Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can the US only survive as a Christian nation

Geogeer
Posts: 4,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 7:21:16 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
I would post this in the Religion forum, but that would just be an exercise in futility. The video lays out a compelling case as to why the US can only work within a Christian framework.

It agrees well with what I believe, however I'm looking for a good discussion on the issue.
RookieApologist
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 8:04:17 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 7:21:16 PM, Geogeer wrote:
I would post this in the Religion forum, but that would just be an exercise in futility. The video lays out a compelling case as to why the US can only work within a Christian framework.

It agrees well with what I believe, however I'm looking for a good discussion on the issue.



As a Christian apologist, I would like to agree with the video and you, but I do think the video glosses over several points:

1) All nations that are not Christian are not tyrannies. The video implies that only a Christian nation has the ability to not become a tyranny, or at least it seemed to say that.

2) John Adams' quote is regarding the US government only working if its people are "moral and religious (he makes no distinction of Christianity)." This brings up several questions though:

a) was Adams speaking of objective or subjective morality? While it can be argued quite effectively that objective morality cannot exist without God, the same cannot be said of subjective morality. So in this sense, morality and religion are not necessarily intertwined, unless one is speaking of objective morality. The vast majority of people though speak of subjective morality, whether they realize it or not, and God is not necessary for subjective morality.

b) the moral argument for God is not an argument for Christianity, only for God, so this might imply that while morality cannot exist without God, it can perhaps exist without Christianity. There are more steps one has to take to go from the moral argument for God to showing that Christianity is the most plausible explanation. Obviously though, all religions cannot be true, and depending on which god you believe in (even if the answer is none), morality may or may not be possible with "your" god. I don't think Adams was going quite this deep when he made his quote though. And this line of discussion may not be necessary for what the video is implying.

c) the US was not founded solely on Christian principles. It was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. But orthodox Jews have much different beliefs about Christ than Christians do. So what does this say of the necessity of a Christian nation?

All of that said, I think the basic premise of the video is true for the most part. The Constitution and Bill of Rights was written for a moral and religious population, even if the definitions of morality and religion are not fully explored here.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 8:32:36 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 8:21:32 PM, Lynx_N wrote:
I think it would do just fine as a Muslim nation.

Wouldn't work. The basic tenant of Islam is that you are a slave to Allah. The basic tenant of Christianity is that you are a Child of God.

Distinctly different fundamental beliefs.

Additionally the transition to a Muslim nation would be pretty chaotic.
Escobar
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 9:07:22 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 7:21:16 PM, Geogeer wrote:
I would post this in the Religion forum, but that would just be an exercise in futility. The video lays out a compelling case as to why the US can only work within a Christian framework.

It agrees well with what I believe, however I'm looking for a good discussion on the issue.



The U.S. was built by Beast minded Christians. The Beast is God's thoughts that taught man how to build false gods with their human hands so God's people were always looking for materials and land to build their false gods on. This is why the first European settlers were religious people looking for land to build their church buildings on and materials for their altars, pews, etc. Then they formed governments with laws to protect those false gods with.

God used Christianity to spread building techniques outside of what was once the Roman Empire. So Christianity is represented by the "feet of iron and clay" in this following prophecy. The Roman Catholic Church and Vatican are the "iron" part of the feet and the Protestant churches that have now broken up into around 40,000 denominations are the "clay" part of the feet.

Daniel 2:
36: "This was the dream; now we will tell the king its interpretation.
37: You, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, and the might, and the glory,
38: and into whose hand he has given, wherever they dwell, the sons of men, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the air, making you rule over them all -- you are the head of gold.
39: After you shall arise another kingdom inferior to you, and yet a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth.
40: And there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron, because iron breaks to pieces and shatters all things; and like iron which crushes, it shall break and crush all these.
41: And as you saw the feet and toes partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom; but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the miry clay.
42: And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle.
43: As you saw the iron mixed with miry clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay.
44: And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand for ever;
45: just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be hereafter. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure."
RookieApologist
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 9:40:31 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 8:32:36 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/14/2016 8:21:32 PM, Lynx_N wrote:
I think it would do just fine as a Muslim nation.

Wouldn't work. The basic tenant of Islam is that you are a slave to Allah. The basic tenant of Christianity is that you are a Child of God.

Distinctly different fundamental beliefs.

Additionally the transition to a Muslim nation would be pretty chaotic.

