Founding Fathers and a Christian Nation

Have we moved far enough off of the topic to merit another thread?

Well, to bring things back on point, the most recent post on SLACKTIVIST is exactly on topic. Worth a read, as always.

Um, that's a piece on Epiphanies. I think you meant the Dec 31 article?

I do like that one.

But what is most valuable to me in this unfailingly interesting book is the collection of voices from the opponents of America's "Godless Constitution." I had read most of the other side of this argument -- the side that won the argument because it was right. But I hadn't previously read the vehement objections of the losing side.

The viewpoint of that side is echoed today in the voices of the evangelical right calling for religious hegemony. Then, as now, the argument was that such hegemony was necessary to provide social order and a basis for morality without which the nation would be ungovernable. Then, as now, the advocates of a sectarian Constitution believed that only sectarian religion could provide a basis for such morality. And only their own sectarian religion at that.

So for the sectarian opponents of the Godless Constitution, then as now, the stakes were enormously high. The Constitution proposed by the framers in 1789, they said, was a form of national suicide. That Godless document -- with its separation of church and state, its disregard for the overarching sovereignty of God, its absolute prohibition against religious tests for public office and against the establishment or privileging of any official sect -- would bring rapid calamity and doom. Their warnings of the consequences of such a Constitution were dire, apocalyptic and unambiguous. If the Constitution did not establish an official sectarian Christian religion, they believed, then Christians would find themselves subjugated to some other established sect.

This is the great fear of all religious hegemons and it arose, then as now, from the great incomprehension of such believers. They could not conceive of the world that Roger Williams imagined and advocated -- a world in which religious belief is voluntary. They believed that religious rule, involuntary belief, was inevitable and unavoidable, and that if it was not explicitly staked out for their sect then it would be claimed by some other.

The "no religious test" clause was perceived by many to be the gravest defect of the Constitution. Colonel Jones, a Massachusetts delegate, told the state's ratifying convention that American political leaders had to believe in God and Jesus Christ. Amos Singletary, another delegate to the Massachusetts ratification convention, was upset at the Constitution's not requiring men in power to be religious "and though he hoped to see Christians [in office], yet by the Constitution, a papist, or an infidel was as eligible as they." In New Hampshire the fear was of "a papist, a Mohomatan, a deist, yea an atheist at the helm of government." Henry Abbot, a delegate to the North Carolina convention, warned that "the exclusion of religious tests" was "dangerous and impolitic" and that "pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us." If there is no religious test, he asked, "to whom will they [officeholders] swear support -- the ancient pagan gods of Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, or Pluto?"

More specific fears were clearly at work here. The absence of religious tests, it was feared, would open up the national government to control by Jews, Catholics and Quakers. The Rev. David Caldwell, a Presbyterian minister and delegate in North Carolina, worried that the Constitution now offered an invitation to "Jews and pagans of every kind" to govern us. Major Thomas Lusk, a delegate in Massachusetts, denounced Article 6 of the Constitution and shuddered "at the idea that Roman Catholics, Papists and Pagans might be introduced into office, and that Popery and the Inquisition may be established in America." A delegate in North Carolina waved a pamphlet that depicted the possibility that the pope of Rome might be elected president.

The fear drives the incomprehension. Gripped by this fear, they simply cannot comprehend the meaning of no establishment -- responding always, then as now, that if they are not permitted to establish their official sect, then someone else's sect "may be established in America."

...

These objections contain two strains of thought that are also echoed in the arguments of the contemporary evangelical religious right. On one level there is the incorrect, but principled argument that sectarian Christian morality is necessary for successful government and the prospering of any nation, and that therefore this Christian morality must be engendered and promoted by the state as an official, established religion. At the same time, on another level, there is the gross violation of that very Christian morality through sordid and fanciful lies deliberately told to stoke fear, agitation and resentment. The two things always seem to go hand in hand. Then as now, those arguing for the necessity of sectarian morality in government always go on to then say, "ZOMG!1! -- the Congress is going to take away your Bible! Aieeee!"

It is not always the case that history provides us with a clear winner and a clear loser in a battle of ideas, but that is the case here.

The Anti-Federalists, and especially those who argued for a sectarian Constitution with religious tests and established religion, were wrong. Demonstrably wrong. More than 200 years later, the Constitution still stands as the guiding document of a free and democratic nation and none of the calamities and apocalyptic consequences that they prophesied have come to pass. "If X, then Y," they said, without reservation or qualification. If the godless Constitution is ratified, then America will break apart into ungovernable anarchy, or it will be subjected to the tyranny of Jews or pagans or some other established official religion. That is what will happen, they said, what will certainly and inevitably happen.

