Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 12-10-2002, 08:57 AM

"God is no respector of persons."

For our edification, please provide the scripture references.

If this is truly biblical, it implies god's relationship with us, not our relationships with each other. IOW, I don't see how one can get "all men are created equal (with each other)" from this.

Jamie_L · 12-10-2002, 09:05 AM

From my cursory knowledge of the Bible, it seems we have this:

From the OT - government by kings or (supposedly) God-appointed rulers. No separation of powers. No significant personal freedoms. Pluralism absolutely abhored. No influence on government by the common man.

From the NT - The whole notion of governments is worldly and sinful. The duty of a good Christian is to submit to whatever evil government they happen to be under, not try to change anything, and wait for reward in heaven.

I don't see that the U.S. system was influenced in any way by either of these books. Really, the whole notion of personal liberty, rights, and people influencing or controlling the government was a non-existent thing through nearly all of Christian history. It grew out of the Enlightenment, and it was these philosophical ideals that lead people like the U.S. founders to their conclusions about democracy.

One could argue that God (if he exists) intended for all this to happen. No one can prove or disprove that. However, the arguement that the U.S. government is based on Christian teachings is just false. Nearly all the important aspects of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are either: a) of no concern in the Bible or b) actually run counter to teachings of the Bible.

I think there's more support for the notion that modern Christianity's teachings were shaped by Enlightenment-inspired Western culture than to say modern Western Culture was shaped by Christianity's teachings.

Jamie

Psycho Economist · 12-10-2002, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:
What a bunch self-aggrandizing crap. He had his chance to prove his "integrity" when somebody claimed Washington never mentioned Jesus, and he passed on it.
Emphasis added.

I'm sorry. I coulnd't let this one slip. Unless you think Daggah is an alternate account for Buffman, it wasn't self-aggrandizement.

And now back to the main event.

Stephen Maturin · 12-10-2002, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:
For our edification, please provide the scripture references.

If this is truly biblical, it implies god's relationship with us, not our relationships with each other. IOW, I don't see how one can get "all men are created equal (with each other)" from this.

It's in Acts 10:34. The basic thrust of this <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/acts/10.html" target="_blank">chapter</a> appears to be that the "great commission" applies to Gentiles as well as Jews.

Living Dead Chipmunk · 12-10-2002, 09:39 AM

Treaty of Tripoli, Article XI: "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." (ratified during the Adams administration)

Either Radorth is wrong, or it's a Christian virtue to lie through one's teeth.

dangin · 12-10-2002, 09:43 AM

One other clarification here. Washington did not stop going to church all together. He stopped attending every fourth sunday (which was communion sunday).

But more to the point. It seems to me that the clearest evidence is the fact that it is possible to argue at all. IOW, the framers knew what a theocracy is, they knew who jesus was (or is alleged to have been) they were writing up a government and they excluded him. They excluded Ganeesha, Vishnu, Buddha, Thor, Moses, Zarathustra, the earth mother, and all of them.

This was not some oversight, these were smart guys. The only reasonable explanation was the exclusion was not only somewhat intentional, it was extraordinarily intentional.

Our government was founded to be secular. The founders weren't making it open to argument that god should be in there. They simply left him out. The further fact that the first amendment (which is all about personal freedom) mentions religion and avoiding "establishment" also demonstrates how importantly they held protecting everyone from a state-church hegemony.

The religious status of the founders and the framers is irrelevant. What they believed in their personal lives is also irrelevant. What they wrote down on paper are facts. The facts spell out S-E-C-U-L-A-R.

hezekiah jones · 12-10-2002, 09:54 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong - perhaps I'm thick. But it seems to me that Radorth's "argument" is that the Constitution is a result of Christian (i.e., Biblical) principles because the framers were Christians.

In other words, despite the fact that the founding documents contain absolutely no references to "Biblical principles," they are necessarily derived from same simply because their authors were, at least nominally, Christians.

Could his argument possibly be this vacuous?

What makes me suspicious is not only Radorth's posts in this thread, but his declaration, made elsewhere, that the text of the Constitution itself is irrelevant in comparison with the personal reflections of its framers, which is possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard from the "christian nation" crowd; it's enough to make <a href="http://www.wallbuilders.com/" target="_blank">David Barton</a> look like <a href="http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookSearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0-87975-275-0" target="_blank">Leo Pfeffer</a>.