Better explained, the Constitution would not be congruent with Islam and would need to be re-written if it was to coincide with Islamic belief.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 9:50:01 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 9:07:22 PM, Escobar wrote:
At 11/14/2016 7:21:16 PM, Geogeer wrote:
I would post this in the Religion forum, but that would just be an exercise in futility. The video lays out a compelling case as to why the US can only work within a Christian framework.

It agrees well with what I believe, however I'm looking for a good discussion on the issue.



The U.S. was built by Beast minded Christians. The Beast is God's thoughts that taught man how to build false gods with their human hands so God's people were always looking for materials and land to build their false gods on. This is why the first European settlers were religious people looking for land to build their church buildings on and materials for their altars, pews, etc. Then they formed governments with laws to protect those false gods with.

God used Christianity to spread building techniques outside of what was once the Roman Empire. So Christianity is represented by the "feet of iron and clay" in this following prophecy. The Roman Catholic Church and Vatican are the "iron" part of the feet and the Protestant churches that have now broken up into around 40,000 denominations are the "clay" part of the feet.

Daniel 2:
36: "This was the dream; now we will tell the king its interpretation.
37: You, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, and the might, and the glory,
38: and into whose hand he has given, wherever they dwell, the sons of men, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the air, making you rule over them all -- you are the head of gold.
39: After you shall arise another kingdom inferior to you, and yet a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth.
40: And there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron, because iron breaks to pieces and shatters all things; and like iron which crushes, it shall break and crush all these.
41: And as you saw the feet and toes partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom; but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the miry clay.
42: And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle.
43: As you saw the iron mixed with miry clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay.
44: And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand for ever;
45: just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be hereafter. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure."

Good to see you Brad.

You wandered out of the Religious forum again.

Its this way

|
|
|
V
Geogeer
Posts: 4,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 9:51:05 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 9:40:31 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
At 11/14/2016 8:32:36 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/14/2016 8:21:32 PM, Lynx_N wrote:
I think it would do just fine as a Muslim nation.

Wouldn't work. The basic tenant of Islam is that you are a slave to Allah. The basic tenant of Christianity is that you are a Child of God.

Distinctly different fundamental beliefs.

Additionally the transition to a Muslim nation would be pretty chaotic.

Better explained, the Constitution would not be congruent with Islam and would need to be re-written if it was to coincide with Islamic belief.

What he said.
Escobar
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 9:53:24 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 9:50:01 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/14/2016 9:07:22 PM, Escobar wrote:
At 11/14/2016 7:21:16 PM, Geogeer wrote:
I would post this in the Religion forum, but that would just be an exercise in futility. The video lays out a compelling case as to why the US can only work within a Christian framework.

It agrees well with what I believe, however I'm looking for a good discussion on the issue.



The U.S. was built by Beast minded Christians. The Beast is God's thoughts that taught man how to build false gods with their human hands so God's people were always looking for materials and land to build their false gods on. This is why the first European settlers were religious people looking for land to build their church buildings on and materials for their altars, pews, etc. Then they formed governments with laws to protect those false gods with.

God used Christianity to spread building techniques outside of what was once the Roman Empire. So Christianity is represented by the "feet of iron and clay" in this following prophecy. The Roman Catholic Church and Vatican are the "iron" part of the feet and the Protestant churches that have now broken up into around 40,000 denominations are the "clay" part of the feet.

Daniel 2:
36: "This was the dream; now we will tell the king its interpretation.
37: You, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, and the might, and the glory,
38: and into whose hand he has given, wherever they dwell, the sons of men, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the air, making you rule over them all -- you are the head of gold.
39: After you shall arise another kingdom inferior to you, and yet a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth.
40: And there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron, because iron breaks to pieces and shatters all things; and like iron which crushes, it shall break and crush all these.
41: And as you saw the feet and toes partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom; but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the miry clay.
42: And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle.
43: As you saw the iron mixed with miry clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay.
44: And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand for ever;
45: just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be hereafter. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure."

Good to see you Brad.

You wandered out of the Religious forum again.

Its this way

|
|
|
V


Now you should understand what the U.S. became a Christian nation under the influence of the Beast. The Muslims could succeed in taking over the U.S. if God planned it but he's going to end this age very soon now that we know what the Tree of Life is.
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 6:18:47 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 8:32:36 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/14/2016 8:21:32 PM, Lynx_N wrote:
I think it would do just fine as a Muslim nation.

Wouldn't work. The basic tenant of Islam is that you are a slave to Allah. The basic tenant of Christianity is that you are a Child of God.

