Does the Left Understand the Faithful?

I'm a big believer in the separation of church and state, but going after that cross is complete overkill and will be used by conservatives to convince people that the left hates God.

And while going after that cross does not prove that the left hates God, it does demonstrate that the left has a number very extremist and unreasonable followers in their ranks.

to state the obvious. . .not only Christians are the faithful. . .every Faith tradition has its faithful. . . The Cross is a most valued of symbol for Christians and should be honored, as well as the other symbols of various Faith traditions need the same honor. If one is allowed all should be allowed. . . if any one cannot be allowed none should be allowed. . .

beyond special some issues are simple. . .

Note to Joe Gandelman:

Thanks for allowing this thoughtful essay. It's nice to see TMV including a conservative voice other than the hyper-partisan Michael Reagan.

As for the case of the Cross:

The "equal access" argument from ordinarysparrow is cogent. As a Christian, I have to ask myself, though: Would I be comfortable seeing a huge crescent upon the hill, or a large Buddha? Whether we like to admit it or not, we are not a "Christian" nation, but a nation with lots of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other faiths. But all cards on the table, a Star of David display wouldn't scare me, nor would a Buddha, but a Muslim symbol would.

This is not directed toward you, Shannon since (according to your posts) you don't represent leftists....... But the "true" Left does hate God. By "true", I mean the social progressives / humanists that make up the majority of the left. They do, indeed, hate God. That may sound like a generalization, but humanists, by definition, detest all that God stands for.
Those that are in the political arena don't have the guts to come right out and say that. That would be political suicide. They must use subversive tactics to accomplish their goal. So they take a little at a time. A prayer here. An organization there. An outlawed phrase or a disallowed holiday observance. It's all part of the plan.

But I'm just a guy that clings to guns and religion. What do I know?
LOL

If a buddha or crescent was placed there over 100 years ago in memory of fallen soldiers, I wouldn't have a problem with it in a state park. Sometimes, with certain things, you can allow a little respect for history. While it is a cross, I really do not view it as a Christian symbol in its current place, but as a symbol of respect and memory to those that died.

I agree...there are people out there that hate god or the concept of god. I think most atheists or agnostics are basically indifferent as long as the rules of some "god" aren't being forced upon them. You start to get that hatred when you start to deny people equal rights because of a belief system based on the rules of some god.

We would see less hatred towards religion if people would stop using religion to do hateful things.

JD, that sounds like a generalization because it is. Just like religions, there are sects within the humanist community, including elements that embrace faith but do not elevate it above human rationalities.

And claiming that humanists detest all things the God stands for (whatever that happens to be, as it is quite an enormous claim to know) is equal to saying that Christians detest all things that are not Christian. In support of one philosophy does not equate to the hatred of all other things.

Based on your rationale, I assume you also believe all politicos on the Christian Right are secretly trying to destroy all things not Christian?

What do you think God stands for that humanists detest?

Many on the left and a good amount of people on the right(hello libertarians) do not believe in god. If you do not believe in something you do not hate it, though it would cause you great fear to see policies that science or statistics say will not work put in place only because they hold sway with the local religious community. The majority on the left much like the majority of the right do believe in god and vote those values. Some vote to end abortion and some vote to help the poor but both sides are voting christian values though whether they concentrate more on the Old or New Testament seems to explain a good deal of the split between left vs right. Either way what you said is not only propaganda, that for some reason you seem to believe, it is also insulting to not only your fellow citizens but your fellow believers in faith. Just because the left does not wrap themselves around a cross does not mean that they do not see its importance, in fact I would argue it is a sign they hold it in more reverence and therefore use it less as political fodder which not only insults the religion it delegitimizes it which is why the ranks of denominations is falling while the unaffiliated and atheist ranks have swelled, if the GOP represents christians and christianity many have decided they are not christians. Of course the GOP in no way represents christian values they just talk about them but that confusion has not only left us with a single viable party it has also left our churches largely empty of people in their 20's and 30's.

Very nice thoughts and words (Although the title sounds too much like "When did you stop beating your wife?").

Yes, symbols such as the Cross are very important, even sacred to most Americans, and around the world.

Yes, words such as those written by Henne and spoken by others are important, sincere, and meaningful.

Yes, "the hijacking" of the faith through words by the Right for political purposes, and the "apparent assaults" by the Left are regrettable---both sometimes going beyond words into some form of legislation or court ruling.

But, in the end, whether spoken or written---even when written on stone tablets or on the parchment of our Constitution---they are still words.

I believe that your God, my God, is more interested in deeds than in words or symbols: How we treat the sick, the poor, the needy, the disadvantaged---each other, other human beings---regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, social status, ethnic origin, or political party. [Oh, and I forgot, Religion!]

Just my thoughts...

I don't know anyone who "hates" god, although plenty of folks are probably fed up enough with religion (in general) to get heated about it. For my own part "hating" god would be a little too silly, akin to hating the tooth fairy or hating extraterrestrials. Maybe someday humans will grow up enough to start discarding more of their superstitions. The sooner they can do that, the sooner they are likely to start taking greater responsibility for their own actions, and by extension their own destinies. I say this with a full understanding of how deeply rooted religion is in the American (and human) psyche. It's entirely possible to have a profound appreciation for the universe and the mysteries around us without feeling the need to adopt "explanations" that too often fall short in giving the wonder of life it's due. The ability to love and conduct oneself in a moral and eithical way is hardly contingent on religion either, although this is a common misconception among folks whose thinking never goes beyond a certain level.

Interesting, you don't believe in a higher power, but you do believe in destiny....

The more I hear them, the more I find the phrases "the Left" and "the Right" completely useless. We can say whatever we want about the left and the right, because no one agrees what the terms mean. So just stick in whatever predicate you want and then we get to argue away. About nothing.

Of course this lawsuit was not brought until a Buddhist was denied permission when he sought to build a small shrine nearby, a detail missing from the article.

We would see less hatred towards religion if people would stop using religion to do hateful things.

A clever turn of phrase, and dead-on true as well. Thank you, shannonlee.

I realize that what I am about to say will probably generate all kinds of hateful responses from those who don't understand or don't like what I'm saying, but here goes anyway.

The Left doesn't understand the Faithful, and neither does the Right.

The United States is a pluralistic country, governed by people with biases and personal agendas and self-serving interests, elected by people with prejudices and convictions and deeply held beliefs or with no particular beliefs at all, under a constitutional republican (note the small "r" please!) system of government that was intended to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As a practical matter, this means that EVERYone will always be at least a LITTLE unhappy with the laws, the courts, and the executive. And it means that MANY people will SOMEtimes be VERY UNhappy with the same things, and NObody will be VERY HAPPY with them ALL the time.

In other words, most people just have to learn to get over it. Everyone else is not going to leave "us" (whoever "us" is to you) alone or agree with "us." Ever. Some of our neighbors are always going to persist in their errors and wrong thinking (according to "us" righteous and right-thinking folk).

Unless and until everyone in this country converts to Roman Catholic Christianity, becomes 100% faithful to the Magisterium and loyal to the Pope, it's going to be like this. (I pick on Roman Catholicism because I am one of those critters, and because there's no other religion with the same central authority.) And in my opinion, we won't ever see this situation. If you don't believe me, read Revelation -- it's all in there.

(Catholic haters, save your breath.)

It's a generalization, and it's an offensive generalization. Not all generalizations are inherently offensive; the idea that if you don't want a symbol of one religion on public land, you hate God, or you hate people who believe in God, is offensive.

As a person with strong spiritual beliefs, which inform and guide my political and social values, I feel repelled and affronted when I am told that my politically progressive values are prima facie evidence that I hate God and everything God stands for.

Faith is personal. It is not a movement. It is not a political agenda. It is not left or right, conservative or progressive. It is what it means to each individual who has it and who knows what it means in his or her life.

Agreed, but also keep in mind that many religious and/or spiritual people, in this country and elsewhere, are struggling (as individuals and in their faith communities) to find and articulate an understanding of God, of the divine, whatever word you choose to use, that is not rooted in superstition. Believe it or not, it's possible to believe God exists and also, at the same time, reject the notion that God is an old man (white, of course) with a flowing beard, issuing commands from the clouds.

"reject the notion that God is an old man (white, of course) with a flowing beard, issuing commands from the clouds."

I find this highly personally offensive!!!!!!!!!!!

In a democracy people inevitably vote their values, and to the extent those values are based on superstition, they constitute a public nuisance.

I think we should all be less patient with God. "Hate" is a stronger word than I'd use but I can probably make peace with it.

That said, most Christians in my experience (including a few clergy) pay lip service to superstition but act (and vote) on common sense. I can make peace with that too.

"But I'm just a guy that clings to guns and religion. What do I know?"

hmmmmm. Well, I totally disagree with your comment here. Even the relatively small number of actual atheists in the Democratic party don't "hate God." They do not believe there is any invisible supernatural man in the sky TO hate. BIG difference. As a humanist myself and a naturalist, not a supernaturalist, I do not "hate God" or religion in any way. But I have a profound respect for the fact that our nation was founded by those who fled "official religion" to seek religious freedom; the freedom to disagree with the Church of England. We humanists don't mind what people believe, as long as it does no harm to others. But we do very much mind any religion becoming the "official religion" of America, denying our origin and returning us to the tyranny not of true believers in God, but true believers in A RELIGION. I have a devout Christian friend. She deplores what most organized Christian churches have become. She says "my religion is the religion OF Jesus Christ, who never sought to be worshiped, but to spread the word about the One HE worshiped." Good point.

The One He worshiped is the God of Abraham, the same God who is worshiped by Jews and Muslims.

It would be just as easy for me to brand you, JD, as anti-American, for "hating" the religious freedom we fought and fled to achieve.

BTW, it is the Interior Department, of the Democratic Party, that is defending this case, not prosecuting it. That makes your comment transparently inaccurate.

Not a good case for the anti's to ante their pot of marbles on. They could easily lose just on standing which would be a costly precedent to any future action elsewhere. (And I suspect that why the SCOTUS agreed to hear this one.)

