|
Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
|
|
69 members (Burkhard, benkeys, Abdulrohmanoman, accordeur, BWV846, Animisha, Anglagard44, 11 invisible),
1,954
guests, and
438
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,028
3000 Post Club Member
|
OP
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,028 |
Addendum: From Jolly: you also agree with the premise that America was primarily Christian at the time, then how can one say the country was not a Christian country upon its' founding? Maybe at the time of the Puritans!! To Pique, With respect, no, I definitely think "the" Post should stay. It's part of the discussion, which otherwise makes no sense without it for anyone who wants to go back and study it. Nobody from the Palestine Defense Committee or a White Supremacy Group is going to go digging through the archives, find that article, and take it as evidence that would help them, or educate them. Nor will any other adult be influenced by it, nor any child see it. I can't even find things in the Archives when I want to! Noelle, PLEASE HANG AROUND!! By the way, for anyone who clicked on it, I posted a very extreme - violently extreme - anti-Semitic link, in my all-smilies post after one of Shants! It was to serve as a lesson on what we are dealing with now (and in the past, only without the Internet.) I'm sure they have Frnklin's "quote" there somewhere among those many links. We're all adults here. It's educational. Anti-Semitism is alive and well today - growing by leaps and bounds, in fact - and I think talking about it, is helpful. It's even related to the on-going discussion (elsewhere) about Israel's "Raison d'Etre". I think the whole discussion is interesting. And important. And Shant, I thought in the Coffee Room nothing was OT. But your point about changing the subject tactically (especially with a major distaction) as a way of taking the heat off when the arguments are getting hard for an individual poster to counter - yes, I quite agree with you - it should be pointed out. Which reminds me. Jolly. How DO you personally define "Christian"?? Ariel
If this is coffee, bring me tea. If this is tea, bring me coffee. ~Abraham Lincoln~
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,378
3000 Post Club Member
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,378 |
To those who asked about reporting the post to Frank, I say don't. We are all adults here. I would think Frank expects us to settle it ourselves. Personally, I have only reported one thing to Frank, what I expected was spamming the board that he might not want to escalate any further.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 973
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 973 |
Originally posted by Jolly: Then we are back to the "freedom from religion" argument, as compared to the "freedom of religion argument".
Nobody has said that America was established as a theocracy.
But a Christian nation would be one that is established upon Christian principles, and Christian thought, with a predominately Christian population.
Even if the Founding Fathers wanted to assure that all could worship as they pleased, can you say that their religion did not vastly influence their thoughts, and writings?
As for Paine, he died a disgrace, and if memory serves me correctly, only six people attended his funeral, thus giving a pretty good insight as to what people of the time thought about him. Jolly It seems to me we have all agreed that the Founding Fathers were influenced by Christianity. How could we not? It is self evident. But let me again ask you.... Why does this matter? What do you think SPECIFICALLY should be done differently from what we are now doing in this country because of this? I see no reason for any changes because of the Founding Fathers were influenced by Christianity -- theirs and others. As of now, those of us who are religiously minded have every right to join into the discourse in the public square. To the extent our ideas are found valid by the majority in this country and are deemed worthy and constitutional to be made into law or policy, then they are already included. NOT because they are religious ideas, but because they make sense for the running of a secular, pluralistic society. This is as things are now. Why do you keep making the same point about freedom from or of religion? What difference would it make in how we run our society?
WMD = Words of Mass Distortion ---------------------- Seek those who seek the truth. Avoid those who have found it.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,378
3000 Post Club Member
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,378 |
Jolly, The reason for the post, as already stated, was not anti-semitism, but the quote in it supporting the premise of this being a Christian nation. For the life of me I can not fathom why you would use a discredited source of information that has been around since the 1930,s. One that has been refuted by the Franklin Library, and just about every other legitimate source as a hoax perpertrated and used by hate-groups to "support the premise of this being a Christian nation"! That just makes no sense to me!
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 31
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 31 |
Ariel - I have no intention of disappearing. I simply read much more than I post. Others who are more eloquent nearly always say what I was going say before I get round to posting. No point in clouding the net with 'me too' posts. My thanks to all the contributors to this and other threads. I may not agree with all that's said but it nearly always makes me think. As the mother of 2 school age children who works outside the home ( ), I rarely get the chance to 'converse' about anything more esoteric than afterschool transportation plans. This forum helps remind me that there's more to life. Noelle
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,758
3000 Post Club Member
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,758 |
I guess for me the question is what is the point? Nation's are not "saved." People may be...but probably more difficult than ever in our culture. Christ never seemed very politically oriented to me other than to work for the welfare of others. I can't imagine Christ spending a lot of time figuring out if this was a Christian nation.
If he was told this was a Christian nation, I would imagine he would be amazed at how the elderly and poor are cared for in hospitals -- how much energy has been devoted to ensuring that wealthy americans have more wealth and why we care so little for His creation...
