Christian Nation?

[Fast_Eddie]

There's no explaining this to some people. So I'll say my piece and be done with it. The quotes have already been posted, so I'll spare you. It's quite clear to me that some of the founding fathers were dubious of religion.

Pete hit on it, but I think draws a different conclusion. It's like the question above- could Obama run as a Muslim and be elected. We all know the answer. Look what being Mormon did to the best candidate the Republicans had last go 'round. And they're even christians, or so they say. We're creatures of our time and place.

For instance- in most of the world, "Socialist" is a set of beliefs that many in the population agree with. In many countries, "Socialist" is one of the political parties. There are people in the United States that would share many beliefs with people who self identify as "Socialist" in other parts of the world. Would anyone seeking public office ever run as a "Socialist"? Of course not, not if they ever wanted to be elected. It would be political suicide. The term has a meaning in this time and in this place that is unique.

So, were the founding fathers Christian? Sure they were, to the degree they went to church. They wouldn't be "the founding fathers" if they handn't. It's the way things were then. But it's quite clear that on a more personal level, these were smart, deep thinking men who explored thought and questioned everything. Many of them seem to have come to the conclusion that Religion wasn't all it was cracked up to be. And even more clearly, they set up the rules by which this nation is governed with that in mind.

Sure, you can twist what is clear into some absurd notion that they were Bible thumphing fundamentalists in a time when there were no Bible thumphing fundimentalists. But that's more than a little silly. It's like those pictures of Jesus you see looking like he's a blond haried European. Seems unlikely, but that's what some people chose to believe no matter how absurd.

So, is it a Christian nation? Sure it is, in so much as most people here would self identify as Christian. Should that have anything to do with our governance? Sure it should- people will govern themselves based on their beliefs. But should we be very careful about protecting ourselves from becoming a nation of zelots ruled by religion instead of laws. We should, and we should to a very extreem degree. The Alternative is to become a Christian version of the Talaban, ruling on myth, superstition and *someone's* interpretation of some religous text. That can lead to a lot of bad, bad decisions.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Why, didn't you know? Jesus refused to perform his miracle cures for people with pre-existing conditions or who had reached their lifetime limit for miracles.

John

Hey, I already made that joke on this forum somewhere...

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

For instance- in most of the world, "Socialist" is a set of beliefs that many in the population agree with. In many countries, "Socialist" is one of the political parties. There are people in the United States that would share many beliefs with people who self identify as "Socialist" in other parts of the world. Would anyone seeking public office ever run as a "Socialist"? Of course not, not if they ever wanted to be elected. It would be political suicide. The term has a meaning in this time and in this place that is unique.

Sen. Bernie Sanders but point taken.

John

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

Hey, I already made that joke on this forum somewhere...

Well, a good joke is worth stealing, right?

John

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by Boreas

There are two sides to that coin. Madison's primary concern was that government would exert undue influence on religion and bend it to its purposes. Jefferson's concern was the exact opposite. The truth, as fr as I'm concerned, is that there is an equal danger of both.

John

I absolutely agree.

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

There's no explaining this to some people. So I'll say my piece and be done with it. The quotes have already been posted, so I'll spare you. It's quite clear to me that some of the founding fathers were dubious of religion.

Pete hit on it, but I think draws a different conclusion. It's like the question above- could Obama run as a Muslim and be elected. We all know the answer. Look what being Mormon did to the best candidate the Republicans had last go 'round. And they're even christians, or so they say. We're creatures of our time and place.

For instance- in most of the world, "Socialist" is a set of beliefs that many in the population agree with. In many countries, "Socialist" is one of the political parties. There are people in the United States that would share many beliefs with people who self identify as "Socialist" in other parts of the world. Would anyone seeking public office ever run as a "Socialist"? Of course not, not if they ever wanted to be elected. It would be political suicide. The term has a meaning in this time and in this place that is unique.

So, were the founding fathers Christian? Sure they were, to the degree they went to church. They wouldn't be "the founding fathers" if they handn't. It's the way things were then. But it's quite clear that on a more personal level, these were smart, deep thinking men who explored thought and questioned everything. Many of them seem to have come to the conclusion that Religion wasn't all it was cracked up to be. And even more clearly, they set up the rules by which this nation is governed with that in mind.

Sure, you can twist what is clear into some absurd notion that they were Bible thumphing fundamentalists in a time when there were no Bible thumphing fundimentalists. But that's more than a little silly. It's like those pictures of Jesus you see looking like he's a blond haried European. Seems unlikely, but that's what some people chose to believe no matter how absurd.

So, is it a Christian nation? Sure it is, in so much as most people here would self identify as Christian. Should that have anything to do with our governance? Sure it should- people will govern themselves based on their beliefs. But should we be very careful about protecting ourselves from becoming a nation of zelots ruled by religion instead of laws. We should, and we should to a very extreem degree. The Alternative is to become a Christian version of the Talaban, ruling on myth, superstition and *someone's* interpretation of some religous text. That can lead to a lot of bad, bad decisions.

Thank you for the great post.

All but a bare handful of the folks in question were indeed 'real' Christians. What they were dubious of was 'organized' religion, and had millions of very darn good reasons to be. Prosecution was still going on in Europe at the time, as it had since time began. Dickens in his usual pointed way says things like 'he was burned by the King to show what a fine Christian he was' (this was earlier times though).

For the record, what we think of as Bible thumpers don't hold a candle to the popular Pastors of that day.

Pete

[Grumpy]

I would vote for an atheist before any other, all things considering.

[epifanatic]

Originally Posted by Grumpy

I would vote for an atheist before any other, all things considering.

+10, I need a campaign manager!

[merrylander]

Works for me.

[hillbilly]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Why, didn't you know? Jesus refused to perform his miracle cures for people with pre-existing conditions or who had reached their lifetime limit for miracles.

John

Isn't there something in the Bible that says God will help those that help themselves? Or have I just developed schizophrenia and hear someone else besides the preacher in Church?

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Sen. Bernie Sanders but point taken.

John

Yeah, I know, but you know what I mean.