The smart anti's would have left a couple of crossed pipes in the middle of the desert alone.

shannonlee, I believe we create our own destiny. As for a "higher power", show me one and I'll tell you whether or not I "believe" in it. I've learned over the decades that common sense explains many things, but in order for it to function well, it requires a good grounding in experience and learning. There are many things that aren't explainable by either common sense, science, or any other knowledge base we are privy to, but all that means is that we have the option of saying "I don't know", not a terribly popular phrase in the human lexicon. ;-)

Hi there Bill Brandon, welcome, and what you have to say isnt likely to generate hateful responses at TMV, firstly because you didnt attack others hatefully. Good work. Commenters here mostly will ignore what they dont care to reply to, regardless of how it is written. If a comment is written as an attack, often other commenters will ignore it anyway. (Just every now and then a person lets it get to them and gets carried away.) If you would, take a look at commenters' rules at top of home page here for the way TMV is laid out for civility and debate.

Again, welcome.

dr.e
deputy managing editor at TMV

I don't know...in our two party system I think it is pretty easy to determine what is "left" and what is "right". Just check out either party's political platform.

I wonder if the buddhist wanted to build a temple before or after a lawyer got involved? :) jk

per the definition of destiny that is logically impossible :) But I know what you mean and do agree.

I have to disagree, classically right means authoritarian and left meant anti-authoritarian but of course both of our parties are authoritarian. Then another split was between the wealthy versus the poor but of course both our parties benefit the wealthy and pay lip service to the poor. It gets even more confusing if you trade and use the words conservative and liberal since liberal markets are free and deregulated and conservatives are meant to conserve the status quo and the nations natural resources. From a US perspective we have a ball park idea what a US lefty and righty are but they do not fit the classic definitions nor the global ones. A case in point is the Nobel Prize issue, many said it was because of the "liberals" that were judging but they obviously fail to understand that a conservative in Norway is still far to the left of Obama. As a nation we are an extreme and we are at the extreme "rightward" arc of of the Reagan era which makes the definitions further muddy, kinda like asking these same right/left questions in the first year of the Reagan era.
Sadly all of the true right/left issues in this nation that we actually argue over and make changes in are social, gays/abortion/drugs/porn, everything else is often discussed but left untouched to further the next years election year issues. I have yet to see the right restrain government or cut it(though they do shift the funding from time to time). I have also yet to see a lefty do something for the poor that did not make the ruling class giant barrels of money for investing in the correct companies. This is because those are the issues we the people not in the ruling class are allowed to discuss, debate and change. The rest are the issues controlled by those putting shadows on the wall, we do not live in the Republic of laws and protections like we were taught in high school instead we live in Plato's so we decide the social issues that actually do not matter and the rest generally changes little no matter who you vote for, though last time I said this we got Bushed and I had to hate myself for 8 long and painful years.

JD -

Please forgive me for being presumptuous, but we have communicated well and I have something that I hope you will hear gently.

Many on this thread have attacked you because they saw you as attacking them in your comment.

Believe me when I say that I am no Biblical scholar. It took some considerable time for me to come up with these, but I knew they were in there somewhere. As heartfelt as your expression may have been, it did not seem to me to reflect charity, see, I Corinthians 13:13, nor love of your adversaries, see, Matthew 5:44 and Luke 6:27, nor forebearance of judgment, see Luke 6:37. May I also recommend the Book of James to perhaps understand why some Christians are indeed progressives?

Said gently again, I believe you are ill advised to judge the souls of others based soley upon their political leanings. Do with my words as you wish. Just wanted to reach out on a basis I thought you might respect and understand.

Best,
tidbits

Well, you would say that, being The Magical Sky Father. :-)

I, too, am going to try to express gently how I feel about this issue of the left "hating" god. First: I feel no problem identifying with the left, and while I've have a lot of internal struggle about god, and God, and spirituality in general (struggles which have led me down many exciting paths of study about various world religions including Biblical study), I am, for all intents and purposes, and athiest.

I do not hate God, and I do not hate Christians. What Christians do, on many occasions, bothers me to an extreme degree. When I see friends who have built up a wonderful community of support through their church, only to be shunned *including their children* by their community once their marriage dissolves -- this does not seem like a "community" to me. When I see the religious right fighting against women's rights to control their own fertility, leaving women little choice but to be baby-makers -- this infuriates me. When I see certain religious groups fighting against the rights of other religious groups or secular groups to perform marriages between same sex couples -- not only is this an afront to the separation of church and state, but it is an afront to those other churches' rights to perform the ceremonies they wish. When I see science teachers interupted by pure bull-hockey questions fed to children by church leaders who *do not understand science* -- this seems to me totally wasteful and disruptive of other children's educations. When kids use God and Jesus as a weapon against each other, just another tool with which to single out those who are different, and watch that turn into little Sally going home crying that mommy and daddy are going to hell -- that's not spreading the Good News, that's just plain old bullying. When I see Christians fight for the right of the cross to be displayed in public places while at the same time fighting against the symbols of other religions to enjoy the same exposure -- this smacks not of freedom of religion, this is the *exact opposite*, and therefore highly hypocritical.

So no, I do not hate God, and I do not hate Christians, but I despise a lot of what goes on in the name of religion.

J.D.

Please explain, modify or retract you comment that I hate God.

Thank you

Dorian

People attacked JD? Some of us asked for clarification and others said he was over generalizing and sought to explain that they disagree with the precepts of that view. I still have no idea what he even meant. Some people say humanists are anti-God because they claim that human destiny is in our hands and human action is the #1 most important thing, not faith. Of course the history of humanism is grounded in rational theists that believed that God gave us the power of rationality and it was up to us to use it. The writings of the Founding Fathers were very humanist in that sense and originally the movement arose not in opposition to God, but as a reconciliation between the Age of Reason and the wonder of the world...which is why the transcendental movement was associated with it.

Rick Warren has been criticized by some fundamentalists for working on the AIDS crisis with people that are secular not because they were secular, but because their message was that we can handle the problem ourselves. They said that Rick Warren should have refused and said that the problem was that people had turned away from God and didn't live by His commandments.

So if he was saying that humanists were anti-God for not submitting to divine authority, well then I guess they're anti-God (even the ones that believe in God). He could have been talking about politics though, I dunno.

For my part I've criticized so called humanists that care if someone is religious or not. That really shouldn't be a precept for humanism.

You'd have to ask them, mikkel. There are many sinful acts through religious "organizations", and that kind of hyprocracy is hated, especially (as Shannon noted above) when so-called "Godly" people promote hatred of any kind. From what I've been able to find, most humanists (at least the ones that are verbal) just want God out of everything: off the money, off of buildings, out of schools, and out of our lives. I think they truly believe that our nation would be better off without God, since they believe there isn't One.

I also think that TRUE Godly people walk the walk as well as talk the talk. Ghandi himself said, "India would be a Christian nation today, if Christians actually acted in accordance with the teachings of Christ.". A lot of power in that statement. As for me, I try to walk the walk. I succeed most times, but fail others.

My biggest beef with humanists, is that they totally disregard the writings of the Founding Fathers in reference to God's place in our nation and government. They built-in a Unitarian form of Godly acceptance as the power behind a democracy, without which the democracy will fail.

I see your point, MSF. To me, however, both parties ONCE acted with at least some common ground in terms of God. Then over time, the GOP went big-business; and the DNC went social progressive. Neither party is in touch with the "common man" these days. That's evident.

I think you did touch on one big contention between the right and the left, when you said "Some vote to end abortion and some vote to help the poor." The social right sees the abortion not as a right, but as a crime. The social left sees it as a procedure that's no one's business but their own - two totally different perspectives based upon the determination of when life begins.
As far as helping the poor, the right believes that Christ meant this as a personal act that each of us must do; not for a government to force it. Again, two totally different perspectives.

Keep in mind, Green. There is an actual difference between humanist and atheist or agnostic. One doesn't believe in God. The other wants God removed from society (humanist). One is a belief, the other a cause. People have the right to worship (or not worship) how they chose. That is the freedom we are guaranteed.

However (and I wish someone would acknowlege this) the Founding Fathers wrote of their intent and placing of God within our nation and government. Each and every one of them wrote of God in relation to the governance of our nation. Our government will work well with the acceptance of God as the power behind the power: their words, not mine.

So it sounds like your beef is with secularism and your objection *is* that they say men are primarily in control of our destinies. If that's the case then I think your perception is correct, as those are both shared by all humanists regardless of religious belief.

I'd also point out that Jews tend to be extremely secular and that historically evangelicals have been very secular as well (yes, it's true! They saw any merging of faith and politics as an affront and were worried about mainstream protestants using their numbers to discriminate against non-denominational evangelicals) as well as Quakers, and Unitarians/Universalists as you point out. I am very confused about what you think the writings of the Founding Fathers said, considering that most of the major figures were either Quakers, Unitarians or deists.

I mean look at the first six presidents:

Washington: didn't take communion. Unclear what his beliefs were.
Adams: unitarian
Jefferson: deist that was against organized religion
Madison: was more traditional but was big on the government not having religious overtones. "Although his health had now almost failed, he managed to produce several memoranda on political subjects, including an essay against the appointment of chaplains for Congress and the armed forces, because this produced religious exclusion, but not political harmony."
Monroe: wikipedia says it's unclear and that there is no record he took communion. Possible deist
JQA: Unitarian

So I have no idea what you are referring to.

"I don't know...in our two party system I think it is pretty easy to determine what is "left" and what is "right". Just check out either party's political platform."

I was refering to the US when I made this statement. I've lived overseas and know how vastly different our ideas of left and right can be from other countries.

Hey Tidbits.....

I went back and read that comment, and it does sound kinda bad. I think my intent did not make it through. When I said "true Leftists", I meant communist, humanists, and the like. Those institutions have "no god" at their cores. At least that's what I was taught in college.

I did not intend to say that all liberals, or progressives, where included in that group of "God-haters".
Does that mean that every single communist out there is atheist? No. But communism (as Marx wrote) must have God as far removed from society as government can ensure. Do all humanists hate God? No. But as was prevalent on this thread, they see it as a waist of time to hate what doesn't exist.

I absolutely love each and every one on TMV. I've said that many times. They are my brothers and sisters.
I have never judged anyone's soul here. That task belongs to the Most Holy God.

Again....Sorry if I was misunderstood on that. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I'll try to be a little more diligent in the future.

Duly retracted. See my response to Tidbits. You know I love ya!

"Each and every one of them wrote of God in relation to the governance of our nation. Our government will work well with the acceptance of God as the power behind the power: their words, not mine."

