|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443
CEG\'er
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by Nate S:
yeah i just realized that it made no sense  . edited it.
anyways, what i was saying was that the constitution was created because this country is a democracy, seperation of church and state, etc.
they want to return the country to its moral "roots" but dont realize that the US's roots aren't in evangelical principles!
Perhaps not evangelical, but certainly religion on a whole. From our 1st president's farewell address directly:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Today we worship education, we must be careful what idols we worship in the name of progress, or we will lose that which we cherish the most, our liberty, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by my csvt:
Originally posted by caltour:
You know this is true: if evangelical churches banded together, they could go a long way toward creating Bible Nation. Then we would then have an uncontrollable political and social upheaval in this country, because the rest of us do not want to live in Bible Nation.
if you honestly think this is a threat then you are sadly mistaken. there isn't a snowballs chance in hell of the many christian churches coming together as one super church and changing the face of america.
Who says they have to band "together as one super church"? All they need is an umbrella organization like the NAE.
Evangelicals are ALREADY banding together for the purpose of gaining influence over the policy. Read the article I posted from Harper's, and the NAE website, and the CE website if you doubt that. And by their own admission, evangelicals are really just starting their sustained drive for greater political organization and greater political power. With the Reagan revolution, the election of a right-wing congress, and the Bush dynasty, they are beginning to see success. What in the world makes you think they are not entirely capable of acheiving their goals?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
NEA = National Endowment of the Arts?
Now there is a terrorist organization!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by Wien_Sean:
You are so spot on, I can't believe it. The biggest problem to me is that people are knee-jerk reactionist. The thing people forget that the Government cannot endorse religion and that is as far as the constitution goes. Sure people can practice as they please as long as Government institutions are not the ones backing it.
Yes, I agree, however, as an example, I do believe that the mere placement of historal religious monuments on gov't property is not in and of itself an endorsement of religion. For better or for worse, religious beliefs were indeed a critical part of the founding of this country. Yes they were varied in nature, but they were there behind the scenes. Washington wrote about this in many of his papers actually, that the Constitution was in fact in part based upon Christian principles in so far as freedom of religion is concerned. I'll try and dig up what I'm referring to here a bit later. The U.S. Supreme Court has a copy of the ten commandments openly displayed, along with the code of Hammurabi and other religious references. I believe this is perfectly fine, and not an endorsement of any one religion. I realize in some cases there may be only one religion's beliefs represented in the public square in any one state, and for that state, perhaps that fits their population makeup. Minorities in such states are free to create monuments of their own, and should not be denied the right to do so, just as the U.S. Supreme Court building demonstrates. To take away the only historical representation that is there, to me is the wrong decision. Put more there, more reminders of where we came from, of the cultures that combined together to make up this great nation. Let us not purge our history from the public square, but rather increase it, for if we remove all evidence of where we came from, we will have no basis upon which to decide where we are to go from here.
Please understand there is a marked difference between the importance of moral values and religion influencing who we are and what we believe, verses having such beliefs openly written into law. Once again, as I said previously, people seem to want safety more than anything else. Those in Christiandom are extremely nervous about certain behaviors becoming acceptable in modern day society, like gay marriage as an example. They are so passionate, as are the gay rights activists, that everyone is fighting to federalize this issue. Personally, I believe in the power of the individual states to decide on their own what is lawful. To federalize everything by definition, as we did with abortion rights, means it becomes an all or nothing process, and that is dangerous IMHO. When the U.S. Supreme Court looks at taking on the many cases brought before it, what does it look for? The court looks at precedent and agreement across the various appellate and state supreme/district federal courts. If in looking at any one case it appears that there is widespread confusion and/or different precedents at the state/district court levels, this often motivates the Supreme Court to consider taking action, but we must be careful, is that what we really want as a nation, to federalize the issue into law, for it to become only one way or the other? Beforehand, if you agreed with abortion, you could freely live in a state that held such agreements in law, or if you disagreed, the same. I am very liberterian in this sense, in that I do not believe I have the right to force my