Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 12-11-2002, 02:22 AM

A quote from Radorth, on the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=001433" target="_blank">original thread</a>:

Quote:

Your sincerity is overwhelming. Don't worry, I'll take up the question in the near future, as it's not exactly a hard one.

NOTE: This was AFTER Radorth read the following, in the original post on that thread:

Quote:

I'm not asking you whether Christianity and democracy can coexist, nor am I interested in the question of whether the Founding Fathers were Christians, Diests, Agnostics, or Scientologists. What I would like (but undoubtedly won't get) from you is clear evidence of how democracy is a natural consequence of Christianity.

So, if it's "not hard" to answer the question WITHOUT simply falling back on "they were Christians":

When are you going to attempt to answer the question, Radorth?

We are STILL waiting.

Jack the Bodiless · 12-11-2002, 02:33 AM

Meanwhile, Radorth, I propose the following exercise to help you check your responses: the "round-Earth test".

I am fairly sure that ALL of the Founding Fathers believed the Earth was spherical. Would you agree that it is absurd to credit "round-Earthism" with democracy and so forth?

...Remembering that Eratosthenes, of the non-Christian democratic Greeks, calculated the circumference of the Earth?

If you think the connection is absurd, please look at your response and check whether "they were Christian" is just as absurd as "they were round-Earthers".

Daggah · 12-11-2002, 04:26 AM

What I still can't comprehend is how someone can be so dishonest as to say that America is a Christian nation when NEITHER of the two founding documents declare it as one, and when the U.S. Senate, still new enough to clearly understand what went on at the Constitutional Convention, ratified treaties containing statements that America isn't Christian.

The dishonesty boggles the mind. How can anyone lie to themselves so?

Daggah · 12-11-2002, 04:36 AM

By the way, does anyone else find it fascinating and amusing that, when we're discussing an issue like this, suddenly Radorth seems to believe in the broadest definition of 'Christian,' but in other discussions, one has to follow Christ's teachings in addition to believing in Christ as savior to count? I would be willing to bet that many of the early American colonists had views on, for example, Jews, that would not disagree with those of Nazi German Christians. And while he maintains that slavery is very un-Christian (and that Christianity had a role in ending it <snort&gt

, the slave-owning 'Christians' at the time do not come under fire from him? Were they "real" Christians, Radorth?

Or is this just another one of those times where your tolerance for self-dishonesty comes in handy?

12-11-2002, 04:59 AM

Quote:

We have every reason to believe Constitution could not have been created without the inspiration of God and IMO Christ, to wit:

No, you believe...and your beliefs are irrelevant. Just the facts, ma'am.

Quote:

1. There are virtually no important democracies, except that in Greece, created by anybody except Christians and absolutely none, EVER where there was complete freedom of worship.

You have shown a possible correlation , now demonstrate causation. (You know the difference, right?)

Quote:

If you want to give 4 founders the majority of the credit, go ahead, but 55 signed the Constitution and made it work. I believe Washington to have been most instrumental and to have been a Christian based on some recent discoveries of my own, but there is absolutely no doubt of the beliefs and contributions of John Jay and Samuel Adams, whom we NEVER hear skeptics talk about.

The religious affiliation of the founders is irrelevant to the topic unless you can demonstrate causality between the principles embodied in the Constitution and those embodied in the Bible.

Quote:

2. Without the support of Christian clergy, there would be no Constitution.

Without the support of shipbuilders, there would be no Constitution. Without ships, Columbus would never have "discovered" America, the colonists never would have settled here, and there would never have been a Constitutional convention. Hence, this nation must be a shipbuilder nation, founded on shipbuilder principles.

Irrelevant to the topic unless you can demonstrate a Biblical (not political) basis for the clergy supporting the Constitution.

Quote:

The right to worship freely without interference from the state was the primary reason they accepted it, but there were other reasons. They realized that there was absolutely no alternative to allowing every person to worship mountain goats if they so wished, if they were to maintain their freedom of religious thought and expression.

Irrelevant to the topic unless you can demonstrate a Biblical (not political) basis for supporting freedom of worship and expression.

Quote:

They also surely realized that for the first time in history, the Gospel could be preached without hindrance.