Where? The majority of philosophical thought behind Independence/Constitution was that a Creator endowed all humans with the capacity for rational thought and as such, there were basic rights. The people that developed that philosophy ranged from traditional Christians to ones that believed Jesus was God but that human trappings of religion ruined much of His message to (many of them) deists that didn't even believe Jesus was Divine or that God cared two bits about us down here.

All of that was a justification for social contracts of the governed (inherent rights arise from rationality which was "given" by God) as opposed to the monarchs (chosen by God). The entire concept of religion as part of our nation doesn't make one lick of sense. Back then it was logical to assume that there was a God that made people because there was no competing theory. If evolution had been around they would have skipped the God part (which again was a justification for social contract theory) and gone straight to the consent of the governed.

Mikkel -

I stand by my comment and accept your criticism. My view is that diversity of opinion makes TMV a special site. JD, whether you agree with him or not, brings the perspective of, if I read him right, a born-again, committed conservative Christian. It is a point of view I do not see much expressed here and appreciate that we have one person representing that perspective.

My reply to him called him out, but did so in terms I hoped he could relate to. I'd like to see him reflect, and as Dorian said "explain modify or retract." Perhaps you did not, but I felt anger in some of the responses to him...and, I understand why that would be given the broad generalized judgment on "progressives" as hating god in his comment.

Religious discussions are always difficult. The issue is too personal. I'm trying to build a bridge, not take sides. If I have said my piece inartfully, it isn't the first time and won't be the last.

Aside: While transcendentalism was a substantial influence in the art and literature of the "romantic movement" in the 18th and early 19th century, first in Europe and later in America, the Unitarian movement was more potent politically in developing our early respect for all religions, favoring none.

Maybe I'm wrong but I didn't see any anger at JD, just general annoyance at societal views in general.

His later comment shows that he was coming from a fundamentalist critique, which personally I have no problem with [I do have a problem with his characterization that the Founding Fathers had fundamentalist aims though!] as there is nothing really to poke holes in. In general I respect people that are consistent and have a historical view of where they came from, which he seems to have for the most part...and his characterization of humanists (other than the hate part) is pretty accurate. He didn't really seem to be saying people "hate God" just because they disagree politically, is what I mean. I wish he had just said that he disagrees with them that humans have more influence than God and that we should have God be present in government because humanity relies more on Divine Providence.

As for transcendentalism, that was a cast away aside at the "feeling" behind humanism. While I agree that Unitarian movement was more potent politically, they were all seen as humorless stooges by the more romantic types. To me humanism gets its head from the Unitarians and aims to have its soul [or at least the feeling of rapturous experiences] in the transcendentalists.

I think the same split exists today to a large extent, as represented in the extremes by Randians and New Agers.

John Adams:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798


John Quincy Adams:
Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837

Benjamin Franklin:
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787

Alexander Hamilton:
For my own part, I sincerely esteem the Constitution a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." - 1787 after the Constitutional Convention.

Thomas Jefferson:
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” - 1781

James Madison:
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” - 1778

Noah Webster:
No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.” - 1828

George Washington:
"reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..." - Fairwell Address.

“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.” - 1778



So does that clarify anything? I've got many more, but my main purpose is to reinforce the assertion that the Founding Fathers did, indeed, believe that we should govern with Godly principles, in accordance with His word, and duly in subjection to His power. Yes, they were Diests and believed in Human self-determination (not humanism, per se); but they all wanted God to stay at the center of our nation and government.

The cross should come down now and forever. Saying that it was put up for the veterans is indicative of America’s historical christian bias, religious hatred and bigotry., simply because no other religious symbols were placed in memorial at the time this “cross” was placed. One would think only Christians fought and died in world war two, or, for that matter all American wars. Thanks to liberal academic insight, we know better.

The christian independent churches and denominations number in the hundreds of different “faiths” within the christian self identification so one would be hard pressed to decide just what the American “christian” roots are anyway. Puritans I think are mentioned most, and, well, no puritans around anymore.

It is time that separation of church or whatever symbol, and, state needs to be defined clearly away from conservative religious bigoted dysfunction. Federal recognition of religion with specific emphasis on “christian” needs to be obliterated within the minds of the general public so that there remains no doubt the meaning of the Constitution.

We must NEVER allow the oppressive nature of religion to grow in America and become the monster that oppressed human beings throughout history.

But Marx had no issue with religion, his issue was with religion being used to make the masses submit because they would be rewarded in heaven therefore not allowing any changes on earth. Instead of calling it the opiate of the masses I really wish he would have said rose colored glasses manufactured and programmed by the ruling class since that is actually historically accurate.

In the bible when Christ was asked how his followers should live he told them to live like they were already in the kingdom of heaven so they formed...a commune. This is my long way of saying that Marx had it just as wrong as the authoritarian religious types. He tried to bar the one thing that would galvanize the masses around his cause, they try to galvanize the masses around a message that was not Christ's but the authorities(this is a very general term since I am talking of Kings/Prime Ministers and Presidents throughout history here). All in all a day will come when the commies are Christian and the atheists are capitalists but I hope I do not live to see it because the commies will win.

I could double that number of quotes from the same people (for the most part) complaining about Christianity and religion in government. I would agree that they thought that God made Man with certain characteristics and that being "moral" was living in accordance with those characteristics (many of which are laid out in the Bible and other religious texts) and that government should operate in a way to allow people to do that, but I strongly disagree they thought it should be the "center" in an official position.

One thing we know, all christian descriptions of "god" indicate that "god" is not a capitalist. In fact I know of no mythical deity that ascribes to capitalism.

The reason they had that common ground is that we were a Protestant nation but that is no longer the case since so many among us are Catholic's or from other religions all together. Another problem is that American Protestant Christianity has two separate main sects, the liberation theology sect and the work camp theology sect. The work camp group is of the "the boss is working for the lord and doing right by us so we should do right by them" group since these were the preachers invited to the work camps to speak to the workers by the bosses(unsurprisingly) that tend now to vote to the right(used to be the left) but this is also the same group that fought for and to keep segregation again at the request of their preachers. The liberation camp tend to talk more like European Christian Socialists and more or less always have though in the earlier eras of the republic they cared little for socialism and more for liberty for all and extreme equality(extreme for the era but they won and won big so we tend to not call it extreme anymore but justice) once land and resources began to run out that were available they shifted to safety nets and general social justice issues also at the request of their preachers. Its kinda the dirty little secret of America, churches are tax exempt but they are barred from politics yet they have never disengaged. They both were strongly protestant though since that reflected the country at that time but now we are resembling the melting pot more and more and therefore you get what we have here and this is only the beginning. Every decade or so people scream "we need to purify DC with true Christian morals" and they send a bunch of people that act just like the last people or worse and then they forget it ever happened and do it again in another 10 years without anyone pointing out this is nothing new and actually the most regular cycle in politics. The difference this time is that the churches and people they allowed to speak for them offended a great many people that were also Christians not to mention repulsing any non-believers that happened to turn on the news. I do not really know of a time in history like this but that is part of the spike in atheism over the last decade. That and what was perceived by many that were not believers and many that were but did not agree in the action as a Christian crusade in the middle east(due to Bushes language choices) which makes it hard to sell the message of the Prince of Peace.

On the abortion thing though how many abortions were performed in the US in 1967?

Don't worry their is no answer it was illegal so we have no idea how many children were aborted and what we could have done to prevent it because since it was illegal the only records we have are womens deaths due to botched procedures and prosecutions. Maybe you could check records of a single female and a companion going to an abortion friendly country to have the procedure done in a key time period, maybe but that was only the well off. The abortions of the poor and middle classes were handled by the local underworld regardless of the why of the procedure for instance the woman was going to die and leave her 3 other children motherless. Either way making something illegal solves nothing. If you want to save women and the children these groups need to invest in the tech to extract the children and either implant them into willing wombs or test tube baby time. Our technology is close enough now that some investment in this would likely get good results and be up and running in a decade at which time both sides can agree to make it illegal leaving both the "you must be punished for having sex" and the "I want to do this because..."(sorry I cant think of any reason any human would want to have an abortion especially if given a choice like extraction but I suppose its possible) out in the cold where they belong.

As far as the poor and charity thing goes I think society needs to do what is best for society sometimes "give unto cesear..." and in my opinion social democracies work best but in the case of the US a strong social safety net is all that I think is truly needed and all that I think is possible(just to damn big, actually if the FED pulled back and allowed the states to be socialist or libertarian or whatever I think this country would flourish but I digress....). The best answer for a good deal of the poors problems are coming out in tech though as well, dont help them pay their water bill buy them a $1k water maker once and you ensure they have water to drink no more money for them on that, done. I think that will be the future of the Rep party though. For me I am my brothers keeper and I do not have enough(even without taxes sadly) to really give someone a leg up for more than a week but if I pool my money with the rest of america I can. That is basically how I look at it, much like the rounding up my money at the store to give to this or that cause. I do not think everyone looks at it this way but I am sure I am not alone either. For me one of the signs of civilization is a lack of beggars on the streets, unless they are just professional hobos and they can be paid for some great stories :).

I spent most of my teens hating and fearing the government and then I found corporations acting just as bad but twice as ruthless and with zero accountability and then using my gov, local/state and fed against me and my neighbors(seizing land for corps and the like). If I can get a government to hold them accountable we may just survive.

I know of no single quote from any founding father that says that God should not be the foundation of our government. I'm not talking Christianity, per se, and I'm definitely not talking about religion. Religion is what brought down the Israelites (Sagguses & Pharises). Religion takes a very personal devotion and praise to God and places it in a global context. That's not what Christ preached.

You and I can agree to disagree. That's cool. However, the quotes I listed aren't ones that can be taken out of context and "interpretted". They are matter-of-factedly stated as individuals who deeply believed that, without God, our nation cannot last. And that is the single biggest contributing factor to our decline.

Re Jews tending to be extremely secular: True, but even religiously observant Jews are strong supporters of keeping the wall of separation between church and state (church of course used here in a figurative sense). And that is because, historically, Jews have seen (and suffered from) what happens when the line between the secular and the religious is blurred.

I have a problem with the word "humanist," at least as it's being used here -- to nail down religious belief. To be perfectly honest, I don't really understand what the term means, other than someone who cares about human beings? I'm not even sure about that much.