beliefs, however deepseated they are, onto others that do not hold those beliefs. I am happy to debate freely and passionately on such beliefs with anyone, but to actually want to feel so safe for my own best interests by forcing into law such a belief system, that I do not agree with. I say repeal Roe v Wade and let the states decide. Then everyone wins, and I can choose to go live in a state that shares my values accordingly. Federalization of issues helps to create the polarizing effects we're seeing in the political landscape today. Once again, we must be careful and remember, united we stand, divided we fall. I am an American, and I'd be happy to stand toe to toe with any other American and debate issues until I'm exhausted that I feel passionately about, and in the end, I will remember the great gift we've been given that indeed we are free to have such debates without fear of retribution. Thank God for that! I will also always strive to remember that, in the end, we are both Americans, united together by that common bond of patriotism. Differing views? Yes. Passionate about them? Yes. Enemies? Never. I do not need my own beliefs written into law to live my life the way I desire, I do not value safety over liberty, and this is a critical lesson that is seemingly being ignored by most Americans to our detriment. If some folks want to get together and create a society in the state of SC in order to live out their lives the way they believe, more power to them, and thanks be to God we live in a nation where we can even entertain such a choice.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by caltour:
Religious groups were treated as separate under the law for a good reason. Madison and the other founding fathers knew that churches had to be kept strictly segregated from political life because they would almost certainly exert disprortionate influence on our government and destabilize our democracy. They knew that churches were among the only organizations that had the wealth, bureaucratic skills and power (not to mention the particular emotional power of religious faith) to dominate political life in such a way that it would no longer really be a democracy. They remembered the historical lessons of old Europe, where clerics had long been adept at scheming for domination of nation states. Even in the 1700s, American churches were easily powerful enough to dominate our fledgling government. Madison and Jefferson and the others therefore knew that separation of church and state was essential. That's why they wrote into our Constitution the rules I discussed in my last post.
For the same reasons, churches today should restrain themselves from political activity. Democracy is all about letting everyone have equal say. Churches could easily distort and even subvert democracy, as they harness the unique combined power of religious belief, tons of cash, and extensive grass roots organization.
According to my previous quote from George Washington, we cannot separate moral and religious beliefs out as the basis of good law making, to do so is at our own peril. In this respect, I disagree with your assessment here. The fact is that seperation of church/state is just as much to encourage faith and to protect religious practices in society, as is evidenced by the fact that America is one of the most religious countries in the world today. Your argument is that by endorsing state sponsored religion, it strengthens/empowers the religion. My argument, and I believe the wisdom of the founders as well, is that state sponsorship/endorsement of any one religion corrupts both the gov't and the religion, weakening both inevitably. To keep them seperate is to allow both to grow strongly, and both to stay relevant (as each has a different and proper focus) as is evidenced in our current society.
Yes you are correct about the founders taking lessons from clergy of the past, but the lesson learned was that ultimately, those gov't's and the state sponsored religions became non-relevant to the people, both failed. As a result, Europe is largely a post-Christian, indeed even post-religious, society, especially if you look at the percentage numbers in any one European country of those willing to profess any one faith, and gov't corruption is much more widespread than here in the U.S. as a rule.
Last edited by cjbaldw; 07/27/05 05:49 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
You know, overall, I guess the frustration I experience over the issues at hand here is that we're seemingly no longer smart enough, no longer respectful enough, no longer humble enough, to live together as Americans despite, dare I say even because of our differences. We've too quickly forgotten who we are as a people.
It's almost like a macrocosm of what is termed a "cycle of disaffection" within a marriage/relationship, but on a grand scale. Small issues go undealt with improperly, and so starts the cycle of disaffection, where each time the cycle repeats, each mate takes one step away from each other. It doesn't take very many cycles before divorce occurs because a small issue turned into emotional blackmail and stonewalling (very similar behavior to what is ongoing in politics today I might add). We couldn't simply agree to disagree over what was once a small issue, because we both feel so strongly about it, we've forgotten how to fight fairly, each side needs the other side to endorse their worldview, and if you won't, then I'll try my best to get my view written into law. The desire to be right has overcome our desire to be humble and live together in harmony as Americans, no matter how strongly our belief systems are.