Irrelevant to the topic. You have offered possible political motivations for clergy support of the Constitution, but you have not demonstrated a Biblical basis for the support or advocation of the democratic principles embodied in the Constitution.

Quote:

3. Jefferson deserves great credit for his contributions, but he held office at the will of a Christian majority, I believe in large part because of the eloquence of the Declaration of Independence.Skeptics will disagree vehemently I suppose, but where did Locke, Bacon, and Hooker get their ideas about the importance and sacredness of each human life? That we are all equal in the eyes of God and endowed with the same rights?

Show us where.

Quote:

Jefferson may have put it most eloquently into words, but these men saw it long before him, and were "fundamentalists" by any modern definition. Skeptics act like they were closet deists or something and Christians could not possibly have seen these ideals in the Bible. Jesus dying with and taking a common thief to heaven? Jesus saying "the meek will inherit the earth"? Paul saying "the things that are nothing will bring to nothing the things that are." Jesus exalting the generosity of a poor widow nobody else noticed but he? These are not a prophecy of things to come, first in the spiritual, but then in the natural?

What exactly is the relevance of these examples to democracy? What does democracy have to do with "the meek inheriting the earth"?

Demonstrate how these examples you have listed couldn't be just as easily applied to the principles of socialism or communism as to the democratic principles embodied in the Constitution.

Quote:

4. The vast majority of the soldiers and officers of the Continental Army, whom I consider the real founders of the country, were raised on Protestant Christianity and I see no reason to think they would accepted suffering as they did without supernatural inspiration. Skeptics like to give Paine credit for inspiring them of course, but "as a man believes, so is he."

The religious affiliation of the citizenry and soldiery is irrelevant to the topic unless you can demonstrate a Biblical (as opposed to political) basis for their support of democracy.

Quote:

5. Then there's the little matter of Thomas Hooker, 17th century clergyman and one of the Puritans forced to flee to Holland, then America was instrumental in the formation of representative government way before any deists jumped on the wagon.
The folowing is taken from this site <a href="http://www.ctheritage.org/encyclopedia/ctto17" target="_blank">http://www.ctheritage.org/encyclopedia/ctto17</a>
"On October 11, 1633, Thomas Hooker was ordained pastor of the congregation in Newtown, now Cambridge. He quickly became one of the religious and intellectual leaders of Massachusetts Bay and was given the responsibility for defending Puritan orthodoxy against the heresies propounded by Roger Williams at his trial in 1635.
The Newtown people were not happy in Massachusetts Bay due to a lack of arable land and because of religious and political differences with the rulers of the colony. Therefore, in June 1636 with the reluctant approbation of Massachusetts Bay, Hooker led about one hundred persons from Newtown to the site of Hartford. The Newtown group, preceded by a Dorchester group which settled at Windsor and some thirty Watertown families which migrated to Wethersfield, formed the nucleus of the colony of Connecticut. The three towns acknowledged the overlordship of Massachusetts Bay for one year and then in 1637 established a rudimentary representative government. By 1638 some more regularized governmental structure was required. Hooker gave direction in a famous May 31, 1638, sermon in which he forcefully asserted that the choice of public magistrates belongs to the people, that the privilege of election belongs to the people, and that those who have the power to appoint officers of government have the right to limit the power they hold. This sermon provided the impetus for the Fundamental Orders adopted in January 1639, the frame of government for the colony until 1662."
On a wall near the cathedral in Chelmsford, Essex is a plaque, which states, "Thomas Hooker, 1586- 1647, Founder of the State of Connecticut, Father of American Democracy."
From the site <a href="http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cdf/ff/chap07.htm" target="_blank">http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cdf/ff/chap07.htm</a>