I have no doubt that most fundamentalist Christians would consider me a humanist, but I don't define myself that way, and I don't even know what a humanist is. To me, the term is meaningless. If someone asked me, I'd say I'm Jewish, interested in Jewish history, culture, and tradition but not traditionally observant. If I then got the reply, "Oh, so you're a secular Jew?" I'd say yeah. I'm secular. If someone said, "Oh, so you're a humanist?" the person asking the question would get a blank look in return. A humanist? What's that? The opposite of an animalist? To tell the truth, I actually do believe much more in animals than I do in humans.

Well like I acknowledged before, they believed that the natural qualities of man were God given to the individual, and that the only just government was the collective of individuals, so yeah in that context I can't think of anything I disagree with.

Anyway I just have a couple of points I hope you consider:

First of all the rhetoric you use *does* refer to religion in government the vast majority of the time. It's not being used by people where "not talking Christianity, per se, and I'm definitely not talking about religion" but by modern day Pharises. That is what most people will react to, assuming that (either for or against).

Secondly, I'm not really sure why you think it's the single biggest contributing factor to our decline. If you think that God demands worship and that's why, then I can't help you. But I'd say if you think that God is the sole source of a moral compass and that we've lost that, then I encourage you to meet more humanists and talk about that. The people I know that are closest in behavior on a personal level are some religious friends that have similar ideas as you and self secure humanists (the latter shows up in data too). Overall I've seen some highly religious people change their opinions of those that don't get their moral bearings from religious sources and the other side realize that just because someone believes in God doesn't mean they want to bash others.

I meant secular in the historic sense where it meant separation of church and state, for whatever reason. A lot of very fundamentalist sects are strongly secular because they point to the "Give unto caesar" line. Others have been for more pragmatic reasons.

The trend to having secular Jew meaning non observant or secular humanist to mean someone that doesn't believe in God i think is bad because it corrupts the historical alliance between the devout and non when it comes to shared reason for keeping government out of religion and visa versa.

Duly considered. Good points, all.

For clarification, I do know that God is not the only source of moral direction. Even God acknowleges that in the Bible (No other gods before Me...).

And I know many many very good and decent humanists, atheists, and agnostics. As you can imagine, it gets kind of heated in terms of debate, but we respect one another. The humanists I personally know are unapologetic for their beliefs - unlike, as I mentioned before concerning the main point of the article, those on the left that believe as humanists but put forth a different public face in order to accomplish their goals.
My point in that was this: If those humanist politicians were to be straight forward and up-front with their beliefs, they probably wouldn't be in power for long and their supposed support would vanish.

And that goes for the supposed Christian politicians on the right as well. They say one thing and vote another. Honor is gone, God is gone, and our system suffers.

JeffersonDavis wrote: "I know of no single quote from any founding father that says that God should not be the foundation of our government."

Not wanting to play "your quote / my quote" I'll only quote John Adams:

“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it” - John Adams

“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion” - John Adams

Is 'sounds' as if those of faith commenting here are concerned that if they're not completely... 100% correct something is lost.

Relax, that's not the case, as Benjamin Franklin said:

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble."

Maybe you could check records of a single female and a companion going to an abortion friendly country to have the procedure done in a key time period, maybe but that was only the well off.

MSF, have you seen the movie "Cider House Rules"? It's based on the book by John Irving, and I haven't read the book, but the central theme of the movie is precisely that randomness of outcome that you're talking about. Before abortion was legal, the fate of women who wanted to end their pregnancies was entirely dependent on whether they had money and/or connections, or didn't. If a woman was in the first category, she had a safe abortion performed by a qualified medical professional. If she was in the second, she had an unsafe, illegal abortion. Women have always found ways to end unwanted pregnancies, throughout history. But until abortion became legal, they did so at the risk of their lives, unless they had money.

Come one, Steve. Go back and read the quotes I gave and the statement I made.
Once again.... I do not contend (as some of my contempories do) that CHRISTIANITY is the intended soul of our government. It is GOD. All of them expressed this desire implicitly. And once again, this is not about religion, as the founding fathers did not intend this to be a nation of religion.

The quotes you gave imply that was my point. It was not. It is not Christianity or religion. God (Yaweh, Allah, Jehovah, or whatever YOU call Him) is to be the source of our power and is to receive the glory - not us, not the government, and not to human accomplishment.

Humanism has a few qualities:

The belief that human knowledge is advanced through rationality and empiricism -- as opposed to divine revelation.

That humans are the primarily in control of our destiny -- God doesn't interfere for punishment or reward.

That humanity will prevail: humanism is fundamentally optimistic about human progress.

Ethics/morality are based on the advancement of the individual and society at large.

The point of life is to live for life and strive to make the world better -- the rationale for doing things is to make things better for those around you, not to get a reward in the afterlife.

Humanism has always been anti-establishment religion (anti-clerical as wikipedia puts it) since establishment religion tends to be used for control. And it's true that the vast majority of self identified humanists today don't believe in God and are hostile to the idea to varying degrees. However historically, a lot of Unitarians identified themselves as humanists and worked closely with atheistic humanists. They believed in God, but that He made us so to be rational, that what was in the Bible about moral code was there because it's what works best for people's nature, not to control, etc

So would you object to those decent nonbelievers running as politicians if they were honest? For what it's worth I do think that the politicians are mealy mouthed as well and tell people what they want to hear. And atheists aren't going to get elected in any numbers soon because the majority of people thinks that they are evil and without a moral compass. Since you say you know of instances otherwise, wouldn't you rather they be in office than the people currently there?

Jefferson, you're reminding me of the parable of the invisible gardener:

Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds … But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Skeptic despairs. "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"

You're suggesting you can take even the religion out of God and still have something worthy of being called the "foundation of our government"? I think you've divorced that phrase from any meaning whatsoever. How does a godly foundation differ from a human foundation, or from no foundation at all?

Thanks.

Thank you for that explanation, Mikkel.

It seems, then, that I am a humanist with a tweak, or maybe I should call it a caveat :-)

I don't believe in "divine revelation" in the sense that that term is usually understood. But I do believe that human wisdom has a spiritual component to it. For example, take the voice of god speaking to Moses out of the burning bush. Do I believe in the literal truth, or historicity, of that? No. But I don't think it's nonsense, either. I just have a more metaphorical understanding of what that means; basically, that truths and solutions may be out there for us to see, but until we see them, we can't make use of them. So maybe that bush was burning all along, and hundreds of Israelites passed it by and just didn't notice it. You know, maybe they had their head turned talking to the guy next to them. Moses saw it. And not only did he see it, he stopped to take it in. And that's when the voice spoke. :-)

You can view great achievements in human understanding through this lens as well. For example, Einstein (from what I have read and understood) did not struggle to figure out or solve a problem that resulted in the theory of relativity. It came to him as a complete, formed thought. Of course, he had to think about it some more, and explore the implications. But that truth was out there for anyone to find. But Einstein was the one who saw it. So whatever that process is, that Source of understanding that's always there, he was able to tap into it, for whatever reason.

In general, I see the Bible as wisdom literature, not literal or historical fact. The Bible was written by mortal men, but men who were divinely inspired. God is not a person or a disembodied spirit. God is a process.

This may not make any sense to anyone but me, but it *does* make sense to me. :-)

"Einstein (from what I have read and understood) did not struggle to figure out or solve a problem that resulted in the theory of relativity. It came to him as a complete, formed thought."

That's because Einstein stole the idea and didn't give credit. Haha I'm not joking. Henri Poincaré, had a paper on the relativistic mass of photons and derived m = E/c^2 using Lorentz transforms of Maxwell Equations. Einstein's contribution was to assume the speed of light as a constant and that particles with mass obeyed the same principles as massless particles when it came to energy. These were the assumptions that he played around with and turned out to be correct.

Poincaré refused to acknowledge Einstein for the rest of his life since Einstein didn't reference Poincaré or Lorentz. He was a very close friend of Lorentz and said that while he didn't care so much that he got credit for the E = mc^2 derivation (it was just mathematical) that Lorentz should be seen as the coequal father of relativity. When I learned this it made my physics class make more sense, since we talked about special relativity but all of the calculations were what Lorentz had done.

Anyway, that's neither here nor there, it's just a historical tidbit I've always been fascinated about.

Just as alcholics in AA humble themselves to a "higher power".
I've lived both sides, brother. I've seen my life without God. I've seen my life with God. The evidence is overwhelming. Godly living produces a happy life without fail. The converse is true with ungodly living.
Likewise, our nation was strong and properous with a Godly foundation. Without it, as we are seeing presently and have for some time now, our prosperity is vanishing as well as our strength. I, and other true followers of God, do not adhere to a faith in something unseen that just might be there. Our faith is based upon evidence of things seen, history, and prophesy. The proof was given in person in Biblical times. Now I see it every day. When people step outside of how God says to live, they suffer every single time; be it drugs, murder, overeating, laziness, jealousy, etc. Likewise, God outlines how nations are to approach Him. Outside of that, every empire fails. History shows that.

Of course, we could be the skeptic and say that it is our leaders getting degeneratively worse as time goes on, and blame the human aspect only, as was the case in your parable. The Godly foundation was stated by the Founding Fathers as the cornerstone of our democracy. It framed the thinking behind our Constitution, as is evident in the professional writings of the Founding Fathers themselves. If we stick to that same Constitution, we can't help but succeed as a nation. But alas, we slip father from it and from God as every day passes.

Tidbits,

Faith is personal, but that's only half the story. Faith is also corporate, whether we're talking Friday prayers at the mosque, Sabbath observance at the synagogue, or Sunday morning worship at the neighborhood church. The Cross on the hilltop is an example of corporate expression of faith, at least at the time the Cross was put in-place. It's arguable that since that era our American culture has become radically individualized, but that's another can of worms.

Of course, your friend's comment about Christ not being worshiped essentially eviscerates most of the New Testament. On the face of it, hers is an attractive statement, but on closer examination, profoundly simplistic.

Roro80 --

I've always found your comments on religion fascinating, because you seem to have grappled with some basic issues. Also, I appreciate your respectful tone.

I, too, have shaken my head in dismay at some of the hate that passes for Christianity, particularly conservative Christianity. But as one who used to be a bank teller, may I suggest an analogy? Suppose I have a stack of fifty $ 100.00 bills. In that stack, I find two phony bills. What will I do? Will I throw out all fifty, consider the other 48 worthless because two proved to be counterfeit? If you're like me, I will turn over the two bad ones to the Secret Service for investigation, and hold on to the good ones.

