John Adams on Public Education

[piece-itpete]

If we're not a Christian nation, why did/do we have a) the mentioned holidays, b) even Jefferson talking about God, deist or no, c) a taxpayer supported Chaplain in Congress (with very pointed Christian prayers before each opening that would do Baptists proud) d) early Congress putting it's stamp on a Bible, for use in schools (public schools) particularly?

What they did know was what Church control was capable of, and how much the priests and politicians liked to use each other for power. It's the comments like Adam's above - aimed at the abuses of the church/state.

Btw Eddie, you can see how the first Adams quote relates directly into a Christian culture being responsible for Freedom of Religion

Pete

Pete

[Fast_Eddie]

Pete we get into this from time to time. I don't think we're that far apart.

It comes down to this- what does "Christian Nation" mean? And what place should it hold in our world *today*?

At one time we were a "Slaveholding Nation". At one time we were a "Landowners Vote" nation. All kinds of things change and remnants of the old shape the new. Are we a Christian nation? Sure, in as much as most of the people here are Christian. So? What does that have to do with anything? Most of the people here are still white. Are we a White nation? Sure, to the extent that it's a fact, but I don't think it's something we could make policy.

It's like the "official language" stuff that comes up from time to time. Are we an English Speaking Nation? Yes, in as much as that's what most people here speak. But is that policy or culture? I say it's culture and I think making it policy is a bad move. We are what we are and what we are in America is what the people, all of whome moved here from somewhere else at one time, make it.

Shoot, most people here are overweight. Should we make it policy that to be an American you need to be overweight? Or propogate measures that encourage everyone to be overweight? We're an overweight nation, no doubt about that. But we can chose if we let that define our policy.

So, Pete, we agree - this is a Christian nation. I'm a Christian and you are too. Not a surprise. Most of us are. I hope that the people leading our nation will make decisions consistant with the principals that I think are right. For most of them that will mean a Judeo-Christian tradition. And from that collective set of values we establish laws. But I do not want to establish laws that impose my beliefs on others. If a Buddhist wants to be a judge, God love him and may he rule in accordance with our laws. It's not America if we say "no Buddhist can be a Judge". And if we effort to impose moral code into law we're taking a step down Taliban road.

I know, "what about murder. Bible says thow shall not kill and we made it a law". I'm pretty sure your run of the mill Athiest would say murder is wrong too. We can't say how much we are shaped by religious views and how much religious views are shaped by us. So the thought I've always held on to - my rights end where another's begin. Makes the whole murder thing pretty clear.

Not all things that are bad should be illegal. It's bad to be rude to your waiter. But it's not a law. Morally it's wrong, but it would be bad law. Morally it's bad to have sex with a woman who isn't your wife. But does anyone think Tiger Woods should go to jail? it's a free country and freedom means people can do what they like, right or wrong, until their actions start to infringe on my rights. That's where the gray areas come in.

Is it your right to carry a gun around the office I work in? I can argue both sides of that. It's your right to carry a gun and it's my right to be reasonably safe. I guess if I feel unsafe I have the right to go work somewhere else. Dunno. Is it my right to walk around naked all the time? Kind of the same deal. Yes, sometimes, and no sometimes. It's all finding that line - where do your rights end and mine begin. That's where we can have good debate. But to say gay's shouldn't be married because the Bible says so, well, it says we should stone that woman Tiger Woods slept with to death too. And in some places in the world, thats what would happen. Sorry. Doesn't fly with me.

[Fast_Eddie]

Damn, and I'm actually really busy today.

[piece-itpete]

Applause Eddie!

I have never advocated imposing my religious beliefs on anyone. All I have to say is 'we are (or were) a Christian nation' and most of the left and nowadays half the right goes nuts.

I will point out that all law is legislated morality, IE imposing our collective beliefs on everyone. So by extention we're becoming the Taliban?

Check this out - the local town does a thing, where you can help build a park by buying a brick with your message. Great!