And it did not happen. They were wrong. They were proven wrong. And their heirs, the hegemonic evangelicals of the religious right, are just as wrong today.

Even more wrong, actually, since the Anti-Federalists of the 18th Century were at least arguing for an idea that had not yet been proven wrong, while the 21st-century evangelical hegemons are arguing for an idea that has already, for generations, been proven conclusively and laughably wrong. The sectarian Anti-Federalists were not fools -- they believed their idea would eventually be proven true. They were merely wrong. But the hegemons of the evangelical religious right are fools. They are attempting to resurrect an idea they know is wrong, repeating a failed argument that they know has failed and will fail and fail and fail and fail again.

This foolishness is, now as then, a product of fear and the incomprehension and hate that it breeds. The religious right is still convinced that if they are not allowed to establish their religion, then some other sect will get to establish theirs instead. And the religious right is still wracked by fears of saucy blacks, Jews and beggars.

That's why someone like Gary Bauer can write, without irony, that he wishes Christians in America had all the rights and privileges, respect and deference, that Mohomatans Mahometans Muslims now enjoy in this country. "In a variety of contexts," Bauer says, with apparent sincerity, "American Muslims are treated better than American Christians."

That's insane, but one tends to make insane assertions when one starts out from a premise of an idea proven false for centuries.

Quite perspicacious.

Just to continue the derail....

My wife and I struck a deal when we got married. I'd have to go to church with her three times a year and she'd let me do whatever the hell I wanted for the other 49 Sundays. Yesterday was the first Sunday of the year and my wife asked me to go with her to her Korean Southern Baptist megachurch. I, wanting to get the first of three out of the way, went without a fuss. The room was packed with new year's resolutionists and the pastor, who is usually pretty fire and brimstone already, decided to go on an hour long filibuster of the Ravens game. In it, he kept bringing up the inerrancy of the bible, the genius of CS Lewis, and the importance of "functional theology". He kept going on about how you can't "pick and choose what you like about the bible". Meanwhile, I compiled mental notes about how full of crap he was. His main point was that it didn't matter how good a person you were, what good you did, or how much you wanted to go to heaven. He kept quoting CS Lewis like he was some sort of minor prophet or the fundamentalist Christian version of Rabbi Hillel. One phrase he particularly liked was "true happiness is not the absence of suffering but full submission to god".

Predictably, folks were pretty impatient getting out of the parking lot (only one exit for nearly 300 cars/service). The honking of horns, crowding out, and cutting off was more uncharitable than I generally see outside the context of a megachurch parking lot. While we were waiting for the pileup of BMW's in front of us to resolve itself, my wife asked me what I thought of the sermon. I think she wanted to assess how much of the Korean I understood. I told her what I thought the pastor said, but admitted that I stopped listening after the first half hour of his marathon. She seemed surprised that my comprehension was so spot on despite my practical inability to form Korean sentences.

She then asked what I thought of it. Trying to be diplomatic, I told her that it should come to no surprise to her that, as an ex-Catholic atheist who has studied the bible and several bible commentaries that I disagreed with just about everything the man had to say, but that I was particularly disturbed that anyone would accept the idea that the bible is literally true given the multitude of both contradictions and outright absurdities contained in it. I went further and said that it was impossible not to end up in a federal penitentiary for murder or rape (check out Judges, Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy for some good examples) if you didn't "pick and choose what you liked about the bible" and that any responsible person would abandon fundamentalism in favor of a more moderate faith.

She was silent for the 15 minutes it took us to get out of the parking lot. Then she said "I can't believe you only pick out the bad things in religion."

Sigh.

I'm right with Paleo on this. As an ex-catholic Agnostic I've studied Catholic, Fundy , Evangelistic and other Christian apologetics and history to a large degree and when someone says that the bible is 100% factual and historically true I die a little on the inside, therefore growing up in KY I died a little on the inside since most people I've met there believe that.

KrazyTacoFO wrote:

I'm right with Paleo on this. As an ex-catholic Agnostic I've studied Catholic, Fundy , Evangelistic and other Christian apologetics and history to a large degree and when someone says that the bible is 100% factual and historically true I die a little on the inside, therefore growing up in KY I died a little on the inside since most people I've met there believe that.

Then you must *love* the fact that Kentucky will be giving $37.5 million to a group who wants to build a Noah's Ark theme park. I know I died a bit inside every time I saw the signs for the Creation Museum on 275.