Your comment focuses in on the occasional phony Christian, and says nothing at all about those who are the "real deal," who in quiet, unobtrusive ways do Jesus credit. Some of the same Christians who are vilified for voting in favor of Proposition 8, for example, have sent their hard-earned dollars in tough economic times to fight the spread of HIV-AIDS in Africa. I've known some of those same traditionalists who will speak out against the spread of the gambling industry go down and volunteer at the thrift store in poorer neighborhoods, thrifts stores that (thank heavens) are open to women whose good-for-nothing husbands and boyfriends gambled away their paychecks at the casino. Or as the youth group at my church often does, they've visited men in the final stages of AIDS at a hospice in our hometown. So yeah, if we''re going to highlight negative examples -- and they exist --let's at-least give a balanced message by acknowledging the good deeds done in the name of Christ.

I've lived both sides, brother. I've seen my life without God. I've seen my life with God. The evidence is overwhelming. Godly living produces a happy life without fail. The converse is true with ungodly living.

I'm assuming (or at least hoping) that your last two sentences are referring to your own life and not meant as a generalization refering to everyone. Because the idea that people who do not believe in God cannot live happy lives is incorrect.

I believe it is generally true that people live happier lives when their lives have some degree of structure and when they have something to believe in. That something need not be God. It can be an idea--i.e. hard work, responsibility, honor, love, liberty.

Christ was the first Socialist, said Gorbachev. Whom can argue with such perfection?

Placing national, and, thus political, flags in positions of prominence within a church would have to offend any self respecting god. I noticed that they don't really do this in Europe. That is a real skepticism of government unlike our "god loves 'merica" stupidity, "but we gotta weaken da guburment" for the protection of freedom goof-ball ideology.

Please, how can you be a Social Darwinist and still be a christian? Not possible.

The more I hear them, the more I find the phrases "the Left" and "the Right" completely useless. We can say whatever we want about the left and the right, because no one agrees what the terms mean.

I've been making this same argument for the last 3 or 4 years. Political debate becomes a meaningless process when the people debating cannot even agree to the definitions of the terms they are repeatedly using...or worse...are deliberately distorting.

I don't know...in our two party system I think it is pretty easy to determine what is "left" and what is "right". Just check out either party's political platform.

I don't think the terms "left" and "right" are as simple to figure out as your words would suggest.

For example, what is the "left" position on war? What is the "right" position on war? I can't speak for the rest of the world, but here in the United States, one's position on the validity of going to war seems all to often to depend upon which political party is in power. It's easy to remember all of the "liberals" who opposed going to war with Iraq in 2003 and all the "conservatives" who supported the war. But it's easy to forget how so many of those same "liberals" were supportive of Clinton's decision to go to war with Serbia and how so many of those same "conservatives" were against that war.

Unfortunately, "liberal" and "conservative" positions are defined all too often by what the Democratic and Republican positions are, respectively. And since Democratic and Republican politicians tend to change their political positions according to what is politically convenient for them, then it should come as no surprise that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have acquired inconsistent meanings.

When people step outside of how God says to live, they suffer every single time; be it drugs, murder, overeating, laziness, jealousy...

I agree that heeding the classic wisdom to steer your life toward virtue rather than vice generally pays off. That's an argument for virtue and individual responsibility, maybe even for conservativism in general.

It just has nothing to do with God. "How God says to live" certainly includes these things...or not, depending on your understanding of God. People sincerely believe God says we should pray to Mecca five times a day, or condemn our neighbors' sin, or even blow up infidels. That we should live as God wants is an empty principle, in the sense that it cannot settle a single argument.

This is in reply to you and, indirectly, to Nicrivera, since they are related.

I made the example of my own life to show how my life was with and with God. Yes, honor, virtue, and individual responsibility are distinct elements of that. All of those are indeed part of Christianity and many other faiths. But as was stated above, it is the personal relationship with God that is key, not organizational relationships (religion). The founding fathers knew this as well, which is why the 1st Amendment is there in the first place - freedom from and of religion. But they also knew that our nation could not exist and that our Constitution would be worthless if the individuals in power over the nation did not humble themselves to the Highest Power. Once again, not the "Christian" God, or the Jewish God, or the Hindu Gods - just plain God.

Our nation has started down that path. The individuals in government do not (for the most part) act in that regard. Those that elect them, too, have begun down the same spiral. Our shallow culture reflects in the shallow representatives we elect. We elect based upon looks, speaking ability, and fear-mongering. We no longer look at virtue, character, and honor. I blame the media for a share of that problem, since they've sherked their responsibility for holding them accountable to the Constitution and the people. But once again, the media reflects our shallow culture. The individuals in our nation must change the themselves to be honorable, virtuous, and accountable - all Godly principles.

Hey nic....

One thing I've noticed, no matter the political angle all of us have, is that we all seem to agree that honor and virtue are missing from our government, and has for some time. Whether one calls those principles Godly or naturalist or transcendental doesn't matter - it's symantics. If we, as a people, were to demand them from our government and each other; our nation would prosper. In that respect, my statement of "living by Godly principles would make a nation stronger" would be satisfied. Likewise would the statement, "living by honor and virtue (apart from any god) makes a nation stronger" be satisfied.

In that case, both humanists and worshipers of God could agree and peacefully coexist in the political realm.

Jefferson, I can give you the opposite examples from my life. My theism brought me a life of misery and fear, my atheism delivered me from it. Looking back I can't believe I swallowed all those wild stories about a god, but I can console myself that I wasn't alone. Your mileage, obviously, may vary.

What I hear you saying is that if voters and our representatives exercised honor, virtue, and accountability, we would be in better shape. I'm all for honor, virtue, and accountability. You and I can probably even agree on what those words mean, because our notions of them come not from our dissimilar personal relationships with god but from our shared culture. What you're calling a godly foundation looks to me like a godly veneer over a cultural foundation. Again, where's the difference?

Hi redbus --

I appreciate your comment, your tone, your interest. I must say, though, that I disagree strongly with what you're trying to say, for the most part.

About your 48 good bills and 2 bad ones analogy. I disagree with the premise because Christians -- and people in general -- don't come in "good" and "bad". You mentioned in your examples of "real" Christians (I'll get to how I feel about that statement in a moment), someone who gave money to keep gay people from getting married, but also gave money to AIDS relief in Africa, both in the name of God or Jesus. Fine, one was a "good" act and one was a "bad" act (in my view), both were "Christian". In addition, the percentage of Christians who believe, for example, that they should be able to control who does or does not reside in my womb, I'd say is far above the 4% you site. That might be the percentage of Christians who think that I shouldn't work outside of the home because I'm a woman. 40% of Americans don't believe in evolution, and misteach their children non-science with which to interupt my (theoretical) kid's education. I can't even tell you how many times I was told as a school kid that I was going to hell (and then beat up for it). So if I'm looking not for good bills or bad bills, but for subtle differences, some of which I can live with and some with which I can't, let's just say I'm going to be very careful about those bills which end up in my wallet. In case you couldn't tell, the examples I stated in my first post weren't just random or made-up pretend Christians, nor were they one-off bad-apple Christians. They were people I knew personally, and there were lots of them.

About "phony" Christians and "good" Christians -- can you understand why that would be a horribly presumptuous and terrible arrogant thing for me, an athiest, to decide? If someone says they're a Christian, why should it be up to me to decide whether they are or not? Why should it be up to you? I find it kind of weird and uncomfortable that every time a Christian does something that whatever other Christian I am talking to at the time finds wrong, they label them not "really" a Christian.

Christianity has a 2000 year old history that includes love and miracles coming together and community and charity and healing and all that awesomeness, but it also includes genocide and inquisitions and death and wars and racism and a horrible amount of ugliness. I'm not saying that the ugliness outweighs the awesomeness, I'm just saying that they both exist, and both are part of the history and legacy of Christianity, and they cannot be divorced from one another. I find it pretty incredible how many people are willing to take the awesomeness (and the privilege conferred upon them by those who see Christianity as good -- which is most people in this country), without ever acknowledging that the culture they are willfully subscribing to is also quite marred by all the bad things done in the name of Christ, or more generally, in the name of God.

I guess what I'm saying is that if I have to own what I am, why shouldn't Christians? You can personally choose to interpret the Bible and its context within our society however you wish, make the gospel come alive in your own way -- hopefully for good -- but that doesn't change the fact that most Christians are going to interpret these very same things for different ends. Little be it for me (or for you) to decide for them whether their aim is to be a jerk or if their aim is to please God. There are lots of Christians who really do believe that God hates gay people -- I can't just say that they're not real Christians. They are.

Okay, thanks for disillusioning me, Mikkel, but I've got another example: Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution. :-)

If you've got disillusioning news for me on Darwin, I've got another candidate waiting in the wings. :-)

(I'm just giving you a hard time, you know that, right?)

Faith is also corporate, whether we're talking Friday prayers at the mosque, Sabbath observance at the synagogue, or Sunday morning worship at the neighborhood church.

I think the word you want there is communal, not corporate. And the cross on the hilltop is on public land, so it can't be compared to a religious community like a church or a mosque or a synagogue.

I believe it is generally true that people live happier lives when their lives have some degree of structure and when they have something to believe in. That something need not be God.

That is undeniably true, and I will add this to your statement: that there are many people living happy lives who do believe in God and/or have strong spiritual beliefs, but have a very different understanding of what God is, and who define the relationship between God and humanity and what God requires from us very differently from the way JD does. To say or suggest that there is only one path to a godly life is, imo, arrogant in the extreme.

roro80, your thoughtful comment about how some Christians consider that other Christians, when doing things in the name of Christianity, are not "real Christians" got me thinking. Specifically, I had two thoughts.

First, if I understand you correctly, the point you are making is that the definitions of "Christian" and "un-Christian" are subjective. Saying someone is not a real Christian is kind of like how it has become popular to call others un-American when they don't share your political beliefs. It really just means, "I strongly disagree with you." Your conclusion, then, is that the only reliable definition of a Christian is someone who self-identifies as one, regardless of their behavior. While for practical purposes that definition may seem satisfactory, I think it's a bit too simplistic because it is not really the definition that most Christians would adhere to. Most Christians, I believe, would take issue with the idea that anyone who says they are a Christian really is one. For Christians, it really does depend on how one chooses to live. The problem is, as you rightly pointed out, that there is some room for interpretation, so there's no objective measuring stick to use (actually, Christianity itself would argue that the only such measuring stick is the judgment of God himself, which is not currently known to mortal humans). So, I suppose that for you, as someone who does not consider yourself a Christian, your definition might be the only one you can reasonably rely on. I just wanted to point out that although you might define Christians that way, Christians themselves probably don't.