"Thomas Hooker is considered by many to have played the role of John the Baptist for Thomas Jefferson in the sense that he laid the foundation for American republican democracy. Again, though, Hooker's primary concern was not politics, but the establishment of assemblies of worship resembling the churches found in the Book of Acts. Indeed, this was the consistent pattern behind the settlement of New England, with each colony attempting to create a more pristine Christian society, and each founder, usually a minister, trying to "out-Protestantize" everyone else. Hooker, for example, apparently felt that Winthrop's efforts in Massachusetts Bay had fallen short of the mark. According to Cotton Mather, "The very spirit of his [Hooker's] ministry lay in the points of the most practical religion, and the grand concern of a sinner's preparation for, and implantation in, and salvation by, the glorious Lord Jesus Christ."
By May 1637, the inhabitants of Connecticut were holding their own General Court. Hooker, unlike Bradford and Winthrop, did not keep a journal. So the facts of his Hartford ministry are fragmentary, derived from letters and notes taken by those who heard him. His most famous sermon, delivered before the Connecticut General Court on May 31, 1638, inspired the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, which was the first written constitution in America, and very much resembles our own Federal Constitution. Direct quotes are impossible to reconstruct exactly, as they exist in a barely decipherable journal, written by 28-year-old Henry Wolcott. But the essence of Hooker's Election Day sermon was as follows:
The choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God's own allowance.
The election must be conducted by the people, but votes should not be cast "in accord with their humors, but according to the will and law of God."
Those who "have the power to appoint officers and magistrates also have the power to set bounds and limitations on their power" so that "the foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people," because "by a free choice the hearts of the people will be more inclined to the love of the persons chosen, and more ready to yieldobedience."
On January 14, 1639, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut were adopted. The deliberations of the assembly have perished, but, as Marion Starkey points out in her book, The Congregational Way, the principles are a mirror of the mind of Thomas Hooker. The Fundamental Orders included many provisions essential to free and open government. Each town was to have proportional representation, and each was to send its elected representatives to the government in Hartford. In the event that the governor failed to call a meeting of the General Court, or attempted to govern contrary to established laws, the freemen were entitled to "meet together and choose to themselves a moderator,"

Fascinating history lesson, Radorth.

However, the beliefs of Hooker in relation to democracy are irrelevant to the topic unless you show me their Biblical basis.

Quote:

The logic is this: No Jesus, no John Locke, no Bacon, no Hooker, no preaching on liberty of conscience, no appreciation for freedom, no Constitution, no America.

My logic is this: no sun, no light, no heat, no life, no human beings, no explorers, no colonists, no Constitution, no America.

Conclusion: democracy is a direct result of the sun.

Praise Ra.

Quote:

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.

Not the topic being debated.

Quote:

But of course extraordinary ignorance and belittling of Christian contributions to our ideals we see here is simply proof of my assertions.

It's proof of your inabilty to grasp the topic being debated.

Quote:

The establishment of a state religion has invariably hindered the spread of spiritual truth. God's been around awhile and knew that long before Jefferson or Hooker.

Then show me where your god states as such in the Bible.

Quote:

BTW, it has been only skeptics who have recommended God interfere in human affairs by making the laws of physics arbitrary and negating the principles which motivate the ACLU. He obviously prefers to let people make their own religious decisions.

Then everyone who prays is a skeptic? Interesting.

Quote:

quote:

Please demonstrate the Christian or Biblical basis for all men being created equal.

"God is no respector of persons."

Ah, you're finally dealing with the topic of this thread. (And who says there are no miracles?)

Your quote comes from Acts 10:34. I must say, I hardly find this an unambiguous expression of the principle of democratic equality represented in the Constitution, but I'll let others read the chapter and decide for themselves. In the mean time, would you mind showing me evidence that the writers of the Constitution were inspired by this particular passage in writing about all men being created equal?

Quote:

quote:

Please demonstrate a Christian or Biblical basis for humans being endowed with certain "rights".

Read a Quaker history and get back to me.

Irrelevant. The Quakers did not write the Bible.

Quote:

quote:

Please demonstrate the Christian or Biblical basis for the principle that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed.

Democracy is not an ideal government. The ideal government in God's eyes is that of consenting servants doing the will of the greatest example of all servants. Nevertheless if the former is the only way to permit the spread of spiritual truth and gaining all possible servants in this dispensation, then democracy is the only practical ideal. Ironically, only opressive governments have really low crime rates, so there is no ideal solution other than willing servants who obey out of wisdom and love. Hooker said almost exactly that, and he also claimed that only through "mutual submission" (a NT concept many skeptics denigrate) can government even function.

You did not answer the question.