On the bright side, most of the Christians I know, when pressed sufficiently hard will usually say something like "I don't know if it is literally true since I've never read the whole thing, but I don't think it matters that much as long as you have faith", but it usually takes a lot of pointing out the obvious inconsistencies and downright absurdities to get them to go that far. The ones who think they are clever will usually try the whole "it means something different than you think in the original Greek", but that is pretty easy to eviscerate. In any event, the vast majority of politically conservative Christians I know profess (at least to one another) that the Bible is literally true, God created the physical universe and affects it in tangible ways, and that everyone except Christians are going straight to hell without exemption.

I guess what I'm saying is that there appears to be a conflict between what those folks *want* and are taught they *should* believe and what they observe and can test/prove. Moreover, they tend to profess belief in religious absurdities when context allows them to do so comfortably. Conversely, they also seem to profess it more in contexts that make professions of doubt problematic. It is much, as I would imagine, folks in Stalinist Russia or Juche North Korea might profess love for their leaders.

Paleocon wrote:

On the bright side, most of the Christians I know, when pressed sufficiently hard will usually say something like "I don't know if it is literally true since I've never read the whole thing, but I don't think it matters that much as long as you have faith", but it usually takes a lot of pointing out the obvious inconsistencies and downright absurdities to get them to go that far.

What drives me more nuts than anything else is saying you believe it, when you haven't read it. And reading it in bits in pieces out of order in nugget-sized bites over years and years doesn't count.

It helps to read the Bible like an actual book, not breaking it down into "read X verses per day and finish the Bible in a year" style programs. If you want to actually read the whole thing and keep the overall experience in context, it makes a dramatic difference to actually read it and digest it more like you would a book that you can't put down.

I know very few people who have actually read the Bible cover to cover, much less in one full read-through (obviously not in one sitting) rather than piecemeal over a very extended time.

Farscry wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

On the bright side, most of the Christians I know, when pressed sufficiently hard will usually say something like "I don't know if it is literally true since I've never read the whole thing, but I don't think it matters that much as long as you have faith", but it usually takes a lot of pointing out the obvious inconsistencies and downright absurdities to get them to go that far.

What drives me more nuts than anything else is saying you believe it, when you haven't read it. And reading it in bits in pieces out of order in nugget-sized bites over years and years doesn't count.

It helps to read the Bible like an actual book, not breaking it down into "read X verses per day and finish the Bible in a year" style programs. If you want to actually read the whole thing and keep the overall experience in context, it makes a dramatic difference to actually read it and digest it more like you would a book that you can't put down.

I know very few people who have actually read the Bible cover to cover, much less in one full read-through (obviously not in one sitting) rather than piecemeal over a very extended time.

Ooh.. can I get a 20 piece Bible nugget with BBQ Sauce?

Snark aside, I agree completely. As an atheist with a culturally Jewish upbringing, I'm still damn curious about religion (minored in Medieval Studies), and I've made it through most of the Bible at least once. If I'm making the effort, it seems silly not to have it equaled by people who follow the religion.

Rezzy wrote:
Mytch wrote:

... which he opened by stating that most of the events depicted were symbolic, rather than literal.

Which makes your pastor a lot more reasonable to talk with than many that I've encountered in my life. In fact, I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that the events depicted in the Bible are symbolic rather than literal. Just like with any decent piece of fiction.
And again, this is where the problem with a government guided by a specific faith comes in:
Until everyone can agree on which bits of religious texts are symbolic and which are to be taken literal I (and apparently the founding fathers) think it's a bad idea to enshrine them in a form of government meant to serve ALL people.

Edit to add: I'd actually be curious about hearing some episodes of this... Are they on the general Interweb?

Yeah, it took my wife and I awhile to find a pastor like him. We drive 45 mins. to church every Sunday (and for Wednesday night choir/orchestra practice), but it's worth it to sit under a guy who is teaching, as opposed to simply shouting, the Bible, if you know what I mean.

His name is David Dykes (yes, the irony of that surname for a Southern Baptist minister had occurred to me, too), and last I checked, he has several sermon series available for free on iTunes, including one titled, "No! That's Not In The Bible!" that seems appropriate to this discussion. There's also a podcast of his weekly Sunday sermons, though that one seems to be fairly sporadic. If his name doesn't turn up anything, you might try "Green Acres Baptist Church Tyler Texas."

You probably wouldn't agree with everything he says (I don't) and don't let the accent fool you at first--he was raised in Suthn' Al'bama and it shows...but he is a gem in that I've never seen spittle fly off his lips, he makes his points using linguistic and cultural study, and I've only very rarely heard him criticize a group of people without acknowledging our own shortcomings in the next breath.