Trouble is I have heard repeatedly the whole we belong to God, we are slaves to christ, we are his servants and last but not least, God owns us cause we were BOUGHT at a price.

So if you going to condemn any islamic suggestion about being a slave/owned by God are you willing to do the same for any christian source ?

You shouldn't have to have double standards to justify your religion...............right ?


Distinctly different fundamental beliefs.

Lets look at the fundamentals of the religons shall we ?

There is a God....

There are things he, (and lets not kid ourselves, it's a he) will reward or punish you according, both in this life and the next.

So which religion did I just describe ? Islame or KKKhristanity ?

They are not FUNDAMENTALLY different, they disagree on the DETAILS of the things that God will reward/punish for, but they don't actually disagree on the fundamental God + reward/punishment construct.


Additionally the transition to a Muslim nation would be pretty chaotic.

We hold these things to be self evident, that all men are created...............get back to work n*gger.
SolonKR
Posts: 4,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 7:25:42 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Ugh, I hate how these shorts always ruin such nice, relaxing music

Anyway, this is a bad argument. To put it in simple form:
1. The Founders were Christian (or at least, believed in God)
2. The Founders wanted to prevent the tyranny of the one, the few, and the majority.
3. The tyranny of the majority arises because everyone is split into classes with different desires--leaders become tyrants to satisfy desires
5. People will submit to tyrants for stability's sake
Then, it FINALLY gets to the "Why isn't the US a tyranny yet?"
6. The people need some moral binding to get them to adhere to the law
7. That moral binding is religion.
8. As evidence, our moral bindings are failing and our people are becoming more divided.

I'll take the arguments in reverse order:
The last segment about division today is hilariously absurd. It has positively no basis in American history, and to believe that there is some sort of correlation between Christianity's decline and partisanship is to exhibit the highest degree of historical ignorance. Sure, we're more divided at this moment than in 2012, 2008, or 2004, but allow me to provide a short, non-inclusive list of times we've been more divided than now: 1973 (Roe v. Wade), 1960-1966 (Civil Rights Era), 1912 (Taft v. Roosevelt v. Wilson v. Debs), 1876 (Tilden v. Hayes), 1861-1865 (Civil War; you could include the entire lead-up to it as well), 1829-1837 (Jackson's presidency), 1825 (Corrupt Bargain), 1798 (Alien and Sedition Acts). There's no excuse for that sort of unfounded moralizing.

Essentially, the speaker precedes that by talking about respect for democratic norms as a necessity for continuation of any democracy. This is absolutely true; one can see that in the fall of the Roman Republic, for example. That it must be religion providing it (or that religion even DOES provide it), however, is nonsense. The speaker is making a circular argument--he claims that to respect norms requires Christianity, because Christianity presents the requirements that respect for norms needs. I can give an immediately apparent counter-example--civic education. Can you imagine if our schools did not have American flags, did not recite the Pledge every day, did not have history books with eagles on the cover that gush on and on about how amazing this country is (note the conspicuous absence of talk about the 3/5ths Compromise, or indentured servitude in the colonies, or any number of other dark parts of our history)?
Regardless, the other problem with this argument is obviously this--what exactly does Christianity have to do with respect for democratic norms? The video attempts to frame it as a way to rise above self-interest, but empirically, we know that is an utter sham. Just look at the liberal/conservative Christian sectarian split.
The only thing necessary for continuation of democracy is respect for and value for inalienable rights as a society. Coming from a leftist perspective, in which it is typically the religious right that has attempted to restrict rights, I struggle to see how anyone could argue Christianity is a necessary or sufficient condition for democracy.

I might talk about this more later, but I need sleep.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 7:44:24 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 7:25:42 AM, SolonKR wrote:
note the conspicuous absence of talk about the 3/5ths Compromise, or indentured servitude in the colonies, or any number of other dark parts of our history)?

Ugh, stahp. The 3/5s compromise was not a 'dark part of our nations history.' This is one of the most ridiculous historical mischaracterizations out there. Do you know who wanted slaves to be counted as whole people? The slaveholders in the South! Because slave's couldn't vote, but if they counted as a whole person for the purpose of allotting representatives, it would make it more difficult to abolish slavery. Counting slaves as full people would have enfranchised the slave states while doing absolutely nothing for the slaves. The people who wanted the slaves to not be counted as a person at all were the abolitionists. The two sides compromised on a ratio of three fifths, and it is constantly misconstrued as some kind of monstrous dehumanization where they 'weren't counted as full people' today.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 8:17:50 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 7:21:16 PM, Geogeer wrote:
I would post this in the Religion forum, but that would just be an exercise in futility. The video lays out a compelling case as to why the US can only work within a Christian framework.