Quote:

Jefferson also exalted Jesus' own teachings, as did all the framers except 3 that I know of. So he either contradicted himself, or he simply made distinctions which real free-thinkers have no trouble making. Even Paine did not speak of Jesus himself as you have done.
It is as logically ridiculous to blame Jesus or his teachings for abuses by dumb Christians as it is to blame Marx and atheists for Communist abuses.

Irrelevant to the topic.

Quote:

I said the teachings of Christ, not Christianity. You will doubtless refuse to stop blurring the distinction, because you would have no argument of course.

Then present the teachings of Christ relevant to the topic.

Quote:

There are principles in both which are Christian in origin. The DOI is a founding document and should rightly be discussed here. In fact any document which sheds light on the founders' philosophy, motives, beliefs, vision for the future of America, etc should be discussed here.

If they are a direct consequence of Biblical teachings, than I agree. Otherwise, they are irrelevnt to the topic.

Quote:

Any other rules are chicken-&^%$ and doubtless intended to avoid the issues which were raised elsewhere.

You are the one avoiding the issue with your chickenshit answers.

Quote:

Unfortunately the Greek one didn't work too good, apparently because there weren't any Christians to ru it.

Why do you say the Greek democracy "did not work so good"? As compared to what?

Supply me with reasons why Greek democracy failed and how they relate to Christianity. (This is completely irrelevant to the topic, but I'm still dying to know.)

Quote:

OK let me rephrase: There are virtually no non-Christian democracies anybody would want to live in.
Why would that be do you think?

What is a "Christian democracy"? Can you give me an example of one, please?

Quote:

quote:

Then we get the Age of Enlightenment, in which the supernaturalism and authoritarianism that characterizes Christianity were called into question, and then suddenly Democracy starts springing up?

Locke, Bacon, the Quakers (first charismatics), Hooker.

Give me the Biblical basis for their beliefs in relation to democracy.

Quote:

quote:

So what are those principles???

I listed at least four so far.

Really, did I miss something?

Quote:

If you don't like those, ask John Adams and son.

Irrelevant. They did not write the Bible.

Quote:

Look, even if the founders intended the Constitution to read like a secular, legal document, we have no reason at all to think they intended a secular society in the sense so many skeptics interpret it.

Who's we? And why not?

Quote:

Anybody wanna discuss that question?

Perhaps you should consider answering the ones already put to you.

Quote:

It is probably my mistake to respond to a thread with such a narrow focus, because it gives skeptics and excuse to avoid major practical issues.

After running this through my Radorth-to-English translation program:

Why did I ever get involved in a topic that wouldn't allow me to weasel my way out of answering the questions?

Quote:

One thing I have proven is that there would be no Constitution without the writings, preaching, voting and activities of innumerable Christians who get lousy press here.

Irrelevant to the topic.

Quote:

I see, so Jefferson believed in a creator who endowed unalienable rights to people, but saw nothing in Jesus' teachings about this "vague creator" or what rights those might be, or how to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Is that correct?

Jefferson's beliefs in relation to democracy are irrelevant to the topic unless you can show their Biblical basis.

Quote:

I don't suppose Locke did either, in spite of so many references to the Bible.

Provide me with the Biblical passages he referenced in relation to democracy.

Quote:

Besides who cares what it says if it wouldn't even exist except through the grace of God?

Unsupported assertion. No evidence of this "grace of God".

Quote:

Who cares what it says if the hand of God was everywhere Washington said it was, making it happen?

Unsupported assertion. Can you or Washington provide evidence of "the hand of God"?

Quote:

How do you know YOU would even exist or enjoy the blessings of liberty without God's help?

How do you know YOU would even exist or enjoy the blessings of liberty without Zeus's/ Odin's/ Ra's help?

Quote:

Now THAT you will never prove false, which means you are just living off the fat of God's grace, which the founders no doubt appreciated.

Are you crazy, is that your problem? - Jack Burton

Quote:

Also, I'm beginning to think the topic question was formulated knowing that more important questions could simply be avoided. I should probably start a new, more meaningful thread in the near future.

Translation:

I don't wanna play anymore!

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Cthulhu ]

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Cthulhu ]

Butters · 12-11-2002, 06:23 AM

Quote:

It is as logically ridiculous to blame Jesus or his teachings for abuses by dumb Christians as it is to blame Marx and atheists for Communist abuses.