I thought what we were going to get was instruction as to which Constitutional principles are based on which Christian (i.e., Biblical) principles. Because otherwise Radorth's bleating is an appeal to, as was mentioned above, other historical factors, many of which involved the distrust and ultimate rejection of the so-called "divine right of kings."

I can immediately think of one "Christian principle," one that is fairly central to the Bill of Rights. I wonder if Radorth knows what it is. Among all his ludicrous handwaving, he's never mentioned it once, which is suprising, because one passing reference to it would make his point better than the entire sum total of irrelevant hypertext he's produced to date.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiah jones ]

GunnerJ · 12-10-2002, 10:29 AM

Mr. Darwin: about the republic, what's even more ironic is that or gov't structure was pretty much ripped off wholesale from the pagan Roman Republic. Not a thought went to "Biblical" or "Christian" principals, from top to bottom, out government is a slightly modified version of the Roman Republic, and was so intentionally.

It strikes me as absurd that anoyone can say, with a straight face, that without Christianity, there would be no government like that of the U.S., when a functioning American-style republic flourished for hundreds of years before anyone even heard of this Jesus fellow.

fromtheright · 12-10-2002, 10:36 AM

Radorth,

WADR to someone most often on the same side, I don't see the Christian principles behind the Constitution if one looks at the history behind the document. Though I would agree that the Christian influences in our history are far stronger than most at II, I don't believe it was the strongest or even a major influence in the the shaping (if that is the gist of the topic here) of the Constitution. Madison, by far, the best prepared there, in his notes in preparation for the convention referred repeatedly to other "confederations" in looking to inspirations in drawing up a framework. Yes, I have also argued that he is not the sole voice to listen to in the crafting of the Constitution but there are no other voices to my knowledge who pointed to Israel or the Bible iin forming our government. Again, while I agree the intellectual influence of Christianity was strong, including, as you cited, Hooker, and others (including Locke) I don't see the "Christian principles" in framing the Constitution, as much as I wish it was there.

mfaber · 12-10-2002, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:
We have every reason to believe Constitution could not have been created without the inspiration of God and IMO Christ, to wit:
[....]
I trust any skeptics who manage to think up something new or who spearheaded a movement would get all the credit in this forum, but the Christians will get none, as usual. But of course extraordinary ignorance and belittling of Christian contributions to our ideals we see here is simply proof of my assertions.

Christian contributions?...

<a href="http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/usa.htm" target="_blank">Christian Bible Foundations of the U.S.A</a>

Quote:

Sometimes now we hear that the United States is "founded on biblical principles", as a slightly softened version of the "Christian nation" idea. People making that claim don't give specifics on what foundations of the U.S. and what parts of the Bible they mean.

Of the many foundations of our country, I was able to find two which are supported in the Bible, and several which run contradictory to the Bible.

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Although the Declaration isn't really a legal document of the U.S. (since there was no U.S. in 1776), it is important historically and philosophically. It is a document that justifies revolution against the established royal government. The Bible, however, says "the powers that be are ordained of God" (Romans 13:1-7), and "For kings, and for all that are in authority" (I Timothy 2:2), thus giving rise to the idea of divine right of kings. There is no mention of "consent of the governed" in the Bible, as the Declaration demands. While the Declaration deplores taxation without representation, Jesus says, regarding taxation, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" (Matthew 22:21)

FREEDOM OF SPEECH. I don't find in the Bible any defense of freedom of speech. On the contrary: "he that doubteth is damned" (Romans 14:23); "there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers...whose mouths must be stopped.." (Titus, 1:10-11); and "These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: ......and he that soweth discord among brethren." (Proverbs 6:16-19). The last passage could be construed as being against democracy, since anyone who runs for office against an existing administration is sowing discord.

RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE. This is embraced in both the original Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 3) and in the First Amendment. Yet in the Bible we have:"Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3); "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18); "He that sacrifice unto any god save the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed" (Exodus 22:20); "He who is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23); "he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him" (Leviticus 24:16). [Such stoning was actually carried out, in 1 Kings 21:13] Anyone proselytizing for another religion is to be put to death, and if that person is a member of your family, you are to strike the first blow to kill him or her (Deuteronomy 13:5-10). "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27). The practice of "shunning" someone who disagrees with you on religious matters is advised in 2 Thessalonians 3:14.

A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Our Constitution demands this (Article IV, Section 4). But I find nothing in the Bible to support it. On the contrary, Romans 13:1-7 tells people to obey authority because it is instituted by God.

