the founding fathers ate food and a near certainty that many of them ate food the very day they signed it. James Madison probably consumed vittles while writing it, and if the signers not eaten at all for the two months leading up to that historic day, chances are many would not have signed it. It's odd that this type of thought has to be entirely excluded. Of course, the level of influence is almost impossible to determine, and in any case, It Depends What You Mean.

I know that the above is a joke, but it is of course true. Nobody could or should consider how a nation should be governed without allowing for people to eat. However, since consumption of food is a universal, the influence is the same for everyone. In differentiating between different forms of government, it's not very helpful.

It's clear that not all forms of government were influenced by Christianity, and therefore it's useful to note the ones that were.