It agrees well with what I believe, however I'm looking for a good discussion on the issue.

I disagree with the thesis for several reasons. Firstly, the founders didn't think that Christianity would solve the problems inherent in democracy; that's why they founded a Republic with a separation of powers. The Tyranny of the One, Few, or Many is directly taken from Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy. Machiavelli lived in staunchly Catholic Italy, in a time of powerful city states, and his writing was informed by that. His problem with democracy was irrespective to the religion being practiced; it was that democracy was too 'pure' a form of government, which collapses into anarchy and the rise of a strong monarch no matter the moral circumstances of the population, and which can only prevented from doing so by combining those three unstable forms of government, which is what the Founding Fathers did.

I DO agree that shared values and religious homogeneity are always a net benefit. But I also think that the US never possessed this. We were a dumping ground for the craziest offshoots of the Reformation. Our shores have been populated with everything from Quakers to Puritans, from Anabaptists to Swedenborgians. We've always been a religiously pluralistic society, and these sects have always deviated so widely from central doctrines that we never enjoyed the same benefits which, say, Catholic Europe enjoyed. There was a reason that war consumed early Europe over a diphthong; because orthodoxy is central to the social order provided by religion.

The best proof of this is the welcome which Catholics received. Catholics are not just Christians, they are THE Christians, one of the few sects which can claim an line of succession stretching back to the dawn of the faith. Yet they received a decidedly hostile reception in this country, and even today you can find many Protestants who will adamantly insist that Catholics are not even Christians. That isn't any basis to found a common moral doctrine on. Perhaps one could view Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in their early days, as each being rooted in a common moral framework, but Quakers were still hung in New England.

What happened instead, imo, is that the faith became fetishized in a nationalistic sense during the evangelical movement, with the advent of mass media hastening the pace of the 'Great Awakenings'. Because pretty much the only thing that the Christians could agree on was 'Cross good, Ten Commandments good, Jesus good', those things became national fetishes with little real meaning behind them without a common doctrine. Each Christian looking at them had different ideas about what they ultimately met, so it just became a symbol which united people without representing anything specific. The ultimate incarnation of this sort of cynical, shallow Christianity has been the megachurches which peddle faith like a brand, and have just lead to the religion falling in prestige.

Now, the loss of religious values and descent into moral anarchy is still very bad. But religious faith was never something which united us or preserved our democracy, imo.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 8:29:40 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 7:44:24 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/15/2016 7:25:42 AM, SolonKR wrote:
note the conspicuous absence of talk about the 3/5ths Compromise, or indentured servitude in the colonies, or any number of other dark parts of our history)?

Ugh, stahp. The 3/5s compromise was not a 'dark part of our nations history.' This is one of the most ridiculous historical mischaracterizations out there. Do you know who wanted slaves to be counted as whole people? The slaveholders in the South! Because slave's couldn't vote, but if they counted as a whole person for the purpose of allotting representatives, it would make it more difficult to abolish slavery. Counting slaves as full people would have enfranchised the slave states while doing absolutely nothing for the slaves. The people who wanted the slaves to not be counted as a person at all were the abolitionists. The two sides compromised on a ratio of three fifths, and it is constantly misconstrued as some kind of monstrous dehumanization where they 'weren't counted as full people' today.

I think the dark period he meant was slavery in general - and how it didn't reflect the Christian values that has supposedly kept America safe. But given the outcome of slavery, it's safe to say 3/5's was enough to keep the institution of slavery politically safe while still doing nothing for the slaves. Seeing how they were able to pass laws that effectively made slaves still slaves even in free states with the fugitive slave acts. And given the nature of slavery where one can import 'population' and said population doesn't have a political voice it was much easier to gain and maintain political power as a slave holding state. If it were truly a compromise you'd think they'd settle for a 1/2 clause.
SolonKR
Posts: 4,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 8:32:24 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 7:44:24 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/15/2016 7:25:42 AM, SolonKR wrote:
note the conspicuous absence of talk about the 3/5ths Compromise, or indentured servitude in the colonies, or any number of other dark parts of our history)?

