How We Got To Here: Christianity Version

#451
#451
LouderVol said:
apparently when Columbus got here marked some special time deciding what religions would be accepted here. They were a Catholic crew. so Catholics have first claim? I doubt it. and if the FF only made the country for the Christians they knew about the various flavors that came after wouldn't be accepted right? If we aren't taking non Christians because they weren't here, why should we take the Christians who weren't here either? ie the Mormons and others.

the FF and the Constitution have a freedom of religion not a freedom of Christianity.
Click to expand...

Oh, I get what you're saying. My point was though, that I have just never personally read anything about Muslims being here back then. If I did I don't remember.
 
#452
#452
joevol33 said:
How do you have a right to tell me, who had an Indian grandfather, what to call them? He was fine with Indian. Are you racist towards my grandfathers people?


See, I can do your game, and sound silly also.
Click to expand...

Someone calling another person racist for calling an "Indian" a "Native American".

I've seen everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#453
#453
Roustabout said:
Natives did not have a formal religious system, and they certainly weren't considered by the founders.
What history book are you reading?
Click to expand...

now it has to be a formal religion?

and not sure what you mean they weren't considered by the FF. The FF dealt with a good bit, various treaties and meetings. and considering GW fought them I doubt they were slipping anyone's mind.

again not sure what Constitution you read but mine says
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#455
#455
NCFisher said:
No, you misunderstand; I conceded that 'secular' was too broad a term, generally, and should have confined comment to the New atheists commenting here.

That said, secularism as a political ideology is, in the main, wistfully technocratic in nature and its vanguard entirely hostile to the religious. When adherents state religion "has no place in our democratic republic" ostensibly of "reason and science", equivocate simultaneously with "having no problem with your belief...but resent you as a voting bloc(sic)", that has meaning. It is the same appeal to the perfecting of mankind presaging militant secularism last century.

If you are not among that group of secularists, then consider yourself not being painted with the brush.
Click to expand...

This is just false. Secularism is not technocratic or hostile to religion in general. It is merely the eschewment of religion or religious doctrine via force.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#457
#457
PKT_VOL said:
This is just false. Secularism is not technocratic or hostile to religion in general. It is merely the eschewment of religion or religious doctrine via force.
Click to expand...

how do those two statements make sense to you when used together?
 
#458
#458
NCFisher said:
It's not as though he/she is pining for the good old days of stone wheels. The etymology of secularism includes an unparalleled swath of destruction through the 20th century which is hardly ancient history. Secularism, in practical application, doesn't get to exclude that statist and technocratic history. In the span between that history and the current - using identical tactics of vilification and reduction - certainly not enough time has passed for me to simply wave it off as benign secularism.

The vehicle of force and source of greatest deprivation in any world has always been government in any guise.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. Statism and technocracy are independent concepts; as is secularism.

It would be like saying "constitutional republics, in practical application, don't get to exclude their slavery and sexist history". That's absurd.

A constitutional republic, slavery, and sexism are independent concepts. Can slavery, sexism, or both coexist or embed themselves in a constitutional republic? Absolutely. It happened. Does slavery or sexism have anything to do with constitutional republics? Of course not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#460
#460
PKT_VOL said:
Can a religious person be secular?
Click to expand...

the way I define it yes. Again not really sure about yours.

I consider myself to be secular even though I am Christian. Because I think church and state are two separate things and basically should have no opinion of each other. to me neither one's specific or general goals should regard each other.

secular to me is neutral, as soon as it takes a side (vs religion in any fashion) it loses that and becomes something else.

and that doesn't answer my question
 
#461
#461
PKT_VOL said:
This is just false. Secularism is not technocratic or hostile to religion in general. It is merely the eschewment of religion or religious doctrine via force.
Click to expand...

You keep using these big ****ing words and I'm going to demand you turn over your man card...
 
#462
#462
PKT_VOL said:
If one accepts a certain brand of Islam, yes. Just like if Christians accepted a certain brand of Christianity (during the dark ages). Neither are intrinsically political ideologies .
Click to expand...

I disagree, and I think the history and actions of each founder says otherwise.
Christians during the dark ages (which werent all dark, btw) had the actual Christian texts to support reform.
 
#464
#464
LouderVol said:
now it has to be a formal religion?

and not sure what you mean they weren't considered by the FF. The FF dealt with a good bit, various treaties and meetings. and considering GW fought them I doubt they were slipping anyone's mind.

again not sure what Constitution you read but mine says
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Click to expand...
The natives were not considered in the founding documents of this country, particularly when it came to the issue of religious freedo. You say they were, provide positive evidence.
 
