Say Anything Blog

Wow! That was very refreshingly honest to hear from the atheist viewpoint. Thank you. I certainly hope you’ll consider Christ as more than a mere philosopher (because his claims were for much more and to consider him as such I think undermines his very claims). But your honesty and integrity on this matter are very admirable and very needed and welcome in the Public Square by those of us in the Christian faith.

America was founded on Christian principles and beliefs. How difficult is that to figure out? OY! Colloege educations are seriously screwing up the brains of a LOT of people.

---

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

You make some excellent points.  I think you clear up some dangerous presumptions religious people make about non-theists --namely that all atheists hate Christians and Christianity.  Of course, that’s as absurd as saying that all Christians hate atheists (while some do, I know several who don’t).

With that said, I believe that atheism requires faith.  I think it requires a degree of faith to reject God’s existence, as much as it takes faith to affirm God’s existence.

That being said, most people hover somewhere in the middle-ground; I guess the label is agnostic--acknowledging that a degree of doubt and mystery concerning God may never be overcome.

Okay, that aside--I think I see a certain dangerous faith in people who label themselves as free-thinkers.  It assumes that, other than their group of friends, everyone else is a robot.  I don’t think this attitude is anything new.  It’s like the kid in high school who got several pieces of body art (just like his friends) and labeled himself an individual.  Like that high school kid, I’m guessing the free-thinkers aren’t as free-thinking as they like--because they’re held in bondage to reacting against the religious philosophies they hate. 

A true free-thinker (if that’s even possible), would likely branch out a little bit, right?

I think you are mistaken when you assert that Christians hate atheists.  That would be a very small tail wagging a very large dog.  What you have is a small percentage of atheists, who are overrepresented in the media, attacking Christianity and religion in general in a very hateful manner.  I makes sense to abhor such people, but that doesn’t constitute hate.  I think most religious people would simply rather avoid such hateful atheists, while peacefully coexisting with the more sensible and rational ones, like Rob.

---

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Good post, Rob!
It isn’t just the US that was founded on Christian tenets, most Western nations have a degree of the egalitarianism of Christianity imbued in their laws and constitutions, whether the faith is widely practised or not.
As non/a-theists or as practitioners of other faiths, we owe our freedom to these egalitarian principles.

Most Christians I know, here in the UK, recognise that it is not necessary to be Christian to have high moral standards. However, many extremist Christians I have met (mainly Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons and Evangelicals) have condemned me for my views, whilst being unable to recognise that they are able to openly practise their faith, thanks in a large part, to the founding (Anglican) principles of this nation.

---

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

I think it’s a terrible idea to let a majority vote determine whether or not a public building should feature religious imagery, monuments, or tributes. That’s because religious icons in that setting suggest that the government supports or endorses one religion over another—and they imply that those who differ with the tenets of the “favored” faith won’t get the same protection or privileges of those who follow that faith. Public buildings should be totally free of any religious references.

they imply that those who differ with the tenets of the “favored” faith won’t get the same protection or privileges of those who follow that faith.

That really is the best argument you guys can come up with isn’t it.

That somehow someone who is insecure can imagine that because that’s there something bad might happen to someone else.

Quit dreaming of terrible things that might happen.

You guys crack me up.

---

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

---

If a majority approve of whatever is in question, so be it.  That’s democracy.

You need to brush up on your constitution. You should be thankful that’s now how the way things really work.

It is amusing, however, how even though most of Americans are Xian, they still get upset when they can’t place their graven images in the public square.

Reverend, I’m fully aware that this country isn’t a direct democracy on the federal level...but what I’m talking about is these matters being solved on the local level, where direct votes are routinely held.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

If there’s ever a question about what is and is not appropriate the issue should be put to the voters.  If a majority approve of whatever is in question, so be it.  That’s democracy.