Robear wrote:

I'd be curious about what he'd say if you asked him about the first statement of belief of the SBC. If pastors are not buying that, that's news.

This may draw some deserved criticism, but would you believe I've never really taken a close look at the Baptist Faith & Message? I generally just look for a pastor that I perceive to be preaching well-researched concepts, rather than just telling everyone what they want to hear (or, as is the case with some pastors, what everyone doesn't want to hear). I'll admit, pressure from my wife's family generally steers us in the direction of Southern Baptist churches, but like I say, we've been able to find good pastors (the guy that married us was called "Prof" by many of his church members).

At any rate, I checked out the first statement you mentioned--by the context, I assume you mean the one labeled "The Scriptures?" Pretty interesting. Here it is:

that crazy SBC wrote:

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

What I found very interesting is, depending on your definition of "truth/true," there certainly is some ambiguity there as to belief in the literal occurrence of such events as Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Whale, heck, even the Creation of Man. I fully expected it to express the exact opposite. I'm sure if you asked most Baptists/Baptist ministers, they would follow an interpretation more like the one I was expecting, but that is very, very interesting to see it worded that way. I've always thought to myself that, even if such events weren't literally true, the lessons contained are, making them functionally true. Which apparently isn't as far outside the BF&M as I thought. I'll keep mulling that one over...thanks very much for making me look it up!

Ack, gotta go, here comes beginning brass. I'll address your earlier comments later! Short version is, I wasn't really concerning myself about the "Atheist Agenda," "Homosexual Agenda," etc. when I originally made my comments...just the (IMO) over-reaction I perceive when elected officials bring up personal faith.

I think we're always sensitive to positions with which we don't agree or are not familiar, and in addition, the media and various advocacy groups will take fringe occurrances and present them as examples of the mainstream of their opponents. We just have to watch out for that misrepresentation. When some tells you that a few percent of the population with no special powers are threatening 3/4 of the population, it's worthwhile to step back and say "Wait, what?" every now and then.

Robear wrote:

I think we're always sensitive to positions with which we don't agree or are not familiar, and in addition, the media and various advocacy groups will take fringe occurrances and present them as examples of the mainstream of their opponents. We just have to watch out for that misrepresentation. When some tells you that a few percent of the population with no special powers are threatening 3/4 of the population, it's worthwhile to step back and say "Wait, what?" every now and then. :-)

+1

Robear wrote:

I think we're always sensitive to positions with which we don't agree or are not familiar, and in addition, the media and various advocacy groups will take fringe occurrances and present them as examples of the mainstream of their opponents. We just have to watch out for that misrepresentation. When some tells you that a few percent of the population with no special powers are threatening 3/4 of the population, it's worthwhile to step back and say "Wait, what?" every now and then. :-)

There are times, however, when sufficiently vocal, organized, or violent minorities are able to punch a lot greater than their weight. Ralph Reed's game plan of holding the electoral process hostage by organizing in rural, overrepresented districts in off year elections is a pretty well documented phenomenon. So are the actions of the Khmer Rouge, who during their reign of terror numbered fewer than 100k.

What I found very interesting is, depending on your definition of "truth/true," there certainly is some ambiguity there as to belief in the literal occurrence of such events as Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Whale, heck, even the Creation of Man. I fully expected it to express the exact opposite. I'm sure if you asked most Baptists/Baptist ministers, they would follow an interpretation more like the one I was expecting, but that is very, very interesting to see it worded that way. I've always thought to myself that, even if such events weren't literally true, the lessons contained are, making them functionally true. Which apparently isn't as far outside the BF&M as I thought. I'll keep mulling that one over...thanks very much for making me look it up!

One thing to do is to look at the counter example. For example, if we were to take a non-literal view of the scripture, we have to bear in mind that we can't "set scripture against scripture", nor can we use that to push an interpretation which is not directly supported by scripture. So if we take a non-literal interpretation, several things follow:

1. Because this is a subjective interpretation, different people can have different interpretations.
2. Different interpretations pit scripture against scripture.

So that's a problem. Further, if there *are* different interpretations possible for any given passage, then they can't all be true. Yet the Bible is totally true and trustworthy. That means that you *can't* have more than one interpretation for any given passage, as only one can be correct. All the others would be erroneous, no matter how plausible. (They do note that their interpretations are open to revision through research.)

What's interesting is that the SBC supports the "Wall of Separation" between church and state. They believe the state can impose rules (like fire codes) on churches, and they believe pastors can lead prayers at civic events, both of which are constitutional, but they don't think that church and state should be intertwined.