Second, and this stems from the first, if there is no available objective standard for determining what a Christian is, then how can you legitimately criticize Christianity in general for doing this or that thing you consider to be wrong? Could it not be the case that the wrongs committed by Christians in the name of religion are really just manifestations of humanity's tendency to commit wrong, regardless of religion? What I mean is that even if you take away the "in the name of religion" part of an immoral act, it is likely that the act would still be committed, but under a different pretense. If people weren't using religion as an excuse to commit immoral acts, they would find another excuse. It's true that there are people who think that God hates gay people, but such people would still hate gay people even if they stopped believing in God. I don't think it's really fair to cite Christianity or other religion as a cause of human wrong-doing when the fundamental message of Christianity (i.e. love God and love your neighbor) is opposed to such actions.

Wow, roro80, that was a thesis! I think you're right. "Good bills" and "bad bills" is probably too binary, the very thing I was criticizing Steve K about the other day. Ouch...

I guess the main point of my post was that usually when Christians are criticized for "hypocrisy" -- a term used in your original post -- by the very nature of the charge, evidence to the contrary is left out. If find that unfortunate, and one-sided. Most Christians would be the first to admit that they are "on the journey," better than yesterday, but not yet nearly what they should be. I know I fall into that category. And when a principled stand is taken in the public realm, Christians are now the "bigots" or whatever other label people want to slap on them.

Incidentally, on the evolution question, there are many Christians who believe in it, myself being one of them, though in the form that is usually termed theistic evolution. So, if 40% of the population doesn't, that means 60% of the population does, and in that 60% are many, many believers. So, we can play with numbers all day long. The fact is, if you go into most any Christian college or university in this country, you will find a thriving science department. Let's not set up a straw man, just to knock it down.

I guess my experience in the community of faith has been overwhelmingly positive. When my wife and I returned from overseas, it was a local church that furnished our rental house top to bottom, then took a very generous offering for us to-boot. Christianity at its best is a loving community, and I've know too many examples across the years to get hung-up on the relatively few who give the rest a bad name.

Super awesome comment, DLL83. I'd like to address some of the excellent points you bring up.

"It really just means, "I strongly disagree with you.""

Yes, it seems to be used very much in this way, without knowing anything about the person's heart, whether they take Christ to be the son of God (one common definition of Christianity), or per the definition you present, whether they love God and love their neighbor. (I hesitate to point out that this could be a definition of a number of other religions as well.)

"For Christians, it really does depend on how one chooses to live."

Well, in some ways that depends a lot on what brand of Christianity you follow. Certainly, earthly works are a major cornerstone for Catholics, but for various types of Protestant, what people do is expressly downplayed, and these types of Christians will tell you that it is ONLY whether a person believes Jesus is the son of God and died for our sins that is the dividing line between Chritian and non-Christian.

"Christianity itself would argue that the only such measuring stick is the judgment of God himself, which is not currently known to mortal humans"

Yes! This exactly. Let's think this through though. Surely every individual Christian has their own touchstone for what makes a "real" Christian and what makes "phony" (to use redbus' word) Christian. If Christian 1 is observing Christian 2 and seeing that Christian 2 supports the right of a woman to choose, Christian 1 can say that Christian 2 is not a "real" Christian. Likewise, perhaps 2 sees 1 going to church only on Christmas and Easter; 2 can say that 1 is not a "real" Christian. If anyone can make up any rule they like -- and they most certainly do this -- about who is and who is not "really" a Christian, it sounds like individual people of faith don't really have any better grasp on a good definition than I, the athiest, do. Which, of course, brings us back around to one of the very few alternatives. A Christian is someone who says ze's a Christian. And most certainly, from the perspective of a non-Christian like me assessing the actions of a self-identifying Christian done in the name of God, I really don't have any choice but to take the person at the word. When someone says they teach their kids to interupt science class because they are Christians, what choice do I have but to believe them?

"if there is no available objective standard for determining what a Christian is, then how can you legitimately criticize Christianity in general for doing this or that thing you consider to be wrong?"

Now this is an excellent question. The answer is that I can't, really, except by playing a numbers game, the same way conservative people do. Conservatives/Republicans count on the Christian vote because of things like science-denial, abortion, "family values", gay rights. It's not me that's making up and ascribing to Christians these values; Christians reliably vote a certain way because there's a great deal of agreement, in general, on what a Christian should vote for. Absolutely nobody can ascribe every one of these causes to every single Christian -- they are no more a monolith than any other group. However, when you form an anti-gay group that splashes its Christianity all over the place, I will associate that view with Christianity. When a group of Christians organize to get intelligent design into science classrooms, I am going to associate that view with Christianity (I mean, it's right there in the good book). This does not mean that when I meet a person who is a Christian, that I will automatically assume that they have all these views that I find destructive; I would certainly never do such a thing. However, when Christians *as a group* are said to support this or that political policy, I do tend to worry.

"If people weren't using religion as an excuse to commit immoral acts"

But they ARE. Not only that, but they are getting away with immoral acts, using their Christianity as some sort of proof that the are a good person, so what they're doing must be ok.

"It's true that there are people who think that God hates gay people, but such people would still hate gay people even if they stopped believing in God."

Now this point is where I disagree with you, at least on this particular issue (and by extension, quite a few others). Do you really think that the laws against gay people would still be in place if there weren't such a powerful and constant message coming from the pulpit that gays are sick, gays anger God, gays are immoral, gays will lure you to the devil, gays are disgusting, gays have an "agenda" that is against God? Despite the few very notable exceptions one might find right here on TMV, it seems that most people identify as athiests could give three shakes whether or not gay people get married.

Your point, however, that people would act imperfectly and amorally even if there were no religion, is well taken. It's a pretty powerful cover, however, to use God and the eternal and the supernatural to prop up one's destructive policies. It's a big-kid version of "Dad said so, so there!", and it's eternal damnation as opposed to a quick swat on the rear that's the price to pay.

Wow, that was much longer than I thought it would be...

Darwin is pretty good Kathy. If you had said Watson/crick, Bell or Edison I would have had really bad news there too.

Oh good, I dodged a bullet there, then. :-)

I vaguely remember something I read about Watson/Crick a long time ago -- that one or both of them took undeserved credit for the discovery of DNA, but beyond that, I couldn't tell you any details.

Thanks for another excellent and thoughtful comment. I am at work with a deadline to meet, so I can't write much else right now, but I'll think about what you said and see if I can respond later. I will say, though, that the more I think about it, the more I realize I actually agree with you on quite a lot.

Bravo roro80... BRAVO!

It appears, my brother, that we have an accord. Two roads toward the same goal - virtue and honor.

And for the record, I believe their is a difference between theism and having a personal relationship with God. Any "ism" describes a group prescribing to the same doctrine. My relationship with the Almighty is much more personal, much like the dieists that founded our nation, right?

Peace be with you.

Kathy,

I think I addressed that very concern in reply to nicrivera above.

Jefferson

I've heard the hypocracy statement from many a person in the past. They said they aren't Christians or don't worship because of the hyprocracy in the Church. I always remind them that if you avoided all places where a few are hyprocrites, you couldn't go to work or even leave the house. Hyprocrites are everywhere.
Except on TMV, of course! :)

Roro,

Excellent comment. I do disagree with your take on Christianity, however.
As I've stated before, Christ instituted His Church through his apostles. He instituted only one Church. All who proclaim to be Christians (followers of Christ) and obey his teachings and commandments, are members of His Church. It remains so to this day. All Christians are members of the same Church. The name "Church" in the greek means "the called out". Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopals, Menonites, (and any I've missed) are all members of the Church of Christ. Over the years, since the first century, men have offered "better" ways to do God's work and worship. With every "better" way, came a new denomination. IMHO, that's how Satan operates: divide and conquer. Ironically enough, it's also how American politics operates. Coincidence? :)

If there is no available objective standard for determining what a Christian is, then how can you legitimately criticize Christianity in general for doing this or that thing you consider to be wrong?

I probably can't improve on Roro's answer, but I view Christianity as an institution (or a collection of institutions) which play in large part an educational role, producing generation after generation of people who think they're Christians. Even if they don't think anyone else is.

Who's a "real" Christian and who's not is beside the point, an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. You have to judge Christianity based on the saints and the scoundrels it produces, just as you have to judge schools on the dolts as well as the geniuses they turn out.

In neither case is responsibility completely clear cut. The dolts waving diplomas were probably dolts when they enrolled, and the scoundrels didn't learn their craft entirely in Sunday school. So if you're going to criticize Christianity, you have to be careful what you're criticizing it for.

My criticism is not that Christianity turns good people wicked, but that it teaches a lazy approach to moral reasoning that ends at the Bible. The Bible is a highly ambiguous book from an appallingly barbaric age. I have yet to meet the Christian who could not coax from the Bible an interpretation exactly in line with their beliefs on any particular topic. Fortunately, this means they ignore the advice about slavery and genocide. Unfortunately, it gives them a dangerously enlarged sense of certainty about gays or adultery or evolution or many other complex and controversial topics. They believe they've heard the word of God, when they might as well have been consulting a magic 8-ball.

People will inevitably disagree about gay marriage or abortion or middle east land rights or whatever. IMHO Christianity (and religion generally) aren't guilty of creating the disputes, but they encourage a level of certainty in one's beliefs that make such disputes harder to resolve.

Dr J -

One of the great benefits of these kinds of rich threads on TMV is that we can really "dig in" and see what others are thinking. Your post (and several above) are helpful because they're frank.

As one who has both studied and taught biblical hermeneutics (interpretation), it is important to answer again the caricature of the "barbaric" or seemingly contradictory book that is the Bible (or, if you prefer, bible). Many of the criticisms commonly made are cleared up when basic principles of biblical interpretation are applied. One example is that the Old Testament should be interpreted in the light of the New Testament. To do otherwise would be akin to still enforcing the 18th amendment to the U.S. Constitution that outlaws the drinking of alcohol, as if the 21st amendment repealing it had never been passed. So for example, to cite the genocide in the OT book of Joshua without any reference to Jesus' commandment to "turn the other cheek" is interpretive malpractice.