I believe that our rampant divorce rates are but one example of why we cannot seem to simply leave the power of choice over issues in the hands of individuals or at the very most, the states within the union. No, we've become so prideful, all of us (regretably even I sometimes fall into this trap), that we have to prove who's right and who's wrong, almost at any cost. In the end, we're all going to be wrong, and we're all going to pay for it if we don't wake up and smell the roses, if we don't return to being Americans instead of having to be right over whatever issue is on the table.
I have a great confidence in our Constitution and in the balance of the three branches of gov't and the states ability to check those powers if necessary, especially constitutionally via the 75% amendment ratification process. So long as we do not fundamentally alter our constitutional republic/democracy, I think we'll come out on top.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 329
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 329 |
Originally posted by caltour:
What in the world makes you think they are not entirely capable of acheiving their goals?
caltour, you bring up some well articulated concerns about the potential for a powerful entity, be it corporate or religious, to misuse its influence within the public sector. And I would agree with you that certain segments of the Evangelical community seem to be increasing in power with each passing year. But in some of my earlier posts which were directed at your concern I'm trying to tell you that the christian population as a whole is much too diverse to want to align themselves with each other on all political matters for the purposes of creating a Bible Nation as you call it. Another post summed it up well. "there ain't a snowballs chance in hell" of that happening.
Not only would these attempts not make it out of the church pews but if it did I have a feeling that the rest of our society would be more inspired than ever to take political action more seriously and try restoring balance to the political landscape.
You should also know that the often unheard christian voices that preach sermons that aren't centered around a few divisive hot button issues are beginning to gain a wider acceptance by congregations around the country. And it is within these churches that I think a new perception of christianity by the mainstream will be born. I geuss my advice to you then is to not be so alarmist. And maybe go to church every once and a while.
1998.5 SVT
I'm working on it.
WTB 2.0L Contique.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by 04marauder:
Originally posted by caltour:
What in the world makes you think they are not entirely capable of acheiving their goals?
caltour, you bring up some well articulated concerns about the potential for a powerful entity, be it corporate or religious, to misuse its influence within the public sector. And I would agree with you that certain segments of the Evangelical community seem to be increasing in power with each passing year. But in some of my earlier posts which were directed at your concern I'm trying to tell you that the christian population as a whole is much too diverse to want to align themselves with each other on all political matters for the purposes of creating a Bible Nation as you call it.
You are assuming that "the christian population as a whole" would have to support the evangelicals/megachurches' grab for power in order for it to succeed. Why?
A relatively small group can start a revolution (see Russia (1917), Cuba (1959), United States (1770s)). A small, relatively unpopular cadre of dedicated, organized operatives can dominate the policymaking apparatus of even a large democracy like ours (today's Neoconservatives). Evangelicals would need only a fraction of the "christian population as a whole" to generate the money and influence needed to dominate the playing field.
One of the great weaknesses of our form of government is that it is a "winner takes all" system. There is virtually no representation for those individual voters who don't vote with the majority. Minority parties are locked out of power. And only a minority of the population votes. Any group that can round up tens of millions of dollars, or (just a few) tens of millions of votes, can control almost everything.
Originally posted by 04marauder:
Not only would these attempts not make it out of the church pews but if it did I have a feeling that the rest of our society would be more inspired than ever to take political action more seriously and try restoring balance to the political landscape.
Faith is a wonderful thing, in sprirtual matters. But not in politics.
Originally posted by 04marauder:
You should also know that the often unheard christian voices that preach sermons that aren't centered around a few divisive hot button issues are beginning to gain a wider acceptance by congregations around the country. And it is within these churches that I think a new perception of christianity by the mainstream will be born.
You acknowledged above that the evangelical megachurches are growing in influence. ("I would agree with you that certain segments of the Evangelical community seem to be increasing in power with each passing year.") You know they have millions of members and are hugely wealthy organizations. They already have more than enough money and membership to steamroll almost any political opposition. And they are avowedly dedicated to doing so.
Yet you pin your hopes for averting their excessive political influence on some "often unheard christian voices" in a few churches. You think that "a new perception of christianity" will be born in these chuches. Excuse my skepticism, but is that really supposed to make me feel better?
Originally posted by 04marauder:
I geuss my advice to you then is to not be so alarmist.