Even more interesting is that the "Baptist Faith and Message" is not binding on individual SBC churches. That's something I did not expect. Each church is responsible for searching scripture and setting it's own policies. It could be removed from the Convention, however, if it's policies conflicted in a major way with the standard.

Robear wrote:

So that's a problem. Further, if there *are* different interpretations possible for any given passage, then they can't all be true. Yet the Bible is totally true and trustworthy. That means that you *can't* have more than one interpretation for any given passage, as only one can be correct. All the others would be erroneous, no matter how plausible. (They do note that their interpretations are open to revision through research.)

Yep. If anyone wonders why there are so many different Christian denominations...there you go (one of the big reasons, anyway).

Robear wrote:

What's interesting is that the SBC supports the "Wall of Separation" between church and state. They believe the state can impose rules (like fire codes) on churches, and they believe pastors can lead prayers at civic events, both of which are constitutional, but they don't think that church and state should be intertwined.

Believe it or not, many, if not most, of the people accused of trying to inject Christianity into government don't believe they are trying to do so. Speaking of interpretations, it comes down to how you read the Establishment Clause and Thomas Jefferson's use of the phrase "separation between church and state" in that letter...which, ironically enough considering the current debate, was written to a group of Baptists who were concerned that the government was in danger of crossing the line into their territory.

Robear wrote:

Even more interesting is that the "Baptist Faith and Message" is not binding on individual SBC churches. That's something I did not expect. Each church is responsible for searching scripture and setting it's own policies. It could be removed from the Convention, however, if it's policies conflicted in a major way with the standard.

Ohhhh yeah. You want to see some crazy politics that are at least as byzantine as those of our National Congress, take a dip into the SBC pool. It's the other reason I don't pay a whole lot of attention to conventions and statements and which letters appear after the name of the church on the sign out front.

I had enough in the late 70's and early 80's when the United Methodists were fighting off the evangelicals and fundamentalists. They lost a lot of members in that power struggle. Nasty stuff for the clergy as well as parishioners. In my experience, the activists (at three separate churches) were not only looking to change the rules, but to use the church assets for private profit. This is probably part of the reason for my distrust of that movement.

Paleocon wrote:

There are times, however, when sufficiently vocal, organized, or violent minorities are able to punch a lot greater than their weight. Ralph Reed's game plan of holding the electoral process hostage by organizing in rural, overrepresented districts in off year elections is a pretty well documented phenomenon. So are the actions of the Khmer Rouge, who during their reign of terror numbered fewer than 100k.

I'm confused. Are you comparing politicized born-agains to Pol Pot or atheists and secular humanists?

I could see born-agains becoming violent if they would completely seize power given their world view and how they try to influence politics and culture today, but I have a hard time seeing someone like Richard Dawkins ordering mass executions. If atheists took power the only things you'd likely notice would be better education, social policies based on reality instead of vague ideas of retribution or morality, and allowing the poor bastards who live in Blue Law states to buy a beer on Sundays.

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

There are times, however, when sufficiently vocal, organized, or violent minorities are able to punch a lot greater than their weight. Ralph Reed's game plan of holding the electoral process hostage by organizing in rural, overrepresented districts in off year elections is a pretty well documented phenomenon. So are the actions of the Khmer Rouge, who during their reign of terror numbered fewer than 100k.

I'm confused. Are you comparing politicized born-agains to Pol Pot or atheists and secular humanists?

I could see born-agains becoming violent if they would completely seize power given their world view and how they try to influence politics and culture today, but I have a hard time seeing someone like Richard Dawkins ordering mass executions. If atheists took power the only things you'd likely notice would be better education, social policies based on reality instead of vague ideas of retribution or morality, and allowing the poor bastards who live in Blue Law states to buy a beer on Sundays.

No. I am simply pointing out that sufficiently vocal, organized, or violent minorities can punch a lot greater than their weight. Atheists are none of the above.

That is also something that can make our Republic great Paleo. Sufficiently organized monorities helped get women the right to vote for example. Hell, the Revolution itself was a group of organized minorities. The power is in persuasion, sympathy to sway toe people in the middle or the other side. And you will never do that with bullying, violence, or lies. It may take years, decades even, but any "change" brought about by lies, malice, or violence will fail. And things will never return to the past. Jim Crow was bad, but slavery was never legalized again for example.

