Pagan, Wiccan, Druid worship area at USAFA

[AirCobra]

That is the biggest load of horse pucky I've seen in a while. I don't even know where to start. To begin with, you put a whole hell of a lot of words in my mouth and I don't appreciate it.

First, this nation was not founded on any "biblical", "judeo-christian" principles. Show me a passage in the bible that talks about democracy, freedom, or equality. If anything, the founding fathers looked to the ancient Greeks and Romans and there you can find most of the guiding philosophy behind our Republic.

Your argument goes something like this: The Founding Fathers were Christian. Therefore the Constitution is a Christian document. Therefore our government is Christian.

Ignoring the fact that there is not a single reference to God or any biblical, Christian tenent in the Consistution at all. And that one of the bedrock goals of the FF was to establish freedom of religion. It was so important that it was essentially the ONLY right outlined in the original Constitution (prior to the Bill of Rights)... the "no religious test" clause.

it is true that a substantial philosphical basis of our judicial system is evolved from a long European tradition dating back at least to Thomas Aquinas and his theories of Natural Law and moving through many generations and governments. And naturally those people were at least nominally Christians (as was every European back then, on pain of death). Nevertheless the ideas themselves are not Christian nor contained in the bible. Even Thomas Aquinas borrowed very heavily from Aristotle.

You have proved my point in spades. You have no idea where the foundations of our government and law come from do you? You have no idea the preamble of the Constitution is virtually lifted word for word from a sermon by a minister do you? Where is the Greek principle of "promoting the general welfare?" Don't bother looking because there is none. This has nothing to with the founding fathers being Christian thus our government is Christian. You don't understand what I am talking about. It has everything to do with God's calling the Jews his chosen people. Jesus comes along and says we are all equal in the site of God, Jew and Gentile alike. No one is more chosen than the other, all can enter the kingdom.

If we are all equal in God's eyes, then no one rules by divine right, and each of us can have a personal say in how we are governed since we are all equal. This was totally radical when Jesus said and still totally radical when the FF's created a system of government from that principle. Why do you think Jefferson talks about rights coming from a Creator. The unalienable rights Jefferson speaks about are based not in Greek concepts of democracy but in Biblical conc pets of liberty, freewill, and self determination. The unalienable rights Jefferson talks about are from a sermon written by John Winthrop. Winthrop did not get the points of his sermon from the Greeks. How often do the FF's cite the Greeks as influences versus say someone like Locke or Winthrop. How often did they talk about Christian principle versus Aristotle?

What about the Law. William Blackstone is cited as the father of English common law and his writings served as the foundations for the American legal system. Go read up and figure out what Blackstone has to say about the law and God and then give me an honest assessment of the foundations of our legal principles.
You above statements a clear indication of exactly what is wrong with our educations system you have no understanding what the Bible is talking about, and how it relates to the philosophies of our government. Put away your prejudice, and look at the central message and how Christian philosophy applies to our government instead of trying to look for ways it doesn't.

EDIT-I didn't me too come off a harsh but certain things endlessly frustrate me. Most people today have very little understanding of the foundations of our government because of the way the subject is taught in public schools. A few days in any college course in American Government usually clears up a lot. Winthrop is a forgotten man in our history becuase he was a Puritan Minister and wrote a lot about God and government. Not PC today but he was only 60 years removed from the FF's, so he had yet to be whitwashed from public education. On youtube they have a the series Alistair Cooke's America. Check it out. He talks a lot about Winthrop probably in episode two or three. Then read his writings on the philosophy of government. Virginia was a very secular colony yet Jefferson was intimately familiar with Winthrop's writings, as was Madison.

Let me ask you, could you teach about Ghandi and the principles of non-violence without talking about Hinduism? Well if Ghandi was being taught in an American high school they would find a way to do it and then you would have no idea what Ghandi was talking about or what influenced his stance. Do you think if a teacher mentioned Ghandi was a Hindu and Hinduism influenced his actions it would turn America into a religious theocracy with everyone being forced to convert to Hinduism? Sounds propsterous to me, but that is the argument why we can't talk about Biblical influence in our government.