Ugh, stahp. The 3/5s compromise was not a 'dark part of our nations history.' This is one of the most ridiculous historical mischaracterizations out there. Do you know who wanted slaves to be counted as whole people? The slaveholders in the South! Because slave's couldn't vote, but if they counted as a whole person for the purpose of allotting representatives, it would make it more difficult to abolish slavery. Counting slaves as full people would have enfranchised the slave states while doing absolutely nothing for the slaves. The people who wanted the slaves to not be counted as a person at all were the abolitionists. The two sides compromised on a ratio of three fifths, and it is constantly misconstrued as some kind of monstrous dehumanization where they 'weren't counted as full people' today.

I'm perfectly aware; you know me better than to accuse me of ignorance of that. What makes the 3/5ths compromise monstrous is not that slaves should have been counted as full people (they weren't citizens, and thus clearly should have counted as zero for the purposes of representation, but I digress). What is inhumane about it and why it needs to be taught is that clearly, anyone with eyes can see that the United States was not founded to ensure the liberty of all; only the liberty of the wealthy. To not teach about the compromise is to not teach that our Founders were willing to consider rights a matter of compromise, and to not teach that there is no "one" interpretation of rights and the Constitution (my biggest gripe with originalism). The three fifths compromise isn't bad because of some nebulous "they counted people as part of a person!"; it's bad because it shows the lasting influence slavery had on this country from the beginning.

Note: I typed this at 1:30 AM on my phone; apologies if it is incoherent.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
SolonKR
Posts: 4,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 8:36:47 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
In any case, the point was that history in elementary and high school courses is white washed in order to better foster a sense of patriotism.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 3:20:50 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
John Adams was a Unitarian.
As such he rejected the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus. So, by his view, Jesus was a great moral teacher, but not God, or the son of God.

So remove any supernatural aspect of Jesus, and that is the basis for any Christianity that might be associated with the majority of the founding fathers, and the early presidents, like George Washington.
Danbury
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 4:01:27 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
The US is not a Christian nation. We are not a theocracy thank goodness.

Please take a basic course in American civics so that you may understand your own country and its history better.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 5:11:41 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 4:01:27 PM, Danbury wrote:
The US is not a Christian nation. We are not a theocracy thank goodness.

Please take a basic course in American civics so that you may understand your own country and its history better.

Well, if that course is within the boundaries of the USA, it probably won't do much good.
The truth is well hidden.
The cover-up started a long time ago, and is woven into the history books.
There are plaques in Washington D.C. with fictitious quotes engraved in bronze and stone.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 6:15:15 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Freedom cannot survive under any system which places the unbridled pursuit of happiness as its highest value. Christianity is largely antithetical to the pursuit of happiness, so it is a good cure to this ill. I suppose that American democracy could survive with a Muslim-majority, as they would have values higher than self-fulfillment. However, it's extremely unlikely that America will turn Muslim. We'll either be a Christian nation or an areligious one.
That being said, America has never truly lived up to this idea. Even when Christianity was commonplace, our country clung to the sins of slavery (the selfish desire of a few men to enrich themselves by exploiting others) and, later, mistreatment of the freed black populace.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 3:32:28 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Yes, the political ethos underpinning the United States is something that can only be sustained by a religious population.

A lot of the dysfunction of our modern order can be attributed to a decline in morality and spirituality. The United States cannot be sustained by a nation of hedonistic atheists--nor can any country, really. Look at what's happening to the spiritually dead population of Europe. Within a few generations, they literally will no longer exist as a people unless they change their ways. I expect to see a rapid return to nationalism and religiosity throughout the Western world...the first bit is already happening.

It's actually really depressing to watch old shows, even cartoons as recently as the 90s, where the family went to church every Sunday because that's just what you did. That America was on its way out then, and it's long gone now. Protestants are a minority for the first time: https://pbs.twimg.com...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 3:44:53 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 7:25:42 AM, SolonKR wrote:
Can you imagine if our schools did not have American flags, did not recite the Pledge every day, did not have history books with eagles on the cover that gush on and on about how amazing this country is (note the conspicuous absence of talk about the 3/5ths Compromise, or indentured servitude in the colonies, or any number of other dark parts of our history)?

Weird, that stuff was basically all that my education focused on. We even had to read "A Peoples History of the United States." In hindsight feel like I was completely robbed of an education that taught the truth about the United States, it really only focused on the bad. I had to learn it myself.

Of course my school was way ahead of the curve when it came to degeneracy, I hated it. I guess yours was different. The way I came to terms with it is that at the end of the day, most people are not capable of holding a nuanced point of view regarding history--which is *never* black and white--so school boards and teachers basically teach history in a way that conforms to their political agenda.