KingGorilla wrote:

That is also something that can make our Republic great Paleo. Sufficiently organized monorities helped get women the right to vote for example. Hell, the Revolution itself was a group of organized minorities. The power is in persuasion, sympathy to sway toe people in the middle or the other side. And you will never do that with bullying, violence, or lies. It may take years, decades even, but any "change" brought about by lies, malice, or violence will fail. And things will never return to the past. Jim Crow was bad, but slavery was never legalized again for example.

Though I agree that it is a mechanism that can and has been used for social progress, it appears, at least in the short term, that it is one that is easily coopted by folks with resources. I am barely old enough to remember the positive influence of grassroots movements in the 1970's and how revolutionary the idea of citizen movements were in politics, but I also have an insider's view of the astroturfing of just about every California voter's referendum by lobbying groups often with significant foreign funding. You don't know from disallusioned until you've compiled data regarding the success of your company's massive phone bank campaign (using phone banks in India and West Virginia) to influence California voters on behalf of a Chinese manufacturer's association.

I like to think of myself as a pretty well read and informed Christian, not to mention a pretty groovy one. I go to a pretty academic and groovy church. I read a lot. I insist that my theology not stick its fingers in its ears when presented with the philosophic quandaries of the past three centuries.

I go to weekly meetings, though, where I intentionally expose myself to a small group of insular ultracon fundamentalists. I try to be respectful, but to also gently push back and try to make them examine their claims and views a bit.

So a while back they went through this "America is a Christian nation" DVD. While the documentary (as meaningless as that term is these days) did spend plenty of time picking out vignettes that evidence the faith of members of the Continental Congress, the main contention wasn't that Christianity belongs in government, but rather that the US was unique in that it was founded by people who were pious and prayerful in founding the government, and that the US had been blessed because it was so predominantly Christian. Furthermore, the DVD contended that not only recent natural disasters, but also recent busts in the boom-bust economy, were the vanguard of divine punishment.

If anyone wants to help me put a few strategic cracks in that, I'll take it. There's a bit too much I disagree with for me to process it sometimes.

Side note: Recently, they went through another DVD that had a lot of old, white guys talking about how communism/atheism have slowly been infiltrating our culture to destroy God/America. (I use slashes because there's a bit of a hop going between each part of each pair throughout.) There's ominous sound effects, shots of sheep, and thought maps tying Obama to Marx. All very silly stuff.

My main offering at the end of this was to encourage the group not to grab torches and pitchforks when "communism" or "social justice" reared up, but rather to see that socialist programs are generally intended to address real societal ills that, if they're as and Christian as they claim, they ought to be rallying their churches to address. Poverty, greed and the mistreatment of women and minorities are real problems from a Christian view.

It would be good know which group or pastor produced the videos. Often there is lots of discussion and analysis on the Web of these materials. It's also possible to figure out whether the author is a Bircher, or subscribes to End Times theologies, or has done time for fraud or the like. Those things can be helpful to know.

(That latter one *does* sound like the Birchers, actually. Check out the John Birch Society.)

A very interesting discussion, but as an outsider with a patchy, and recent, knowledge of North American history I'm a little confused as to what and who people are referring to when they talk of the founding of the nation. Are they dating it at the establishment of the initial English colonies (which I thought were exclusively ruthless merchantile operations), at Washington's presidency or everything/something in between?

Either way, wasn't political and religous thought in the colonies being profoundly shaped by, and shaping in turn that of Europe? If so is it even possible to make claims regarding the intentions of the founders without having a solid understanding of Western European history, especially that of the British Isles from at least the late medieval period? From the outside issues like the divine right of kings, the supremacy of Parliament and the supression of Catholicism (to name but a few) seem vital to the evolution of politics and religion in North America. I realise that a lot of the discussion simply wouldn't be noticable from over here so I'm curious as to how much of the broader historical context is covered in the various arguments.

Paleocon wrote:

Just to continue the derail....

My wife and I struck a deal when we got married. I'd have to go to church with her three times a year and she'd let me do whatever the hell I wanted for the other 49 Sundays. Yesterday was the first Sunday of the year and my wife asked me to go with her to her Korean Southern Baptist megachurch. I, wanting to get the first of three out of the way, went without a fuss. The room was packed with new year's resolutionists and the pastor, who is usually pretty fire and brimstone already, decided to go on an hour long filibuster of the Ravens game. In it, he kept bringing up the inerrancy of the bible, the genius of CS Lewis, and the importance of "functional theology". He kept going on about how you can't "pick and choose what you like about the bible". Meanwhile, I compiled mental notes about how full of crap he was. His main point was that it didn't matter how good a person you were, what good you did, or how much you wanted to go to heaven. He kept quoting CS Lewis like he was some sort of minor prophet or the fundamentalist Christian version of Rabbi Hillel. One phrase he particularly liked was "true happiness is not the absence of suffering but full submission to god".