 

[psmd0311]

If we are all equal in God's eyes, then no one rules by divine right, and each of us can have a personal say in how we are governed since we are all equal. This was totally radical when Jesus said and still totally radical when the FF's created a system of government from that principle.

Aircobra,

You are saying how great the American system is and how it was helped formed by religion. I dont know how you can forget that black men and women had to sit at the back of a bus and couldnt drink from a white water fountain in the US until what? the 1950's, 1960's? If 90% of the country are religious, and the bible sees everyone equal like you say, why did it take so long to stomp this one out? Using history to defend christianity isnt going to get you far, unless you believe the Spanish inquisition was a good thing.

 

[ackattacker]

What about the Law. William Blackstone is cited as the father of English common law and his writings served as the foundations for the American legal system. Go read up and figure out what Blackstone has to say about the law and God and then give me an honest assessment of the foundations of our legal principles.

William Blackstone is not the father of English Common Law, he cannot be, English Common Law dates from the Middle Ages and William Blackstone lived from 1723 to 1780. William Blackstone published a treatise which summarized English Common Law as it already existed at that time. English Common Law draws on a large and varied history including Roman Law and theories of Natural Law.

It has everything to do with God's calling the Jews his chosen people. Jesus comes along and says we are all equal in the site of God, Jew and Gentile alike. No one is more chosen than the other, all can enter the kingdom.

The New Testament says that the Kingdom of Heaven is still open to Jews, but only after all the Gentiles are saved first (Romans 11). Hardly a rousing declaration of the equality of all humanity.

The unalienable rights Jefferson talks about are from a sermon written by John Winthrop. Winthrop did not get the points of his sermon from the Greeks. How often do the FF's cite the Greeks as influences versus say someone like Locke or Winthrop. How often did they talk about Christian principle versus Aristotle?

Everybody is influenced by somebody. The FF's were influenced by Locke, Winthrop and others, they were influenced by previous writers and speech makers, etc. And fundamentally the philosophy is a philosphy of man, of natural law, and has nothing to do with "Divine Law" which is in fact repudiated by the New Testament and the New Covenant.

Even the phrase "unalienable rights" ("endowed by their creator") is a reference to Natural Law and the belief that certain rights are inherent. It has nothing to do with an specific religion, or even lack of religion, since it could be argued that all religions and even atheism have a creation theory.

One of the most influential and outspoken Founding Fathers was Thomas Paine, who was not Christian and an outspoken opponent of all organized religion.

 

[waka]

Constantine ended persecution of Christians and promoted religious tolerance for Christians through the Edict of Milan. Are you saying perhaps it would have been better if he continued the Roman practice of killing Christians? Constantine kept the Roman temples and gods and took part in festivals celebrating Roman gods, the link you provided comments he was likely not a Christian.

I don't know what you read, but Constantine was very much a Christian as was described in the link. Again, had it not been for him, Christianity would have died along with any of the other lunatic fringe religions of the time.

The assertion was Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome. Saying Constantine legitimized Christianity is very different than saying he proclaimed it the official religion of Rome.

Actually, no. It is not different, not at all. He actually did. It is just that you Christians know that this fact renders your position as illegitimate. Thus, you will reach in desperation, as you have for hundreds of years, for any shred of validity that you crave and need.

If you were a Christian what do you think was Christ's central message? How does His message differ from the way modern Christians act?

I'll answer your irrelevant question;

Humility, peace and love. If any so-called "modern Christians" think otherwise, they're not Christians. Additionally, modern Christianity thinks that your god blesses countries. What a f##king crock!

 

[AirCobra]

Aircobra,

You are saying how great the American system is and how it was helped formed by religion. I dont know how you can forget that black men and women had to sit at the back of a bus and couldnt drink from a white water fountain in the US until what? the 1950's, 1960's? If 90% of the country are religious, and the bible sees everyone equal like you say, why did it take so long to stomp this one out? Using history to defend christianity isnt going to get you far, unless you believe the Spanish inquisition was a good thing.