Mark Twain once said: "It's not the the things in the Bible that I don't understand that bother me; it's the things I do understand." Our tendency is to look at the plethora of denominations and conclude that it's a hopeless jumble. In reality, there’s a remarkable degree of consensus to the interpretation of Scripture by Christians of all stripes over the past two millenia. It’s this consensus that explains in-part the sometimes vociferous defense of traditional marriage that we see today by Christians.

We might be a little more sympathetic to the heat that is generated on such issues if we think about the Supreme Court and its concept of staris decisis. If the SCOTUS speaks of "settled law" when referring to Roe v. Wade, passed just 36 years ago, try to imagine the discomfort of Christians in their 60s or 70s who in their short lifetimes have seen "settled law" in the moral/ethical realm seemingly reversed, century-long social mores turned upside down. What did Bob Dylan say? "The times, they are a changin'..."

Traditionalists will hold onto traditional (and historic) interpretations not just in this one area, but in many. We ask forgiveness to roro80 for those who beat her up. I'm very sorry for that, and it undermines the credibility of Christians, whom Jesus calls to principled love of others. I'm glad that love is big enough to speak truths no longer fashionable, but also big enough to ask forgiveness when we ourselves have failed to live up to the message that we teach. "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us..."

There is more than one reply from you to nicrivera above, but if you're referring to the one that begins, "One thing I've noticed...," I'm not sure how that addresses my concern.

Many of the criticisms commonly made are cleared up when basic principles of biblical interpretation are applied. One example is that the Old Testament should be interpreted in the light of the New Testament. To do otherwise would be akin to still enforcing the 18th amendment to the U.S. Constitution that outlaws the drinking of alcohol, as if the 21st amendment repealing it had never been passed. So for example, to cite the genocide in the OT book of Joshua without any reference to Jesus' commandment to "turn the other cheek" is interpretive malpractice.

Um, excuse me? I am Jewish and I find the above arrogant and offensive. I am also 99 percent certain that you had no inkling when you wrote it that there was anything offensive about the manner in which you expressed your beliefs. You don't seem like the sort of person who would intentionally offend. But I can tell you that I was so offended by that second paragraph that I didn't even want to read the rest of the comment.

You stated: "and who define the relationship between God and humanity and what God requires from us very differently from the way JD does. To say or suggest that there is only one path to a godly life is, imo, arrogant in the extreme."

I addressed that very issue to nicrivera in that same statement. To get the nation back under virtue and honor (I call it Godly principles) is the goal of both nicrivera and myself. I'd like to think it's every American's goal.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Redbus. I think I agree with everything you said.

No question there's broad agreement on how to interpret the Bible, but my point stands that it's ultimately no more informative on moral issues than a magic 8-ball. On the set of issues that everyone agrees on, such as murder and theft and slavery being bad, the accepted interpretations agree too. The Bible doesn't add to the debate of these issues because, well, there is no debate.

On the set of issues at the moral frontier--gay marriage today, slavery a century or so ago--people disagree, and the Bible doesn't help settle the matter. One side notes homosexuality is an abomination, the other notes David and Jonathan apparently getting it on in 1 Samuel. Certainly one interpretation is traditional, the other novel, but which is "right"? The question is unanswerable and distracts from the more important question: will our society be better or worse off to let gays marry?

Social change always raises questions and causes conflict. Teaching people to look for answers in the Bible merely adds distracting questions and prolongs the conflict.

Hi redbus -- I just wanted to quickly address a couple little things before this thread falls off the page.

""hypocrisy" -- a term used in your original post"

I just want to be clear that I don't think there's anything fundamentally hypocritical about wanting a cross on public land. I think using the "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion" arguments to be able to do so, while at the same time vehemently fighting against these freedoms for other religions, is where the hypocrisy lies. I do understand that we're all on a journey, none were born perfect with nothing to learn, but finding the right path sometimes requires others to tell us we're going the wrong way.

On the evolution question, it's not that all Christians are deniers -- it's that all deniers are Christians. (I'm using "all” liberally, of course, to mean “a statistically overwhelming majority”). This is easily extensible to other issues. It’s not that all Christians hate gays, it’s just that the most vocal opponents to gay rights are Christian. It’s not that all Christians are against abortion, it’s just that vehement abortion obstructionists are essentially all Christian. I’d like to offer a quick analogy: most cigarette smokers do not die of lung cancer, but if you die of lung cancer, it’s overwhelmingly likely that you are or were a smoker. This is why we say that cigarettes cause lung cancer. Does that make sense? We don’t call that causation a straw man because there are lots of life long smokers who live to be old and die in their sleep.

I am glad that you have had a wonderful and positive experience with your church community, and I do truly believe that church provides that community function to so many people, and that it does tend to be quite positive for most. Do you think that the community would have been so supportive if you didn’t believe in God? I’ve never been a Christian, and because of that, most of my experiences have not been like yours.

Hey Doc.

I think that's the problem with religion as a whole. Since denominatins started breaking off from the 1st century Church, many many many interpretations have been offered. Of course, the ridiculous interpretations are included, and many have to do with "gay" people in the Bible. There are those that claim Christ, himself, was gay. Ridiculous. As with David and Jonathon, the Hebrew word for love was used "a'hab", which is the same word used in the ten commandments for love for God. I'm pretty sure that God didn't intend for us to have gay sex with Him.

I know you weren't standing behind those interpretations, merely stating that they exist. My point is that as long as humans want what God does not condone, they will never stop trying to read things into the Bible. There are those, too, within Christianity that do the very same thing trying to justify some sort of doctrine that God did not implement. All one has to do is to do the Biblical research. Take it all into consideration, and look at God's intent. Many, so-called, Biblical scholars have done that, but most have approached it from a specific denominational perspective - which produces specific denominational bias.

The Bible is not meant to be a evolving document. It is more like the "User's Guide to the Human Soul". Obey it, and happiness tends to follow. God wants happiness and love among His children.

As far as slavery goes, it screams volumes about the purpose of Christ. Plainly stated, if you happen to be a slave, or a master, or whatever; be thankful for all things to God, serve Him, and follow Christ's teachings. It speaks to individual worship to God and does not put it on the national scene.

The point I made earlier was intended to say that without Godly INDIVIDUALS our nation cannot succeed - per the Founding Fathers.

To get the nation back under virtue and honor (I call it Godly principles) is the goal of both nicrivera and myself. I'd like to think it's every American's goal.

That actually does not address the issue I raised of there being many paths to God. You are, again, expressing your personal understanding of God, and of what it means to live by "godly" principles (different things to different people, but you define it your own way and assume that's the baseline for everyone). You leave the words "virtue" and "honor" undefined, thereby (apparently) assuming that we all share the same perception of what those words mean. "Virtue" and 'honor" are moralistic terms and not necessarily thought by all people to define the appropriate role of government in society. You do not even entertain the possibility that anyone could reasonably come to such a conclusion.

All of the above, and more, is why I find it so difficult, frustrating, and often angering, to communicate with you about these issues. It's not two-way; there's no give and take.

My point is that as long as humans want what God does not condone, they will never stop trying to read things into the Bible.

This is a tautology. You don't know what God does or does not condone, or if "God" can even be defined in those terms. You rely on a biblically literalist understanding of the Christian version of the Bible to set up a baseline for discussion that assumes from the outset the incorrectness of all other understandings of God and of the Bible.

How can one have a fruitful discussion about this topic in this context?

Just a bit of "mopping up" to do, then that will be it for me for this thread. It's been fun!

To Jeff Davis: Have you thought of a different moniker? Seems to me that your curent one carries lots of baggage. How about Robert E. Lee? Or maybe the Dread Pirate Roberts (just kidding).

To Dr. J. -- Glad you liked my last post. No doubt, there are some who use the Bible as a "magic 8-ball." Bibiomancy, i.e. letting the Bible fall open where it might and then letting your finger randomly fall on the page to get God's guidance for you, might fit your description. It's hard to see how careful Bible study comes anywhere close to that, but as they say, we'll agree to disagree. I just hate to see the misuse of Scripture lead to folks throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Part of that "baby" in the area of moral for Jews and Christians are the Ten Commandments, which last I knew, are still carved on the walls of the SCOTUS. BTW, what is that picture? My wife and I think your pic is the child hunter from Chitty, Chitty Bang Bang.

To Kathy: Sorry if my tone somehow I came across as "arrogant" or "offensive." I come to TMV to be educated about many things, and am always glad when those with specialties in areas where I'm lacking can enlighten the rest of us. I was attempting - perhaps in a clumsy way - to shed some light on an area to which I've given extended study.

See you guys on the next 100 comment thread.

"Bibliomancy," huh? What a fine word!

"Misuse of scripture" is an ethical cul-de-sac which begs the eternal question "who gets to decide?" Accepted interpretations do change, and as they do both the upstart and traditionalist camps denounce each others' readings as "misuse of scripture." Witness the Catholics and the Protestants, or lately the Episcopalians and the Anglicans. It's a useless phrase for settling arguments, but it does come in handy for denouncements.

Yes, that's the child catcher. Since I seem to end up on the side of Evil in many of the discussions on here (at least to hear the progressives tell it), he seemed an appropriate avatar.

All one has to do is to do the Biblical research. Take it all into consideration, and look at God's intent.

Like Kathy, I'm having trouble squaring that with your claims that your view of God is not about religion. Once you're talking about the purpose of Christ, you're not exactly religion-neutral.

Which leaves me similarly confused about how a godly individual differs from the other kind. From what we've discussed so far, I'm thinking I might qualify as a godly atheist.

I'm sorry if Im frustrating you Kathy.
You continue to say (as do many others here) that "our definition of ___________" is different for everyone.
If you studied political science and philosophy, virtue and honor are cornerstones of nearly every one, from Machiavelli to the present. And perhaps that is the problem now. Your definition of honor and his definition of honor and my definition of honor.....are all different. Well, onve upon a time, that was not the case. Once upon a time in America, honor and virtue were universal in all walks of life. Politics held to these principles for the most part, and disagreed politically on how to run the nation. You cannot run a nation when everyone's definition of the funderlying oundation is different. And that's what the founding fathers attempted to do. Now, however, people have picked it apart and offered alternative definitions and an alternative foundation based upon an alternative source of power.