"CORRUPTION OF THE BLOOD" is forbidden by the Constitution (Article III, Section 3, paragraph 2). In the Bible, though: "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers (Isaiah 14:21). [However, the Bible does contradict itself on this: "... neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers" (Deut 24:16)]. Also: "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation" (Exodus 20:5, 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deut. 5:9); "His blood be on us, and on our children" (Matthew 27:25). Bastards may not enter the temple, nor their descendants (Deut. 23:2). God even killed a baby because of a sin by its father (2 Samuel 12:14). Ahab escaped punishment for murder by making an elaborate apology, and his descendants were punished instead (I Kings 21:29). The doctrine of original sin is also against this part of the Constitution.

SLAVERY. This was an important social and economic foundation of our country both before and after independence. It was an institution condoned by the founders and recognized and defended by the original Constitution (Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3; Article I, Section 9; Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3). Slavery is also condoned in both the Old and New Testaments, but it is never condemned. On the contrary, it is codified, and made an inherited condition:

Exodus 21:4ff gives rules for keeping slaves. Leviticus 25:44-46 says that heathen may be purchased as slaves, that their children become slaves, and that they are inherited as property by the owner's children for ever. Other places that indicate that slavery is a hereditary condition are: Genesis 9:25, Exodus 21:4, Corinthians 7:20. Deuteronomy 20:10-14 says that when you conquer a city, if it surrenders then all people inside it become your slaves; but if it doesn't surrender, then all males are to be killed and all women and children "take unto thyself". Luke 12:47-8 shows that Jesus approves of slavery, for he describes the conditions under which one should give a severe beating to a slave. 1 Timothy 6:1-2 tells slaves to honor their masters.

In the book of Philemon, Paul sends a runaway slave, Onesimus, back to his former master. But this conflicts with the admonition in Deuteronomy 23:15 "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which has escaped..." So the Bible is on both sides of the 1857 Dred Scott case!

TREATMENT OF THE INDIAN PEOPLE. Here is another place where one of the foundations of our country is justified by the Bible. "Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy....And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein.." (Numbers 33:52-53). This biblical injunction was obeyed many times by Americans.

A NOTE ON THE TREATY OF TRIPOLI. This treaty with the Bey of Tripoli was negotiated by the administration of President George Washington, and finally signed and ratified in the administration of President John Adams, in 1797. Article 11 of the English-language version says "the United States is in no sense based on the Christian religion"....

Of course let's not forget that the rights of women were totally ignored, and the Bible is very clear on their inferior status:

<a href="http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/FirBlast.htm" target="_blank">The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, by John Knox (1558)</a>

<a href="http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/GovtWome.htm" target="_blank">A 1993 DEFENSE of the Knox Hatred of Women</a>

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/medicine.html" target="_blank">Women Condemned to Suffer the Pain of Childbirth by the Bible</a>

<a href="http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/women.html" target="_blank">Why Women Need Freedom From Religion</a>

Looks like the Christian contributions of slavery (<a href="http://www.aaregistry.com/detail.php3?id=552" target="_blank">(the "Three-fifths Compromise")</a> and discrimination against woment did indeed get into the Constitution....

Here's a site (<a href="http://members.aol.com/VFTfiles/thesis/Anarcho-Theocracy.htm" target="_blank">Anarcho-Theocracy-a Lousy label for a great idea</a> ) that looks like Radorth's kind of government! Check it out!

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: mfaber ]

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: mfaber ]

12-10-2002, 09:54 AM	#47
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Correct me if I'm wrong - perhaps I'm thick. But it seems to me that Radorth's "argument" is that the Constitution is a result of Christian (i.e., Biblical) principles because the framers were Christians. In other words, despite the fact that the founding documents contain absolutely no references to "Biblical principles," they are necessarily derived from same simply because their authors were, at least nominally, Christians. Could his argument possibly be this vacuous? What makes me suspicious is not only Radorth's posts in this thread, but his declaration, made elsewhere, that the text of the Constitution itself is irrelevant in comparison with the personal reflections of its framers, which is possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard from the "christian nation" crowd; it's enough to make <a href="http://www.wallbuilders.com/" target="_blank">David Barton</a> look like <a href="http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookSearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0-87975-275-0" target="_blank">Leo Pfeffer</a>. I thought what we were going to get was instruction as to which Constitutional principles are based on which Christian (i.e., Biblical) principles. Because otherwise Radorth's bleating is an appeal to, as was mentioned above, other historical factors, many of which involved the distrust and ultimate rejection of the so-called "divine right of kings." I can immediately think of one "Christian principle," one that is fairly central to the Bill of Rights. I wonder if Radorth knows what it is. Among all his ludicrous handwaving, he's never mentioned it once, which is suprising, because one passing reference to it would make his point better than the entire sum total of irrelevant hypertext he's produced to date. [ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiah jones ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-10-2002, 08:57 AM	#41
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	"God is no respector of persons." For our edification, please provide the scripture references. If this is truly biblical, it implies god's relationship with us, not our relationships with each other. IOW, I don't see how one can get "all men are created equal (with each other)" from this.