What was the product of the Inquisition and the imposed theocracy of the Catholic Church? Wasn't it the Reformation. What was the product of the imposed theocracy of the Church of England? Wasn't it the Pilgrims and later the Puritans. What was the basis for the abolitionist movement and later the Civil Rights Movement of Reverend Martin Luther King? How about William Wilberforce in England, what influenced his stance on slavery? Slavery was about economics not region, and the people that worked the hardest to abolish slavery used Biblical principle to point out slavery's injustice. They drew a spotlight on the hypocrisy of a supposed Christian using another person solely for economic gain. The argument against slavery had a moral basis. What was the foundation of that moral basis?

So what are you saying that if someone that said we need to abolish slavery because it is wrong in the eyes of God and against Christian principle they are hypocrites and cannot be a moral person because of the Spanish Inquisition? Then no one is moral because all of us have done something wrong so all of our actions would therefore be suspect. This is exactly what the FF's were trying to get rid of. The sins of the father will not be wrought upon the son. To the FF's this concept meant we were all equal in the eyes of the law and that you will not be forced to continually pay for injustice, nor will you pay for the injustices of your father.

Do you really think this way? That a Catholic today cannot be a moral person and tell others they should help the poor, the sick or the suffering because 500 years ago there was a Spanish Inquisition. So you would hold Mother Teresa responsible for that and call her a big hypocrite. Boy am I glad we don't live in a country where people are held to your standards of justice.

 

[AirCobra]

I don't know what you read, but Constantine was very much a Christian as was described in the link. Again, had it not been for him, Christianity would have died along with any of the other lunatic fringe religions of the time.

From your link:
Constantine ends not converting, technically, to Christianity, but becoming a patron of one particular branch of the church. It happens to be the branch of the church that has the Old Testament as well as the New Testament as part of its canon.

I don't think Christians of that time would would be making sacrafices to Roman Gods in Roman temples.

Actually, no. It is not different, not at all. He actually did. It is just that you Christians know that this fact renders your position as illegitimate. Thus, you will reach in desperation, as you have for hundreds of years, for any shred of validity that you crave and need.
Constantine didn't do what you assert. Early Christains went forth and preached the gospel. Constantine was nice enough not to kill them for it. Even if your assertion was true, how did Constantine legitimize Christianity in the Western Roman Empire? At best he could only have legitimized Christianity in the Eastern Empire. Not to mention what influenced those Christians the Romans were killing in the first place since there seemed to be a whole lot of them?

You seem to be saying that Constantine did something wrong by stopping the wholesale slaughter of Christians. Like "too bad if he would have let the killing continue those Christian nuts wouldn't be around anymore"
Sounds pretty twisted.



I'll answer your irrelevant question;

Humility, peace and love. If any so-called "modern Christians" think otherwise, they're not Christians. Additionally, modern Christianity thinks that your god blesses countries. What a f##king crock!

Try again, that is not Christ's central message. The question is extremely relevant. You have just demonstrated you are commenting on something you don't understand, and you rejected something you didn't understand. Not saying anyone can't reject Christ's message, that is up to each individual person, but if you are going to be telling others they should reject Christ's message it would help your credibility if you understood what you rejected, and what you are telling others to reject.

 

[AirCobra]

William Blackstone is not the father of English Common Law, he cannot be, English Common Law dates from the Middle Ages and William Blackstone lived from 1723 to 1780. William Blackstone published a treatise which summarized English Common Law as it already existed at that time. English Common Law draws on a large and varied history including Roman Law and theories of Natural Law.

Blackstone wrote down Common Law and discussed its philosophy. His were pivitiol in creating or system of justice. Blackstone specifically comments that Natural Law was not the same as common law since it does not draw upon where our rights come from.

The New Testament says that the Kingdom of Heaven is still open to Jews, but only after all the Gentiles are saved first (Romans 11). Hardly a rousing declaration of the equality of all humanity.
The principle of chosen people versus all can be saved. Once again we are not talking about slavation. That is not the goal of our government. We are talking about the overall principles of liberty and equality found in Christian philosophy.