It is also logically ridiculous to credit Jesus and his teachings for the formation of a democratic goverment, as it is to credit Marx or atheists with the formation of Communisim, in fact it was Jesus that preached Communisim first!

Quote:

"God is no respector of persons."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, you're finally dealing with the topic of this thread. (And who says there are no miracles?)

Your quote comes from Acts 10:34. I must say, I hardly find this an unambiguous expression of the principle of democratic equality represented in the Constitution, but I'll let others read the chapter and decide for themselves. In the mean time, would you mind showing me evidence that the writers of the Constitution were inspired by this particular passage in writing about all men being created equal?

My copy of the NIV quotes PETER as saying that God shows no favoritism, but accepts men of all nations.
While it is comforting to know, it has nothing to do with Government, and was not a quote from Jesus.

hezekiah jones · 12-11-2002, 06:36 AM

Are you beginning to see why I wear his denigrating remarks about me with a smile? Fortunately, many of his statements cause me to do the kind of research I enjoy whether my findings support or undermine his claims.

Oh yeah. It's like the creationists in the evolution forum, although not especially interesting in themselves, drawing out a wealth of info from the biologists and other informed commentators.

I, and I'm certain many others, very much appreciate your legwork.

However, he has a perfectly valid bitch whenever I apply one of my interpretatations to one of his scenarios when it doesn't agree with his conditioned beliefs. Obviously only his interpretation can be right because his supernatural God(s) delivered it to him personally.

Yes, and that's what's fundamentally (pun intended) irritating, as evidenced by his post directly above. Radorth's "insights" are trivial and arbitrary, practically by his own admission.

Speaking of John Jay, the first Chief Justice and a signatory to the Articles of Confederation, the original New York Constitution of 1777, the drafting of which Jay supervised, contains the following clause:

... no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any presence or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this State.

Although the reason given for the above is that ministers shouldn't be "diverted from the[ir] great duties," it seems to me a fairly concrete example of the founders' desire to keep church and state separate.

How can anyone argue that these documents were informed by "Christian principles" when the Christian clergy itself is specifically excluded from participating in government is beyond me. I have no idea how personally devout Jay was, but he and his colleagues obviously had enough sense to ensure that the administration of New York state, even at that time, was kept independent of the clergy's nefarious influence.

"Nefarious influence" is not my own opinionated insertion, since the constitution in question refers to the "bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes [that has] scourged mankind." (Of course the "wicked priests" in question couldn't have been True Christians™.)

And I would still like to see the citations for the two Supreme Court cases to which Radorth alluded above.

MrDarwin · 12-11-2002, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:
One thing I have proven is that there would be no Constitution without the writings, preaching, voting and activities of innumerable Christians who get lousy press here.

You just don't get it, do you?

MrDarwin · 12-11-2002, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theyeti:


There are no Christian democracies. There are only democracies in which Christians are the majority. And then there are those in which Christians are not the majority.

Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan? Yeah, what hell holes.

Or Italy, depending on whether or not you consider Catholics to be "true Christians"... which many non-Catholic Christians don't, except when convenient to their cause.

Jeremy Pallant · 12-11-2002, 06:56 AM

Having read this thread with interest for several pages, I'd like to make an observation.

Radorth, you're not arguing that the US Constitution is a result of Christian principles. You're arguing, I think, that the US Constitution is a result of the principles of Christians, and the two aren't the same thing.

The classic example of this, as has been pointed out already, is that freedom of religion is NOT a Christian principle, and indeed is the antithesis of the Christian principle that "thou shalt have no gods before me." Christians (some of them) may well agree with that principle, but in and of itself it's not a Christian idea.

Radorth, if I were to take your form of argument and apply it elsewhere, I would be justified in stating that the Crusades, Inquisition, and Nazi Germany were the result of Christian principles.

I suspect trying to differentiate between "Christian principles" and the "principles of Christians" is only going to further cloud the issue, so how about this. Can you provide Biblical justification for the US Constitution?