I don't see how anybody could possibly have a problem with the flag or the pledge of allegiance, but whatever. Fun fact: We also had to pledge allegiance to Texas every day which is kind of contradictory if you think about it, considering that Texas and the U.S. were at war ~150 years ago.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 3:55:03 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 8:36:47 AM, SolonKR wrote:
#EndtheEC

bahahahahahaha

no
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Lynx_N
Posts: 276
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 5:45:00 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 9:50:01 PM, Geogeer wrote:

Good to see you Brad.

You wandered out of the Religious forum again.

Its this way

|
|
|
V

Brad is it eh?
So how many accounts has he had so far then?
Is it always that he's a Saint who's the only one who knows how to correctly interpret the Bible?
Bronto?
Congrats.

poet
SolonKR
Posts: 4,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 6:45:42 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 3:44:53 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/15/2016 7:25:42 AM, SolonKR wrote:
Can you imagine if our schools did not have American flags, did not recite the Pledge every day, did not have history books with eagles on the cover that gush on and on about how amazing this country is (note the conspicuous absence of talk about the 3/5ths Compromise, or indentured servitude in the colonies, or any number of other dark parts of our history)?

Weird, that stuff was basically all that my education focused on. We even had to read "A Peoples History of the United States." In hindsight feel like I was completely robbed of an education that taught the truth about the United States, it really only focused on the bad. I had to learn it myself.

Of course my school was way ahead of the curve when it came to degeneracy, I hated it. I guess yours was different. The way I came to terms with it is that at the end of the day, most people are not capable of holding a nuanced point of view regarding history--which is *never* black and white--so school boards and teachers basically teach history in a way that conforms to their political agenda.

That's fair. I wouldn't even say mine had a conservative bias--we had two books--The American Pageant (which is standard fare), and a different book that I can't even recall (I rarely read the texts, because our teacher was phenomenal and I passed the AP exam just by listening to him). I wouldn't wish A People's History on anyone for a first comprehensive course--it even struck ME as conspiratorial at points, though the actual facts it presents are invaluable for framing a complete picture of history. Bailey has a hilarious story about bias that you might ask her for if you're curious.

I disagree that most people can't hold nuanced views on history--it's more that most people rightfully don't care. I say that as a history major. The field's entire use is in its ability to shape our perspectives on political issues, more or less, and most people will never benefit from such a niche field because it's so subjective (draw me any historical analogy, and I can give you at least three problems with it), and it can usually only be applied abstractly. I openly admit the only reason I majored in this at the beginning was that it was like story time for adults to me. It lost that shine for me, but it also became more interesting once I found myself able to start applying it. I'm taking a PoliSci course about the scientific study of war, and I've been crushing it largely thanks to historical perspective. But I digress.

I don't see how anybody could possibly have a problem with the flag or the pledge of allegiance, but whatever. Fun fact: We also had to pledge allegiance to Texas every day which is kind of contradictory if you think about it, considering that Texas and the U.S. were at war ~150 years ago.

I don't have a problem with it at all. I was simply pointing out the fact that Christianity isn't a sufficient condition for democracy--civic education and rituals of patriotism are utilized (and in my view necessary, even if I might slightly modify them [come on, we can totally make a jazz arrangement of America the Beautiful into the anthem; they all sound wicked cool]). In a way, those rituals can provide their own sort of liminality like religion does. I'd love to take a course that compares statism with religion, but that's neither here nor there. The point was that we do the pledge and everything else to foster a sense of community above the self--come to think of it, that's partly why we added "under God" into the pledge. Religion CAN be that glue for society, but I don't believe it NEEDS to be. I think that probably comes from my own experience--I've never been less religious than I am now, and I've also never loved my country as much as I do now. I probably don't love it for the same reasons you do, but I'm still just as eager to enter the Foreign Service under President Trump as I would have been under President Clinton; I think this country is filled with fantastic people, and the government being less than stellar doesn't change that--I can say that as comfortably from a leftist perspective as most rightists can. I love American popular culture, its rich history (even though I bash the Founders historically for every imperfection I can find, I still believe that they did a great job), and jazz. Like, how can you not love a country where JAZZ was born?

Having finished this post, I think it may be the most unfocused post I have ever written, but OH WELL.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 8:16:46 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 8:32:24 AM, SolonKR wrote:
At 11/15/2016 7:44:24 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/15/2016 7:25:42 AM, SolonKR wrote:
note the conspicuous absence of talk about the 3/5ths Compromise, or indentured servitude in the colonies, or any number of other dark parts of our history)?