12-10-2002, 09:05 AM	#42
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	From my cursory knowledge of the Bible, it seems we have this: From the OT - government by kings or (supposedly) God-appointed rulers. No separation of powers. No significant personal freedoms. Pluralism absolutely abhored. No influence on government by the common man. From the NT - The whole notion of governments is worldly and sinful. The duty of a good Christian is to submit to whatever evil government they happen to be under, not try to change anything, and wait for reward in heaven. I don't see that the U.S. system was influenced in any way by either of these books. Really, the whole notion of personal liberty, rights, and people influencing or controlling the government was a non-existent thing through nearly all of Christian history. It grew out of the Enlightenment, and it was these philosophical ideals that lead people like the U.S. founders to their conclusions about democracy. One could argue that God (if he exists) intended for all this to happen. No one can prove or disprove that. However, the arguement that the U.S. government is based on Christian teachings is just false. Nearly all the important aspects of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are either: a) of no concern in the Bible or b) actually run counter to teachings of the Bible. I think there's more support for the notion that modern Christianity's teachings were shaped by Enlightenment-inspired Western culture than to say modern Western Culture was shaped by Christianity's teachings. Jamie

12-10-2002, 09:39 AM	#45
Living Dead Chipmunk Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 312	Treaty of Tripoli, Article XI: "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." (ratified during the Adams administration) Either Radorth is wrong, or it's a Christian virtue to lie through one's teeth.

12-10-2002, 09:43 AM	#46
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	One other clarification here. Washington did not stop going to church all together. He stopped attending every fourth sunday (which was communion sunday). But more to the point. It seems to me that the clearest evidence is the fact that it is possible to argue at all. IOW, the framers knew what a theocracy is, they knew who jesus was (or is alleged to have been) they were writing up a government and they excluded him. They excluded Ganeesha, Vishnu, Buddha, Thor, Moses, Zarathustra, the earth mother, and all of them. This was not some oversight, these were smart guys. The only reasonable explanation was the exclusion was not only somewhat intentional, it was extraordinarily intentional. Our government was founded to be secular. The founders weren't making it open to argument that god should be in there. They simply left him out. The further fact that the first amendment (which is all about personal freedom) mentions religion and avoiding "establishment" also demonstrates how importantly they held protecting everyone from a state-church hegemony. The religious status of the founders and the framers is irrelevant. What they believed in their personal lives is also irrelevant. What they wrote down on paper are facts. The facts spell out S-E-C-U-L-A-R.

12-10-2002, 10:29 AM	#48
GunnerJ Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: a place where i can list whatever location i want Posts: 4,871	Mr. Darwin: about the republic, what's even more ironic is that or gov't structure was pretty much ripped off wholesale from the pagan Roman Republic. Not a thought went to "Biblical" or "Christian" principals, from top to bottom, out government is a slightly modified version of the Roman Republic, and was so intentionally. It strikes me as absurd that anoyone can say, with a straight face, that without Christianity, there would be no government like that of the U.S., when a functioning American-style republic flourished for hundreds of years before anyone even heard of this Jesus fellow.

12-10-2002, 10:36 AM	#49
fromtheright Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 633	Radorth, WADR to someone most often on the same side, I don't see the Christian principles behind the Constitution if one looks at the history behind the document. Though I would agree that the Christian influences in our history are far stronger than most at II, I don't believe it was the strongest or even a major influence in the the shaping (if that is the gist of the topic here) of the Constitution. Madison, by far, the best prepared there, in his notes in preparation for the convention referred repeatedly to other "confederations" in looking to inspirations in drawing up a framework. Yes, I have also argued that he is not the sole voice to listen to in the crafting of the Constitution but there are no other voices to my knowledge who pointed to Israel or the Bible iin forming our government. Again, while I agree the intellectual influence of Christianity was strong, including, as you cited, Hooker, and others (including Locke) I don't see the "Christian principles" in framing the Constitution, as much as I wish it was there.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.