Ken
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 14,305
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 14,305 |
To address Ariel's point first: Webster's definition: Main Entry: 1Chris·tian Pronunciation: 'kris-ch&n, 'krish- Function: noun Etymology: Latin christianus, adjective & n., from Greek christianos, from Christos Date: 1526 1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1) : DISCIPLE 2 (2) : a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3) : a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961 2 : the hero in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress I would agree with the first definition, as I think most would. But I have an even better personal definition: 16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17: For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18: He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19: And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20: For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21: But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,378
3000 Post Club Member
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,378 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 6,467
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 6,467 |
Here's my worry about declaring the United States a "Christian nation."
1) It alienates all non-Christians. Who gives a rip if they are in the minority? They are all Americans.
2) I don't think it's a game of semantics. I am, to be frank, worried that the desire to be labeled a "Christian nation" carries with it many, many layers of unspoken expectations regarding laws and civil rights. - What our children will be taught - The role of science in our society - Abortion - What receives federal funding, and what strings are attached - Who receives the benefits of legislative largesse
etc., etc.
This is so obvious to me that I have not posted it up to now. Jolly, I think you are saying that it doesn't really matter, because Christianity is the majority religion, therefore any civil changes made in light of Christianity will be, by default, held by the majority.
I disagree. Even within Christianity there is a wide swath of beliefs. The majority of people pushing to have the US declared a "Christian nation" are on the far right of the spectrum, not necessarily even representative of all Christians.
Hence my original question: if it was no big deal, why haven't we seen anyone propose an amendment? Because it IS a big deal.
Nina
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,758
3000 Post Club Member
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,758 |
At least some of the framers of the constitution were concerned about the tyrany of the majority. They wanted this nation to be a nation friendly and respectful of minorities. Labeling this nation as a Christian nation does as you say, Nina, make the nation less of an ideal for other peoples throughout the world. Ken
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 14,305
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 14,305 |
And to address LP's: First with LP's quote: Why does this matter? What do you think SPECIFICALLY should be done differently from what we are now doing in this country because of this?
I see no reason for any changes because of the Founding Fathers were influenced by Christianity -- theirs and others.
As of now, those of us who are religiously minded have every right to join into the discourse in the public square. To the extent our ideas are found valid by the majority in this country and are deemed worthy and constitutional to be made into law or policy, then they are already included. NOT because they are religious ideas, but because they make sense for the running of a secular, pluralistic society.
But that is not necessarily the case, is it? Witness the push by secularists to wipe any vestige of religion from the public arena, even though it may be agreed upon by the majority of the people. The example I have in mind are the court cases brought against municipalities because of public crèche displays. While the minority view would have never prevailed in a legislative process, the secularists have been very successful in having the court's rule in their favor. And yet, I feel that this same Supreme Court, had the identical case been brought before it 50, 100, or even at the birth of the nation, would have thought it laughable. By our constitution, we are free to worship as we choose. It seems, however, in the past 50 years, or so, that principle is no longer good enough. It seems to have morphed into the principle that we are free to worship, as long as it doesn't offend anybody! Why should I care, if I receive government services, and I notice a Bible, a Crucifix, or a Koran on the table of the government employee helping me? And this is where I think that the original intent has been perverted. Much of current society believes that religion has no role in public life, or policy. I don't think the Framer's went that far.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,758
3000 Post Club Member
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,758 |
I'm not sure Jesus was concerned with public displays....
Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
"3": But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
"4": That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
"5": And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
"6": But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
"7": But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
"8": Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,683
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,683 |
It seems to me that you just gave pretty good proof that we *are* a Christian nation. Originally posted by Nina: - What our children will be taught - The role of science in our society - Abortion - What receives federal funding, and what strings are attached - Who receives the benefits of legislative largesse If we were an areligious nation we wouldn't have problems with some of the "science" taught in schools, abortion, harvesting stem cells from babies created for that purpose, cloning, etc. why haven't we seen anyone propose an amendment? An amendment to declare we *are* a Christian nation? We're *not* a Christian nation? What would that amendment actually do? I'm confused.
"If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to." MSU - the university of Michigan! Wheels
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,683
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,683 |
Originally posted by kluurs: Labeling this nation as a Christian nation does as you say, Nina, make the nation less of an ideal for other peoples throughout the world. Ken, I don't think anyone is trying to "label" anything, just recognize what it is. I see evidence that, by a broad definition, we are. That doesn't mean, at least to me, that most everyone in the US is a born-again believer. If that is the definition of a Christian nation, then I do *not* think we are a Christian nation. And I wouldn't worry about the possibility of making people who want to come here feel uneasy. Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle contained an obnoxious anti-American rant by one Purvi Patel, who was offended by an official ceremony she attended recently. The event "reinforced a growing resentment I felt toward the United States," she writes. "The American government, in pursuit of an illegal war and a post-9/11 assault on civil liberties, seemed more a police state than a democracy." Purvi Patel considered "walking out," that's how put off she was. But in the end she stayed and completed the ceremony--namely, her swearing in as a U.S. citizen. So Purvi thinks America is just awful--but not so awful that she doesn't want to be an American. We could amend the Constitution to read everyone has to sprinkle chicken blood in a circle and bay at the moon and people would still be doing everything they could to get here.