Ugh, stahp. The 3/5s compromise was not a 'dark part of our nations history.' This is one of the most ridiculous historical mischaracterizations out there. Do you know who wanted slaves to be counted as whole people? The slaveholders in the South! Because slave's couldn't vote, but if they counted as a whole person for the purpose of allotting representatives, it would make it more difficult to abolish slavery. Counting slaves as full people would have enfranchised the slave states while doing absolutely nothing for the slaves. The people who wanted the slaves to not be counted as a person at all were the abolitionists. The two sides compromised on a ratio of three fifths, and it is constantly misconstrued as some kind of monstrous dehumanization where they 'weren't counted as full people' today.

I'm perfectly aware; you know me better than to accuse me of ignorance of that. What makes the 3/5ths compromise monstrous is not that slaves should have been counted as full people (they weren't citizens, and thus clearly should have counted as zero for the purposes of representation, but I digress). What is inhumane about it and why it needs to be taught is that clearly, anyone with eyes can see that the United States was not founded to ensure the liberty of all; only the liberty of the wealthy.

That would be more clearly demonstrated by the voting laws, I think. I don't see the point in treating the 3/5ths compromise as controversial at all, especially considering that there is such widespread misunderstanding about it. It was literally the best compromise that was feasible under the conditions of the day.

To not teach about the compromise is to not teach that our Founders were willing to consider rights a matter of compromise, and to not teach that there is no "one" interpretation of rights and the Constitution (my biggest gripe with originalism). The three fifths compromise isn't bad because of some nebulous "they counted people as part of a person!"; it's bad because it shows the lasting influence slavery had on this country from the beginning.

Not really, it showed that there was a struggle about slavery from the beginning, and if anything conflicts a prevailing narrative which holds that 'zomg, the Founding Fathers had slaves and were terrible people no matter how intelligent they were.'

It's not a 'dark' part of our history that our nation held moral conflict within it from the outset.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 8:30:54 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 8:29:40 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/15/2016 7:44:24 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/15/2016 7:25:42 AM, SolonKR wrote:
note the conspicuous absence of talk about the 3/5ths Compromise, or indentured servitude in the colonies, or any number of other dark parts of our history)?

Ugh, stahp. The 3/5s compromise was not a 'dark part of our nations history.' This is one of the most ridiculous historical mischaracterizations out there. Do you know who wanted slaves to be counted as whole people? The slaveholders in the South! Because slave's couldn't vote, but if they counted as a whole person for the purpose of allotting representatives, it would make it more difficult to abolish slavery. Counting slaves as full people would have enfranchised the slave states while doing absolutely nothing for the slaves. The people who wanted the slaves to not be counted as a person at all were the abolitionists. The two sides compromised on a ratio of three fifths, and it is constantly misconstrued as some kind of monstrous dehumanization where they 'weren't counted as full people' today.

I think the dark period he meant was slavery in general - and how it didn't reflect the Christian values that has supposedly kept America safe. But given the outcome of slavery, it's safe to say 3/5's was enough to keep the institution of slavery politically safe while still doing nothing for the slaves.

Well, there was this guy with a top hat who was elected because of that compromise, and a little tiff broke out afterwards...

Seeing how they were able to pass laws that effectively made slaves still slaves even in free states with the fugitive slave acts. And given the nature of slavery where one can import 'population' and said population doesn't have a political voice it was much easier to gain and maintain political power as a slave holding state.

Jefferson banned the importation of slaves to Virginia early on, and Congress then placed heavy limits on the trade and outright banned it in nationwide 1808. So that didn't apply for most of the nation's history; the Slave trade was already petering out before the Nation was founded because the British took steps to curtail the economic conditions under which it persisted and then banned it completely around the same time that we did. Even internal slave trading tended to flow towards the deep south from other slave states, as demand for production rose to meet economies of scale driven by the invention of the cotton gin and those states had a surplus of labor.

If it were truly a compromise you'd think they'd settle for a 1/2 clause.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 8:33:06 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 8:16:46 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Not really, it showed that there was a struggle about slavery from the beginning, and if anything conflicts a prevailing narrative which holds that 'zomg, the Founding Fathers had slaves and were terrible people no matter how intelligent they were.'

It's not a 'dark' part of our history that our nation held moral conflict within it from the outset.