Predictably, folks were pretty impatient getting out of the parking lot (only one exit for nearly 300 cars/service). The honking of horns, crowding out, and cutting off was more uncharitable than I generally see outside the context of a megachurch parking lot. While we were waiting for the pileup of BMW's in front of us to resolve itself, my wife asked me what I thought of the sermon. I think she wanted to assess how much of the Korean I understood. I told her what I thought the pastor said, but admitted that I stopped listening after the first half hour of his marathon. She seemed surprised that my comprehension was so spot on despite my practical inability to form Korean sentences.

She then asked what I thought of it. Trying to be diplomatic, I told her that it should come to no surprise to her that, as an ex-Catholic atheist who has studied the bible and several bible commentaries that I disagreed with just about everything the man had to say, but that I was particularly disturbed that anyone would accept the idea that the bible is literally true given the multitude of both contradictions and outright absurdities contained in it. I went further and said that it was impossible not to end up in a federal penitentiary for murder or rape (check out Judges, Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy for some good examples) if you didn't "pick and choose what you liked about the bible" and that any responsible person would abandon fundamentalism in favor of a more moderate faith.

She was silent for the 15 minutes it took us to get out of the parking lot. Then she said "I can't believe you only pick out the bad things in religion."

Sigh.

You will be assimilated.

Man, the last thing we want is for the Borg to assimilate Paleocon, they're scary enough as it is.

spankyboy wrote:

I'm curious as to how much of the broader historical context is covered in the various arguments.

The problem with the argument I had with the "All early americans were die hard protestants that all 100% believed the way I believe" girl is that she does not actually look at the broader historical context or even our colonial history. Those that argue that point do not care what actually happened, because their preacher told them it's true so it must be. **sigh**

A very interesting discussion, but as an outsider with a patchy, and recent, knowledge of North American history I'm a little confused as to what and who people are referring to when they talk of the founding of the nation. Are they dating it at the establishment of the initial English colonies (which I thought were exclusively ruthless merchantile operations), at Washington's presidency or everything/something in between?

In the US, the Founding is generally used to specify the date of Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776). However, I'd say that most people consider the Founders to be not only the signers, but those who worked on or ratified the Constitution on May 14, 1787. So the period in between, and all the writings and discussions which took place, are considered to be the founding period of the country. Many Americans know about those two events, but not about the Articles of Confederation or other elements which influenced the Founders, and there are a large number of books on the topic with pre-judged conclusions to give people reinforcement of their own views as authoritative analysis. There are also records of the discussions, letters and speeches and pamphlets and books written in the period, and so forth. But in my estimation, a large majority of Americans view the period through the lens of their own life experience, edited for modern values. So we find people arguing over whether the Founders would have supported institutionalized abortion based on their religious beliefs, but very few people argue that rejecting that would mean we should also go back to 3/5 votes for black men, or deprive women of rights (exception - Antonin Scalia, SC justice, believes the latter would be legal), even though those were based on religious beliefs.

The discussion, in short, is usually lacking in historical understanding, and is often just a projection of modern views onto the past. There's also a lack of understanding of the role of case law in the evolution of the Constitution over time.

Either way, wasn't political and religous thought in the colonies being profoundly shaped by, and shaping in turn that of Europe? If so is it even possible to make claims regarding the intentions of the founders without having a solid understanding of Western European history, especially that of the British Isles from at least the late medieval period? From the outside issues like the divine right of kings, the supremacy of Parliament and the supression of Catholicism (to name but a few) seem vital to the evolution of politics and religion in North America. I realise that a lot of the discussion simply wouldn't be noticable from over here so I'm curious as to how much of the broader historical context is covered in the various arguments.

Yes, yes (although French history was more important in a practical way - the Founders were no longer Pilgrim Saints, remember) and yes. However, the debates took place in the colonies before independence, for decades, and so some basics had been reached. The overt religious government of the New England colonies had dissipated into a few remnants by the early 18th century, for example, and that mode was explicitly rejected in the discussions on both the Articles and the Constitution. Also, the colonists were not against the Union; they chafed at being second class citizens in Parliament as their economic power grew. (The Boston Tea Party was not directly about a tax; it was about local participation in central governance, and the attempt to create a captive market for the ailing East India Company at the expense of the colonies. Yet today it's understood as completely an anti-tax protest, because lower taxes are the bedrock of post-1980 conservative economics.) So a lot of the conclusions which were reached by the various contenders at the time are known. However, the context for evaluating them is modern, not contemporaneous, so you will find "authoritative" analyses of the Founder's thinking completely at odds with each other. (This is also why most of the quotes you'll see are tiny snippets of letters, rather than public policy documents and large excerpts, since those are easier to fit into a modern narrative. Often the positions asserted are actually very different from the commonly assumed ones, but you have research the claims to figure that out, and most Americans simply don't know that.)