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

12-11-2002, 02:33 AM	#92
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Meanwhile, Radorth, I propose the following exercise to help you check your responses: the "round-Earth test". I am fairly sure that ALL of the Founding Fathers believed the Earth was spherical. Would you agree that it is absurd to credit "round-Earthism" with democracy and so forth? ...Remembering that Eratosthenes, of the non-Christian democratic Greeks, calculated the circumference of the Earth? If you think the connection is absurd, please look at your response and check whether "they were Christian" is just as absurd as "they were round-Earthers".

12-11-2002, 04:26 AM	#93
Daggah Banned Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Deployed to Kosovo Posts: 4,314	What I still can't comprehend is how someone can be so dishonest as to say that America is a Christian nation when NEITHER of the two founding documents declare it as one, and when the U.S. Senate, still new enough to clearly understand what went on at the Constitutional Convention, ratified treaties containing statements that America isn't Christian. The dishonesty boggles the mind. How can anyone lie to themselves so?

12-11-2002, 04:36 AM	#94
Daggah Banned Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Deployed to Kosovo Posts: 4,314	By the way, does anyone else find it fascinating and amusing that, when we're discussing an issue like this, suddenly Radorth seems to believe in the broadest definition of 'Christian,' but in other discussions, one has to follow Christ's teachings in addition to believing in Christ as savior to count? I would be willing to bet that many of the early American colonists had views on, for example, Jews, that would not disagree with those of Nazi German Christians. And while he maintains that slavery is very un-Christian (and that Christianity had a role in ending it <snort&gt , the slave-owning 'Christians' at the time do not come under fire from him? Were they "real" Christians, Radorth? Or is this just another one of those times where your tolerance for self-dishonesty comes in handy?

12-11-2002, 06:36 AM	#97
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Are you beginning to see why I wear his denigrating remarks about me with a smile? Fortunately, many of his statements cause me to do the kind of research I enjoy whether my findings support or undermine his claims. Oh yeah. It's like the creationists in the evolution forum, although not especially interesting in themselves, drawing out a wealth of info from the biologists and other informed commentators. I, and I'm certain many others, very much appreciate your legwork. However, he has a perfectly valid bitch whenever I apply one of my interpretatations to one of his scenarios when it doesn't agree with his conditioned beliefs. Obviously only his interpretation can be right because his supernatural God(s) delivered it to him personally. Yes, and that's what's fundamentally (pun intended) irritating, as evidenced by his post directly above. Radorth's "insights" are trivial and arbitrary, practically by his own admission. Speaking of John Jay, the first Chief Justice and a signatory to the Articles of Confederation, the original New York Constitution of 1777, the drafting of which Jay supervised, contains the following clause: ... no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any presence or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this State. Although the reason given for the above is that ministers shouldn't be "diverted from the[ir] great duties," it seems to me a fairly concrete example of the founders' desire to keep church and state separate. How can anyone argue that these documents were informed by "Christian principles" when the Christian clergy itself is specifically excluded from participating in government is beyond me. I have no idea how personally devout Jay was, but he and his colleagues obviously had enough sense to ensure that the administration of New York state, even at that time, was kept independent of the clergy's nefarious influence. "Nefarious influence" is not my own opinionated insertion, since the constitution in question refers to the "bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes [that has] scourged mankind." (Of course the "wicked priests" in question couldn't have been True Christians™.) And I would still like to see the citations for the two Supreme Court cases to which Radorth alluded above.

12-11-2002, 06:56 AM	#100
Jeremy Pallant Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA Posts: 1,242	Having read this thread with interest for several pages, I'd like to make an observation. Radorth, you're not arguing that the US Constitution is a result of Christian principles. You're arguing, I think, that the US Constitution is a result of the principles of Christians, and the two aren't the same thing. The classic example of this, as has been pointed out already, is that freedom of religion is NOT a Christian principle, and indeed is the antithesis of the Christian principle that "thou shalt have no gods before me." Christians (some of them) may well agree with that principle, but in and of itself it's not a Christian idea. Radorth, if I were to take your form of argument and apply it elsewhere, I would be justified in stating that the Crusades, Inquisition, and Nazi Germany were the result of Christian principles. I suspect trying to differentiate between "Christian principles" and the "principles of Christians" is only going to further cloud the issue, so how about this. Can you provide Biblical justification for the US Constitution?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.