You won't hear from Zimm the real problem of abolishing slavery vs not taking a nosedive in trade due to the massive amounts of continued slave labor in the caribbean and elsewhere. When people are worried about starvation, ethics can get tricky. Why else would an entire region be willing to lose over 300,000, mostly impoverished people in a war over it? It's certainly not because of religion...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 8:42:06 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 8:30:54 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/15/2016 8:29:40 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/15/2016 7:44:24 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/15/2016 7:25:42 AM, SolonKR wrote:
note the conspicuous absence of talk about the 3/5ths Compromise, or indentured servitude in the colonies, or any number of other dark parts of our history)?

Ugh, stahp. The 3/5s compromise was not a 'dark part of our nations history.' This is one of the most ridiculous historical mischaracterizations out there. Do you know who wanted slaves to be counted as whole people? The slaveholders in the South! Because slave's couldn't vote, but if they counted as a whole person for the purpose of allotting representatives, it would make it more difficult to abolish slavery. Counting slaves as full people would have enfranchised the slave states while doing absolutely nothing for the slaves. The people who wanted the slaves to not be counted as a person at all were the abolitionists. The two sides compromised on a ratio of three fifths, and it is constantly misconstrued as some kind of monstrous dehumanization where they 'weren't counted as full people' today.

I think the dark period he meant was slavery in general - and how it didn't reflect the Christian values that has supposedly kept America safe. But given the outcome of slavery, it's safe to say 3/5's was enough to keep the institution of slavery politically safe while still doing nothing for the slaves.

Well, there was this guy with a top hat who was elected because of that compromise, and a little tiff broke out afterwards...

Had the Southern states not rebelled slavery wouldn't have ended. Not under Lincoln at least.

Seeing how they were able to pass laws that effectively made slaves still slaves even in free states with the fugitive slave acts. And given the nature of slavery where one can import 'population' and said population doesn't have a political voice it was much easier to gain and maintain political power as a slave holding state.

Jefferson banned the importation of slaves to Virginia early on, and Congress then placed heavy limits on the trade and outright banned it in nationwide 1808. So that didn't apply for most of the nation's history; the Slave trade was already petering out before the Nation was founded because the British took steps to curtail the economic conditions under which it persisted and then banned it completely around the same time that we did. Even internal slave trading tended to flow towards the deep south from other slave states, as demand for production rose to meet economies of scale driven by the invention of the cotton gin and those states had a surplus of labor.

You mention the gin, that and other tech advancements would have made slavery viable well into the future, at least for slave holders. Had they not rebelled it would have been and easy go around. Sell cotton to northern textiles who in turn sell it abroad. Everyone wins, well almost everyone.

If it were truly a compromise you'd think they'd settle for a 1/2 clause.
Devilry
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 9:33:54 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 3:32:28 AM, thett3 wrote:
Yes, the political ethos underpinning the United States is something that can only be sustained by a religious population.

A lot of the dysfunction of our modern order can be attributed to a decline in morality and spirituality. The United States cannot be sustained by a nation of hedonistic atheists--nor can any country, really. Look at what's happening to the spiritually dead population of Europe. Within a few generations, they literally will no longer exist as a people unless they change their ways. I expect to see a rapid return to nationalism and religiosity throughout the Western world...the first bit is already happening.

It's actually really depressing to watch old shows, even cartoons as recently as the 90s, where the family went to church every Sunday because that's just what you did. That America was on its way out then, and it's long gone now. Protestants are a minority for the first time: https://pbs.twimg.com...

I think a healthy dose of uncertainty, and thusly, humility, is probably a good thing. Take America, for example. What of the tales your leaders have spun into you over the years? Of the world's destiny being in Americans' hands? Of some sacred freedom having been given to you, to be protected at all costs? There's been a whole lot of Divine Right to Rule in the American psyche for a longass time, and it's nonsense. Or then Islam - it's been used to much the same end. A man in war, sitting either atop the blade, or positioned right beneath it: give him an epic, that'll set fire to him. Religion is glory first, morality after. It was never just religion that subsisted the United States, it was madness.

I mean, what the actual fck. What did god complexes ever do for Europe? Think we'll return to spirituality and that'll do... what exactly? The Spanish will build a new Armada, sail for England again? There will be no more talk of immigrants, it will all just be Holy Wars once more? God save us, mate.

The problems Europe is having are nothing. They're human. The world is in a better place now. Just for a few more nutcase nations to give up their bullsht. We will figure out immigration.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.