If you are not alarmed by the political threat posed by the evangelicals and the megachurches, then I suppose it's simply because you share more of their goals than I do. A lot of Germans were not alarmed by the rise of the Nazis, because they shared many of the Nazis militaristic, totalitarian and antisemitic views.
Originally posted by 04marauder:
And maybe go to church every once and a while.
Why? Do I need to go to church in order to have a fulfilling spiritual life? Do I need to go to church in order to get into heaven? What if the churches in my area are havens of SUV-driving Bush Republicans who would rather run over a needy person than feed him?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by caltour:
I'll admit my biases here: the evangelical political movement (as expressed by megachurches and others) bugs me because it is overwhelmingly supporting conservative candidates like Dubya. The evangelicals have allied themselves with Big Business in funneling money to the conservative agenda. And it also galls me because Jesus was mostly a bleeding heart liberal, yet His legacy and His message have been highjacked by right-wing corporate interests. He would be appalled, I think, to see the political agenda His followers are promoting.
I'll admit my bias..if the "megachurchs" are supporting Bush, who is battling liberals left and right to keep the "evangelical militant muslim" out of power, they do not bug me...even though being "born again" is a biological impossibility. And Jesus would never have voted for Kerry.. 
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by caltour:
One of the great weaknesses of our form of government is that it is a "winner takes all" system. There is virtually no representation for those individual voters who don't vote with the majority. Minority parties are locked out of power. And only a minority of the population votes. Any group that can round up tens of millions of dollars, or (just a few) tens of millions of votes, can control almost everything.
This statement is not accurate. The entire basis of the court systems was put into place to guarantee a voice to minorities to pursue issues that they felt were patently unfair. The filibuster is a great example of how the minority has a huge voice in the federal legislative branch, not to mention the Senate's power to block federal appointments to the judicial appointee's when necessary. Sure when one party has a lock on two of the three branches of the federal system, things may seem to be unfair, but the fact is that the American people voted these particular people into office willingly. The minorities DO have a voice, so long as they are united. Look at how much lobbying power the AIDS advocates have, considering they represent an extremely small segment of the population as a whole, because they are well organized and well connected. I admire their tenacity in pursuing the causes they are dedicated to, as I do for any other organized group of people, Christians included. The political clout of the "Christian right" is a relatively new phenomenon really, that started in the 60's and has grown since then. This is another example of how the pendulum is swinging back in the other direction after the proliferation of the "free love" 60's era and the more liberal lifestyles that came about as a result. Hopefully, we will land somewhere back in the middle, and have more of a healthy balance as a result.
Quote:
Faith is a wonderful thing, in sprirtual matters. But not in politics.
Faith can and should be freely exercised in the political arena, and for many people it serves as a healthy basis for their worldviews. Once again, there is a marked different between gov't endorsed religion and the free expression of religion in the public square.
Quote:
You acknowledged above that the evangelical megachurches are growing in influence. ("I would agree with you that certain segments of the Evangelical community seem to be increasing in power with each passing year.") You know they have millions of members and are hugely wealthy organizations. They already have more than enough money and membership to steamroll almost any political opposition. And they are avowedly dedicated to doing so.
I would not say the churches themselves are hugely wealthy. Some of the PAC's that represent the same values are well funded, and the conversative movement inside the U.S. is an interesting phenomenon in this respect. I'd highly recommend reading "The Right Nation" if you would like to get an "outside in" view of the conservative movement, it was a great read IMHO. Church giving overall is down more now than ever before, so your statement conflicts with the statistics.
Quote:
If you are not alarmed by the political threat posed by the evangelicals and the megachurches, then I suppose it's simply because you share more of their goals than I do. A lot of Germans were not alarmed by the rise of the Nazis, because they shared many of the Nazis militaristic, totalitarian and antisemitic views.
Please, the structure of the German gov't was quite different than ours. No one leader could ever grab such power under our existing constitutional democracy. I am not at all alarmed (read reactionary) about what I'm seeing. On the contrary, I applaud anyone who stands up for what they believe in in the public sector. We should encourage such behavior, not condemn nor seek to snuff it out. We should have more confidence in our system of gov't quite frankly, it has proven itself several times over capable of handling issues much greater than those we are currently struggling with.
|
|
|
|
|