This is not my opinion. It is the political and cultural history of our nation.


And in reply to your second comment about "You don't know what God does or does not condone, or if "God" can even be defined in those terms. "

God has defined himself, and yes, I do know what God condones and prohibits. The God, Jehovah, has made it absolutely clear what is and what is not expected of his people. You have made many Jewish references, so I'll assume you already knew that. As Christians, we too know what is expected. Do you not understand that differing "interpretations" cannot all be correct? All I stated, was to go back to the first century Church and see what Christ established prior to men screwing it up with interpretation. Hey, that may be a good idea in terms of our Constitution as well.

Once again. I'm sorry if that is frustrating. With the Bible as well as the Constitution, you cannot make everyone happy by telling them they are all correct.

"Once you're talking about the purpose of Christ, you're not exactly religion-neutral".

As I pointed out before, there is a difference in religion and faith. My faith is with God. Yes, I do attend worship with fellow humans in the faith. Our service is Christian, which is a religion. Did that make sense?
What I mean is that faith is personal and religion is shared with others of the same faith. That faith came from years of study about God and testing it, and seeing man's error through the millenia trying to add their "take" on it.

And yes, other than not accepting God (which tends to be one of His biggest requirements); you are a "Godly" atheist. And you've taught me plenty since I've been coming here. Thanks, by the way. I hope to return the favor.

Once upon a time in America, honor and virtue were universal in all walks of life. Politics held to these principles for the most part, and disagreed politically on how to run the nation.

That is false. Flat-out false. The above is untrue on its face, if you have even a minimal knowledge of U.S. history, or have done even 60 seconds of research on Google. This is not open to rational dispute. I won't support my argument, though, because apparently it's not necessary.

This is not my opinion. It is the political and cultural history of our nation.

Uh, no, it's your opinion, and not a very well-informed opinion at that.

The God, Jehovah, has made it absolutely clear what is and what is not expected of his people. You have made many Jewish references, so I'll assume you already knew that.

Oh, I do. Here is what HaShem expects of his people:

Micah 6:8

"He has told you, oh man, what is good.
And what the Lord requires of you:
Only to do justice
And to love goodness
And to walk modestly with your God;
Then will your name achieve wisdom."

Isaiah 58, which is traditionally read in synagogue on Yom Kippur. It's a warning against empty observance:

"Why when we fasted did you not see?
When we starved our bodies, did you pay no heed?
Because on your fast day
you see to your business
and oppress all your laborers!
Because you fast in strife and contention
and you strike with a wicked fist!
Your fasting today is not such
as to make your voice heard on high.
Is such the fast I desire?
A day for men to starve their bodies?
Is it bowing the head like a bulrush
and lying in sackcloth and ashes?
Do you call that a fast,
a day when the Lord is favorable?
No, this is the fast I desire:
To unlock the fetters of wickedness,
and untie the cords of the yoke
To let the oppressed go free
To break off every yoke.
It is to share your bread with the hungry
and to take the wretched poor into your home.
When you see the naked, to clothe him
and not to ignore your own kin.

Then shall your light burst through like the dawn
And your healing spring up quickly
Your Vindicator shall march before you
The presence of the Lord shall be your rear guard
Then, when you call, the Lord will answer
When you cry, He will say: Here I am.
If you banish the yoke from your midst
The menacing hand, and evil speech,
And you offer your compassion to the hungry
and satisfy the famished creature--
Then shall your light shine in darkness,
And your gloom shall be like noonday. ...

And finally, the Golden Rule, first given by the great Rabbi Hillel, as described in the Jewish tradition:

The saying of Hillel which introduces the collection of his maxims in the Mishnaic treatise Abot mentions Aaron as the great model to be imitated in his love of peace, in his love of man, and in his leading mankind to a knowledge of the Law (Ab. i. 12). In mentioning these characteristics, which the Haggadah then already ascribed to Moses' brother, Hillel mentions his own most prominent virtues. Love of man was considered by Hillel as the kernel of the entire Jewish teaching. When a heathen who wished to become a Jew asked him for a summary of the Jewish religion in the most concise terms, Hillel said: "What is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellow man: this is the whole Law; the rest is mere commentary" (Shab. 31a). With these words Hillel recognized as the fundamental principle of the Jewish moral law the Biblical precept of brotherly love (Lev. xix. 18). Almost the same thing was taught by Paul, a pupil of Gamaliel, the grandson of Hillel (Gal. v. 14; comp. Rom. xiii. 8); and more broadly by Jesus when he declared the love of one's neighbor to be the second great commandment beside the love of God, the first (Matt. xxii. 39; Mark xii. 31; Luke x. 27). It may be assumed without argument that Hillel's answer to the proselyte, which is extant in a narrative in the Babylonian Talmud (comp. also Ab. R. N., recension B., cxxvi. [ed. Schechter, p. 53]), was generally known in Palestine, and that it was not without its effect on the founder of Christianity.

Do you not understand that differing "interpretations" cannot all be correct?

Do you understand that the teaching of the Torah is "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor," and that all the rest is commentary? Interpretation is all we have, and the idea that there is only one "correct" interpretation is a contradiction in terms, and clearly untrue.

All I stated, was to go back to the first century Church and see what Christ established prior to men screwing it up with interpretation.

First, I am Jewish, not Christian, so the teachings of Jesus -- although they may be full of wisdom and worth reading -- have no religious authority for me.

Second, Jesus did not establish any church. He was an observant Jew. Paul is generally the one credited with moving Christianity from a sect of Judaism to a separate religion, and the Church (as in the Catholic Church, which is all there was then) was not founded until centuries later.

Third, your instruction to " to go back to the first century Church and see what Christ established prior to men screwing it up with interpretation" is illogical on its face, since no one living today has any way of knowing for certain what was established or not established and by whom and for what purpose, 2,000 years ago. By definition, all we have is interpretation. Telling us that we should "go back to the first century Church and see what Christ established," then, is a classic example of begging the question. You yourself have to rely on an interpretation from text translated from an ancient language in order to make this assertion of authoritative and absolute certainty.

And thank you for the kind words!

To Dr. J and roro80:

I want to thank you for your excellent comments on this topic. I think you do qualify as godly atheists :) I come to TMV to learn and you have certainly helped with that. I said I'd respond, so here goes.

I am very torn on this issue. When you criticize Christianity, my first response is to try to defend it. That's because I do consider myself a Christian. However, I also find many of your arguments to be very reasonable and persuasive. One thing I realized in thinking about this is that I actually have many of the same criticisms of Christians as you do. I can't stand the fact that the so-called religious right has so much political power and often ignores reason in favor of simple-minded explanations. Actually, I can't stand the fact that there exists something called the religious right in the first place. In this sense I am somewhat on the fringe of mainstream Christianity. Earlier we were talking about how one Christian can say that another is not a real Christian. . . Well, I have literally had this experience. I know for a fact that there are Christians who don't really consider my claim to being a Christian as legitimate. I fully understand why this presents a problem to you, as non-Christians, and perhaps you truly have no other choice but to take everyone at their word. roro is right about pointing out that there are different brands of Christianity. I happen to like mine better than any others I'm acquainted with, but so does everyone else, so I can see how that doesn't help you much. If you were Christian, I'd say that what you really need to do is study the teachings of Jesus for yourself and through prayer and meditation come to your own conclusion about what it really means to be a Christian. But I can see why that advice might not appeal to you, and besides, I don't want to get too far off topic. After all, this isn't a religious discussion per se, it's just a discussion about how religion impacts politics and society as a whole. I'm not out to change anyone's religion (or lack thereof).

So I think you've done a great job at presenting some good arguments from your point of view. I wanted to present my point of view for your consideration. I have considered roro's argument about "playing a numbers game" and realized that I myself do that same thing, and as a result I unfortunately have some negatives opinions about the majority of Christians. I try to be objective, so to disagree with statements such as "It’s not that all Christians hate gays, it’s just that the most vocal opponents to gay rights are Christian" would be to delude myself.

And yet, I remain faithful to my own religion, despite this. You know how members of certain racial minority groups are allowed to make fun of themselves, but they get upset if anyone else makes the same jokes? That's kind of how it feels for me when people criticize Christians. I do it all the time, but when someone else does it, I feel like they're attacking me. It's silly, so I don't respond with anger as many do, but I still feel like I have this obligation to let you know that a) we're not all like that, and b) as bad as they might seem, they're actually pretty good for the most part. You might wonder why I continue in my faith when I feel so different from the rest. Well, without getting too religious on you, I'll just say that my own personal experience with religion, despite my complaints, has been extremely positive, uplifting, enlightening, and strengthening. To deny the positive experiences I've had would also be to delude myself. Also, I feel like maybe through my example I can help other religious people to open their minds a bit so people like you folks won't have as much to complain about :)

Please see my comment that I posted in reply to Dr J. It's also meant for you, but this thread is off the front page now, so I didn't know if you'd see it.

Thanks for the thoughts, DLL. Despite my complaints about Christianity as an institution, I don't mean to deny the value people get from it in terms of community and personal devotion. I just never found those benefits myself. I was Catholic for the first couple decades of my life. "Dr. J the Pious" they used to call me. It didn't work out well, and my life got a lot more bearable once I cast it off.

More recently I hung out on a Christian board for a couple years trying to answer for myself the mystery of the religious right. All these normal, well-meaning people are sincerely trying to put Christ's message into action and do right by him and their neighbors. Their intentions are the best, and they work hard at putting them into practice. Yet they've translated those intentions into a bizarre set of policies, on which they seem curiously agreed: sticking their noses in other people's bedrooms, denying basic science, etc.

I came away with a better understanding of the religious right, but also with a better understanding of the larger Christian community. I learned that Christians agree on almost nothing, save a few abstract theological principles. This board had a whole spectrum of believers from very conservative to very liberal, and not only did the camps see the world and religion's place in it completely differently, they couldn't even communicate with each other. Differences of opinion were never settled, harmony restored only by retreating to the Nicene Creed or other vague platitudes, much like one steers an awkward conversation to the weather.

If you're getting a lot out of your corner of the faith but are put on the defensive trying to answer for Christians at large, that makes perfect sense. Whereas a religion at the scale of a community can be cohesive and uniform, a religion that's shared by over 2 billion people of different languages and cultures must necessarily admit a lot of diversity and have only a few common denominators.