"If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to." MSU - the university of Michigan! Wheels
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,758
3000 Post Club Member
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,758 |
Gryphon, Actualy, there is a movement for a Christian Nation amendment. Amendment And I'm sure, for economic reasons alone, many folks would love to come to this country. Maybe Purvi had a bad day... What I was referencing was that the founding fathers created an ideal here -- that we separate religion from government. It certainly gives us credibility when we cast aspirsions on Islamic governments not being sensitive to the needs of their various peoples. I think we have something good going on -- don't need to mess with it. Ken
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,271
4000 Post Club Member
|
4000 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,271 |
Originally posted by Jolly: [QB But that is not necessarily the case, is it? Witness the push by secularists to wipe any vestige of religion from the public arena, even though it may be agreed upon by the majority of the people.
The example I have in mind are the court cases brought against municipalities because of public crèche displays.
While the minority view would have never prevailed in a legislative process, the secularists have been very successful in having the court's rule in their favor.
[/QB] You see, the founding folks knew what they were doing. They knew that a majority could, if not then, then later "establish religion" (read: Christianity -- that's the only one they were concerned with.) So they wanted to make sure that, regardless of what the majority opinion was, regardless of the results of any legislative process, there would be a "wall of separation between church and state" -- yes, freedom FROM religion as far as government was concerned, and freedom of religion as far as the individual was concerned. The context of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association is precisely that - that government could not be placed in the role of in any way supporting a religious observance. And as the Virginia House of Burgesses wrote before the 1st Amendment (and hence we have brackets about the intent, both before and after its adoption), freedom FROM religion in state matters was good for Christianity, as well as good for individuals. In other words, they sought to protect Christianity from itself.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 14,305
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 14,305 |
kluurs,
The passage you cite is often given in support of not praying in public.
I think the key phrase, though, and the lesson being taught, is hypocritical public prayer.
Can there not be public prayer that is in earnest, and to the glorification of God?
Should one not pray openly at worship services, or at a wedding, or any other solemn public occasion?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 14,305
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 14,305 |
As I have previously written, I cannot find in the Constitution any mention of the wall of separation.
And in the example I gave, if original intent was considered, do you not think the Founders would roll over in their graves at the disproportionate power wielded by the Federal judiciary?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,683
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,683 |
Originally posted by Jolly: if original intent was considered, do you not think the Founders would roll over in their graves at the disproportionate power wielded by the Federal judiciary? YES! (How do I get that in 24 pt. type?) Federal gummint in general. It's almost as if the 10th doesn't exist.
"If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to." MSU - the university of Michigan! Wheels
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 973
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 973 |
As to Jolly's comments: Originally posted by Jolly:
Witness the push by secularists to wipe any vestige of religion from the public arena, even though it may be agreed upon by the majority of the people. I have not seen any success in their attempts, excpet in very specific cases which are quickly found to be unacceptable by the courts. I certainly have seen no formalized governmental policy that accepts their desires as public policy. Indeed, it seems to me that whether it is in Halls of Congress, the White House or the Supreme Court, those people who wish to enter into the public debate using a religious argument have every right to. I have seen no law, reuglation, policy or court decision that says that somene may not advocate and try to influence the decision makers of this country using religious arguments. The example I have in mind are the court cases brought against municipalities because of public crèche displays. I also have seen no law, policy, regulation or court decision that denies the right to public displays of any religious symbol. The only limitation I have seen is that it cannot be on public property or done by a public agency. This seems to make sense. If I have a cross in my front yard, which I have every right to do, it can easily be assumed that I have placed it there because I endorse what the cross stands for. To outlaw a public agency which reflects all of the public from making a similar statement only makes sense since there can be no implied endorsement of a religious viewpoint by the government. I see this as nothing more than a common sense. Government can have no religious viewpoint, therefore it should not express or even imply one. By our constitution, we are free to worship as we choose. It seems, however, in the past 50 years, or so, that principle is no longer good enough. It seems to have morphed into the principle that we are free to worship, as long as it doesn't offend anybody!
Could you give me one example of such a law, such a policy, such a regulation or such a court decision? One which states that an individual or group, acting within their private domain or on their private property with no support from the government cannot worship and believe as they want, even if seen by the public in general? As to Gryphon's comments: Originally posted by Gryphon:
If we were an a religious nation we wouldn't have problems with some of the "science" taught in schools, abortion, harvesting stem cells from babies created for that purpose, cloning, etc. . On what do you base this? Could you tell me what is commonly being taught in the schools about abortion, harvesting stem cells from babies created for that purpose, cloning, etc..? Could you please include references to show text books, what syllabi and/or what curriculum are being used in the schools across our land? And once you have done that, could you give me the "religious" view of these matters? The religious view that is shared by all who consider themselves religious that would change what is being taught to conform to what a "religious" nation would have taught? And then, could you also define for me just what tenets a "religious" nation would adhere to that would reflect the diversity of religious thinking in this country? Thanks.
WMD = Words of Mass Distortion ---------------------- Seek those who seek the truth. Avoid those who have found it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:34 PM
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:23 PM
|
|
Forums43
Topics223,405
Posts3,349,434
Members111,637
|
Most Online15,252 Mar 21st, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|