#465
#465
LouderVol said:
the way I define it yes. Again not really sure about yours.

I consider myself to be secular even though I am Christian. Because I think church and state are two separate things and basically should have no opinion of each other. to me neither one's specific or general goals should regard each other.

secular to me is neutral, as soon as it takes a side (vs religion in any fashion) it loses that and becomes something else.

and that doesn't answer my question
Click to expand...

What exactly do you think we disagree on?
 
#467
#467
Roustabout said:
I disagree, and I think the history and actions of each founder says otherwise.
Christians during the dark ages (which werent all dark, btw) had the actual Christian texts to support reform.
Click to expand...

Neither scripture is intrinsic. How one interprets scripture will determine if they view their religion as a political philosophy as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#469
#469
k-town_king said:
The founding fathers explicitly did not want the country to be a Christian country. Religious wars had dominated Europe for centuries and we wanted no part in it. Muslims were known to be in America and the founding fathers had no problem with them and their religion. The founding fathers acknowledged religions like Judaism and Islam and accounted for that with freedom of religion and separation of church and state.
Click to expand...
No, they didn't want a church run by the state. The writings of the FFs show that they most certainly were governing a nation of Christians. Anything else is a blatant distortion of the facts. There was no Islamic settlers or notion that Islam was considered in their thinking.

The FFs did not want a religious state and promoted tolerance of all religions. But, that was under the context of an overwhelming Christian population. Government meetings opened in Chrisitan prayer. Scripture adorned state buildings and many state constitutions affirmed Chrisitianity.

The only thing I've read regarding Islam, specifically, is Jefferson condemning the Barbary pirates.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#471
#471
k-town_king said:
The founding fathers explicitly did not want the country to be a Christian country. Religious wars had dominated Europe for centuries and we wanted no part in it. Muslims were known to be in America and the founding fathers had no problem with them and their religion. The founding fathers acknowledged religions like Judaism and Islam and accounted for that with freedom of religion and separation of church and state.
Click to expand...

While you are correct with your description of a portion of the founding fathers ideals, there were also many, probably the bulk, who absolutely saw the United States of America as founded the principles of Christendom as opposed to any other religion or secular humanism. Specifically excluding Islam as a scourge.

From the time of Mohammed up to the Enlightenment, Europe (Christendom) has been waging defensive ears against Islamic encroachment. (See the resistance of the papal Order of the Dragon in the Bosnia, Wallachia (Dracula-The Little Dragon..son of a member), Armenia and Charles Martel in France, and stopping Islamic conquering armies outside of Paris.

The Founding Fathers all knew of Islams face set against Christendom. The 'freedom of religion' that the majority of them envisioned was very much primarily Christian; and freedom from forced Catholicism, Anglicanism, state approved Protestantism... a Judeo-Christian freedom to be a Catholic, a Jew, a Lutheran, an Anabaptist, a Svingli, whatever... and yes fractionally..Native American beliefs (but they were for the most part considered savages) Hindu, Buddist, Islam.
 
#473
#473
PKT_VOL said:
Neither scripture is intrinsic. How one interprets scripture will determine if they view their religion as a political philosophy as well.
Click to expand...

What? There are views itrinsic to each ideology. Adherants can allow the religuous tenets to shape their ideology or they can selectively interpret. Mohammed was an actual political leader.

Islam is a social political system. Much of the Old Testament is also a social political system to govern covenant Israel. It isnt a matter of interpretation. It's a matter of application.
 
#474
#474
Roustabout said:
What? There are views itrinsic to each ideology. Adherants can allow the religuous tenets to shape their ideology or they can selectively interpret. Mohammed was an actual political leader.

Islam is a social political system. Much of the Old Testament is also a social political system to govern covenant Israel. It isnt a matter of interpretation. It's a matter of application.
Click to expand...

Interpretation precedes application.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#475
#475
PKT_VOL said:
Interpretation precedes application.
Click to expand...

Only if you ignore the intention of the author. Following that line, I suppose governance isn't intrinsic to the constution, it's just a matter of interpretation?

Forget Islam and look at the old testament. Governance of Israel is intrinsic to the Torah. Interpretation doesn't change the intention of the author. That's the tail wagging the dog.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top