Everybody is influenced by somebody. The FF's were influenced by Locke, Winthrop and others, they were influenced by previous writers and speech makers, etc. And fundamentally the philosophy is a philosphy of man, of natural law, and has nothing to do with "Divine Law" which is in fact repudiated by the New Testament and the New Covenant.
Well that is my point isn't it? The FF's were influenced by Christian principle, so why are we pretending they weren't. Saint Thomas, Locke, and Winthrop all hold that natural law is meaningless without a moral foundation. They all believed that moral foundation came from God's Word. That is why they talk about the philosophy of Naural Law in the first place. They are realting how Natural Law fits into Christian philosophy. All I am saying is since Christian principle influenced the FF's we should talk about it in school, otherwise kids won't get the whole picture nor understand what our government is all about.

Even the phrase "unalienable rights" ("endowed by their creator") is a reference to Natural Law and the belief that certain rights are inherent. It has nothing to do with an specific religion, or even lack of religion, since it could be argued that all religions and even atheism have a creation theory.

One of the most influential and outspoken Founding Fathers was Thomas Paine, who was not Christian and an outspoken opponent of all organized religion.
You still have the problem that Payne was raised as a Quaker so there can be no doubt his philosophies on freedom and liberty were influenced by Christian philosophy. Again the goal of government is not salvation, and Christian philosophy used by the FF's in terms of the foundations of our government were not for the purposes of salvation. Salvation is not the reason I believe the Bible should be taught in schools. I believe the Bible as it applies to the foundations and philosophy of our government is what should be taught.

 

[waka]

From your link:
Constantine ends not converting, technically, to Christianity, but becoming a patron of one particular branch of the church. It happens to be the branch of the church that has the Old Testament as well as the New Testament as part of its canon.

I don't think Christians of that time would would be making sacrafices to Roman Gods in Roman temples.

How did you extract that from your quote? Wow! You're really reaching.....even more than you normally do.

Constantine didn't do what you assert. Early Christains went forth and preached the gospel. Constantine was nice enough not to kill them for it. Even if your assertion was true, how did Constantine legitimize Christianity in the Western Roman Empire? At best he could only have legitimized Christianity in the Eastern Empire. Not to mention what influenced those Christians the Romans were killing in the first place since there seemed to be a whole lot of them?

You seem to be saying that Constantine did something wrong by stopping the wholesale slaughter of Christians. Like "too bad if he would have let the killing continue those Christian nuts wouldn't be around anymore"
Sounds pretty twisted.

Again, what you say is driven not by historical facts, but from what you believe. Everything you say here is deflated by the simple fact that Constantine, during his rule, decided that he was a Christian and declared (YES, he did) Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire.

Try again, that is not Christ's central message. The question is extremely relevant. You have just demonstrated you are commenting on something you don't understand, and you rejected something you didn't understand. Not saying anyone can't reject Christ's message, that is up to each individual person, but if you are going to be telling others they should reject Christ's message it would help your credibility if you understood what you rejected, and what you are telling others to reject.

This is a straw man argument. My rejection of Christianity has nothing to do with YOUR perception of Christ's message. My rejection of Christianity or any other dogma has to do with the absurdity of theism. That said, ironically enough, it is you that misunderstands Christ's message. For an atheist to have to educate a Christian on such matters is pathetic.

 

[JohnQ]

With Obama increasing troops in Afghanistan and more drone flights in Pakistan than Bush... you two should be quite pleased with your new CinC. No? What is it about the 70K increase and more drone flights you don't like... ?

As a former military flyer, and a libertarian/conservative, I give Obama an A+ in the war against Al-Qaeda (which is truly what 9/11 was...Iraq was an obsession of George Bush's and a mistake, but I don't want to go there). He is doing all the right things, from the huge increase in drones in Pakistan to kill the bad guys--and contrary to your "let's all hold hands" approach, there are/were some evil bastards in the Pakistani tribal regions and Afghanistan, who would slit YOUR throat and spit on your carcass without so much as a second thought--to the troop surge in Afghanistan.

I give him a D to F- on social and economic policy. Running up perpetual $1 trillion deficits all so a delusional electorate can temporarily live in la-la land of "borrow today, let our grandkids pay it off in decades later" will destroy this country as surely as any jihadist ever could.

 

[flyboyike]

My experience with believers is they are in intellectually dishonest.

Unfortunately, the same seems to be the case of many "non-believers" as well.