But - you, a theoretically free man, are NOT ALLOWED to post a reference to God. Isn't that infringing upon my rights, or is the very sight of the words (the stuff speech is made of) so offensive that your rights are thusly infringed?

Pete

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Applause Eddie!

I have never advocated imposing my religious beliefs on anyone. All I have to say is 'we are (or were) a Christian nation' and most of the left and nowadays half the right goes nuts.

Threre's a reason for that Pete. It's almost always followed by some opinion that some right or other should be taken away. Case in point: gay marriage. I don't plan to use my right to get married to another man. But I want the right protected all the same.

And, to be clear, we certainly are a Christian nation, but may not always be. This is America, and if down the road Christians become a minority I'll hope our rights are protected just as I would fight to protect the rights of non-Christians today.

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

I will point out that all law is legislated morality, IE imposing our collective beliefs on everyone. So by extention we're becoming the Taliban?

That isn't what I said at all. I tried to address exactly this point in my post.

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Check this out - the local town does a thing, where you can help build a park by buying a brick with your message. Great!

But - you, a theoretically free man, are NOT ALLOWED to post a reference to God. Isn't that infringing upon my rights, or is the very sight of the words (the stuff speech is made of) so offensive that your rights are thusly infringed?

I'm not familiar with the case you're talking about but I agree that sometimes these things are taken too far. We have a bit of a debate in Denver. Every December the City/County building, using my tax dollars, puts up a huge "Merry Christmas" lighted sign. Should the Jews and other non Christians in Denver have to pay for that? Dunno. As I said, Christmas is as much secular as religious (if not more) but do we have the right to use their tax money to promote a message that can be taken as a proclomation of a religious belief on public property?

[piece-itpete]

Long and short, the guys who wrote the Constitution thought so.

But that's an actual government action. The bricks are private and therefore a unConstitutional infringement of my rights The man is holding me down, man! lol.

Without going into gay marriage, but to continue using it as an example, there is absolutely no way that the Constitution garentees it. Therefore it's a matter of open debate. It is a great case in point and another example of why freedom of religion is lumped with speech - it doesn't matter why one person or the other believes what they believe. And besides, unless Cali is suddenly very Christian it's not just Christians by a long shot. Why should they be singled out?

Pete

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Long and short, the guys who wrote the Constitution thought so.

But that's an actual government action. The bricks are private and therefore a unConstitutional infringement of my rights The man is holding me down, man! lol.

Without going into gay marriage, but to continue using it as an example, there is absolutely no way that the Constitution garentees it. Therefore it's a matter of open debate. It is a great case in point and another example of why freedom of religion is lumped with speech - it doesn't matter why one person or the other believes what they believe. And besides, unless Cali is suddenly very Christian it's not just Christians by a long shot. Why should they be singled out?

Pete

You ever been to California Pete? It's not Egypt. They're Christian out there too. My kids were born and baptised in California.

Constitution doesn't guarantee it specifically. It doesn't guarantee a lot of things specifically. Doesn't give you the right to drive a car, own a house, get married (to a woman). Constitution doesn't say the government can have an air-force. Not in the Constitution. Doesn't say you can have a computer or access to the internet. Doesn't say you have a right to own a TV or join a health club. Doesn't say you can enjoy a lovely spring day at the park. Doesn't say you can look at a pretty girl when she walks by. None of it in the Constitution. That doesn't have much to do with anything Pete.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
-- John Adams

Maybe back in his day but I do believe the muslims have established a new record.

[BlueStreak]

The death and bloodiness toll may be hard to measure. In the early days of "Holy Wars", (an oxymoron if there ever was one), the record keeping was abyssmal. The mindless slaughter "in the name of the Prince of Peace" was widespread and horribly disorganized.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Eddie heaven forbid I should cast aspirations on you personally.

With the Crusades, not nec the death toll, but the actions. Yes, the 1st Crusade the knights killed every man woman and child in Jerusalem. Unfortunately this is not uncommon and is not strictly a religious issue, but a human nature one. It's a control issue first and foremost. For an modern example see Hutus and Tutsis.

Pete