Your youth betrays you (or maybe your math betrays you). Putting a religious issue to a popular vote with a vast majority Christian populace is in direct conflict with the Establishment Clause of our constitution. The fact that posting passages from the Koran does not have the same chance of posting biblical passages should make that clear. Your suggestion would turn us into a theocracy in a heartbeat. And a Christian theocracy would would be indistinguishable from an Islamic theocracy (IMHO) http://fvthinker.blogspot.com

And a Christian theocracy would would be
indistinguishable from an Islamic theocracy (IMHO)

Except for the subjugation of women and that “kill all the infidels” thing, of course.  Maybe a few other small details, like the death penalty for homosexuality.

---

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Except for the subjugation of women and that “kill all the infidels” thing, of course.  Maybe a few other small details, like the death penalty for homosexuality.

We also might want to add:

- Slavery
- Stoning
- Mandatory indoctrination
- Death for converts (away from Islam)
- Mandatory facial hair
- Acceptance of murder (if done correctly)

Yeah, I see your point Mike… A Christian Theocracy would be just as bad… Maybe… Worse…

Guys, the Reformation is not a permanent, immutable thing. A Christian Theocracy could easily impose those very strictures y’all list. Just a couple of hundred years ago Christians in many places did accept such to be God’s Law. In historical terms the Age of Enlightenment is not that far removed from the present day.

---

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

True Christianity and a human established theocracy are oxymoronic. There have been many attempts by the Roman Catholic Church and Calvin for instance to mix Church and State, and they have always met with disaster because the world and Christ are ever at enmity with one another; and those mixing Christ and the world are always corrupted because human nature is corrupt and will always seek its own pleasure.

There is no need for any reformation of the true Church of Jesus Christ, it is as perfect as He is; but men will ever try to make the Church into their own image and will always be destroyed thereby. The only true Christian Church is those dear, converted souls totally, willing submissive to Christ in all things and have come out of the world spiritually.

---

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

See? The reformation is a very fragile thing. Here is a modern, educated Christian, and yet he does not accept the Reformation.

I say it again and again. Organized religion is the root of evil. Let no man stand between you and God.

---

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Damnit, are you all in shitty community schools or something? Did you lick Lee Strobel’s ass?

Myth:

The United States is a Christian Nation.

Response: This can be taken a couple of different ways, some valid and some not. It could mean simply that a majority of Americans are Christian and/or have always been Christian. This is true. It could mean that American society has been heavily influenced by Christian beliefs and traditions. This is also true. These are, however, simply factual observations and do not mean much when it comes to political and legal action.

The most common meaning behind the above claim is that America is “Christian” in the sense that it represents Christian doctrines, beliefs and goals. It is “Christian” in the same way that a Methodist congregation is “Christian” - it exists for the sake of believing Christians and is supposed to aid people in being Christians.

Upon what can such a position be based? One way is to argue from the fact that many who came here were Christians fleeing persecution in Europe. Aside from the irony of using past persecution to justify contemporary persecution, this merely confuses the context of how and why the continent was settled with how and why the United States, as a legal entity, was created.

Another argument made is that the early colonies normally had established churches and the governments actively supported Christianity. This is not, however, a very effective argument, because it was exactly this against which many people fought. The First Amendment was specifically designed to prohibit established churches, and at the Constitutional Convention, attempts to write in some sort of nominal support for Christianity always failed. In addition, the people at the time were distinctly “unchurched.” The best estimates indicate that only 10% to 15% of the population actually attended church services.

It is true that Ben Franklin proposed that delegates at the Convention open their sessions with morning prayers, and people who oppose the separation of church and state try to make a lot out of this. According to the records, Franklin suggested that “henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business.”

Aside from the fact that such a prayer clearly isn’t very Christian in nature, what is usually left unsaid is the fact that his proposal was never accepted. Indeed, delegates didn’t even bother voting on it - instead, they voted to adjourn for the day! The proposal was not taken up the next day, and Franklin never bothered to mention it again. Sometimes, unfortunately, religious leaders will actually claim that this proposal was accepted, a distortion which appears to have originated with Senator Willis Robertson, father of Religious Right leader Pat Robertson.