KrazyTacoFO wrote:
spankyboy wrote:

I'm curious as to how much of the broader historical context is covered in the various arguments.

The problem with the argument I had with the "All early americans were die hard protestants that all 100% believed the way I believe" girl is that she does not actually look at the broader historical context or even our colonial history. Those that argue that point do not care what actually happened, because their preacher told them it's true so it must be. **sigh**

You can't reason or argue with wilful ignorance and sadly there's a lot of it about, but when you talk of preachers like hers are you referring to non-Episcopalian protestant denominations? What you describe sounds something lying between sophistry and demagoguery. Would such sermonising be tolerated in a Catholic or Anglican church?

Robear wrote:

The discussion, in short, is usually lacking in historical understanding, and is often just a projection of modern views onto the past. There's also a lack of understanding of the role of case law in the evolution of the Constitution over time.

Thank you for your post, it explained a great deal. Marooned at my parent's over Christmas I read through Churchill's History of the English Speaking Peoples, and while it's hardly an authoritative source I found enlightening its broad tracing of the evolution of political thought and government in the English speaking world. I'd like to think I'm reasonably well educated but much of it was new to me and I'm embarrassed to admit that I was often struck by how obvious it is that our current governmental structures and fundamental laws were created in direct response to the social and political conflicts of the past and how depressingly familiar many of those are to me living in the 21st Century: the abuse of General Warrants by the Crown was one that had particular resonance. Years ago I had similar reactions while reading about the reforms of the church by Constantine the Great. “ZMOG!” I thought, “that's what the Nicene Creed's all about!” I don't think he was a big believer in the separation of church and state. You could say that he was the founding father of the first Christian nation and his government, like all others that have closely bound the two, often had to meddle in doctrinal disputes to meet the needs of the empire.

Years ago I had similar reactions while reading about the reforms of the church by Constantine the Great. “ZMOG!” I thought, “that's what the Nicene Creed's all about!” I don't think he was a big believer in the separation of church and state. You could say that he was the founding father of the first Christian nation and his government, like all others that have closely bound the two, often had to meddle in doctrinal disputes to meet the needs of the empire.

The doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings has had an interesting history. I'm sure Constantine held to that, as did many other monarchs, but it's fallen out of favor since the Enlightenment (and even before - William Cromwell comes to mind). One of the more amusing gyrations is to watch people who advocate outright Christian rule in the US try to evade the idea that that equates with God appointing the President - through divine manipulation of democratic voting. W and others have actually alluded to that a mechanism of sanctifying their wins. But it's very hard to see how the base idea of democracy accords with God annointing and selecting one candidate for victory. Yet that is very rarely touched upon by the those who make the claim to divine support.

Many of our assumptions about the world seem to stem from an earlier type of thinking, and the "Gott Mit Uns" explanation of political and national success (or grace) hearkens back to this idea that God selects the leadership and backs it up, and without that we'll fail. Look at the latter part of that statement and you've got the basis for the social conservative fears for the country (and not just the US) for the last, oh, 300 years or so. But it would not work without the former assumption that God actually puts the leaders in play.

The obvious question there is, if God picks our leaders, how can we go wrong in the first place? The answer to that is even more of a morass, theologically.

spankyboy wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:
spankyboy wrote:

I'm curious as to how much of the broader historical context is covered in the various arguments.

The problem with the argument I had with the "All early americans were die hard protestants that all 100% believed the way I believe" girl is that she does not actually look at the broader historical context or even our colonial history. Those that argue that point do not care what actually happened, because their preacher told them it's true so it must be. **sigh**

You can't reason or argue with wilful ignorance and sadly there's a lot of it about, but when you talk of preachers like hers are you referring to non-Episcopalian protestant denominations? What you describe sounds something lying between sophistry and demagoguery. Would such sermonising be tolerated in a Catholic or Anglican church?

She is part of the conservative Church of Christ. Very far from Catholic or Anglican, and I know that neither one of those churches would allow such heresy in their sermons (at least all the ones I've seen and heard of). Her church is apparently a bunch of pandering demagogues, much like a large number of conservative christian churches in the bible belt that I've seen.