The delegates’ refusal to base this nation on Christianity can also be seen in the fact that neither God nor Christianity are mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. In the main part of the Constitution, the only mention of religion is that there should be no “religious tests” for public office. The First Amendment, then, prohibits the government from either establishing religion or interfering with people’s religious beliefs. At the time, more than one critic denounced the Constitution as a “godless document” - hardly the product of people seeking to establish a “Christian Nation,” is it? This was not an error or an oversight - it was a deliberate attempt to frame the nature of our government and political system in secular, worldly terms.

---

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered
Religion is answers that may never be questioned

It is occasionally argued by a few desperate people that the Constitution ends with the date stated as “in the year of our Lord.” This is not, however, an effort to establish the nation as a Christian nation. This is rather the way people dated documents at the time and the fact is the West operates on a Christian dating system. Using Christian dates, then, is a reflection of the influence Christianity has had on our culture and not a reflection of the basis for our political system.

The position that the United States is a “Christian Nation” is dealt a serious blow by the fact that, as early as 1797, the government specifically said that it is not a Christian Nation. The occasion was a peace and trade agreement between the United States and Muslim leaders in North Africa. The negotiations were conducted under the authority of George Washington, and the final document, known as the Treaty of Tripoli, was approved of by the Senate under the leadership of John Adams, the second president. This treaty states, without equivocation, that the “...Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion....”

Contrary to the claims made by some from the Religious Right, America was not founded as a Christian Nation which was then later undermined by godless liberals and humanists. Just the opposite is the case, actually. The Constitution is a godless document and the government of the United States was set up as a formally secular institution. It has, however, been undermined by well-meaning Christians who have sought to subvert its secular principles and framework for the sake of this or that “good cause,” usually in the interest of promoting this or that religious doctrine.

But the Supreme Court has ruled that this is a Christian Nation

This misunderstanding is based upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Holy Trinity Church v. United States, issued in 1892 and written by Justice David Brewer:

These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.

The case itself involved a federal law which prohibited any company or group to prepay the transportation costs of a non-citizen coming to the United States to work for that company or organization, or indeed even encourage such people from coming here.

This was challenged by Holy Trinity Church, which had contracted with E. Walpole Warren, an Englishman, to come and be a rector for their congregation. In the decision, Brewer found that the legislation was overly broad because it applied to much more than it should have. He did not, however, base his decision on the idea that, legally and politically, the United State is a “Christian Nation.”

Quite the contrary - the things he lists as indicating that this is a “Christian Nation” he specifically labels as “unofficial declarations.” Brewer’s point was merely that the people in this country are Christian - thus, it seemed unlikely that the legislators actually meant to prohibit churches from inviting famous and prominent religious leaders (even Jewish rabbis) from coming here and serving their congregations. Perhaps realizing his error and the possibility of misinterpretation, Justice Brewer published a book in 1905 titled The United States: A Christian Nation. In it he wrote:
But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that ‘congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all.

[...]

Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.

His decision was not, therefore, any attempt by Brewer to argue that the laws in the United States should enforce Christianity or reflect solely Christian concerns and beliefs. He was simply making an observation which is consistent with the first two, historical interpretations above: that people in this country are Christian.

---

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered
Religion is answers that may never be questioned

So, J, you support removing the Ten Commandments because,,?

---

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Oh, let me count the ways.

---

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered
Religion is answers that may never be questioned

Could you give us a substantive answer?  What harm does the 10 commandments monument in Fargo do to you?

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Still waiting.

---

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

I’m fairly curious to hear an answer J_Rivs… Given everything you have written, what harm is done to you by leaving the monument in Fargo?

Seth
I have been wanting that question answered and no one seems to, or more like can’t answer it.

---