A Christian Government in America

[pstrahin]

My response would be the same, no thanks. The Biblical laws would have to be forced on folks, and, to me, that is against the whole point to start with.

Are you trying to say that this government that we live in now does not force us to live by their laws?

 

[JB0704]

Are you trying to say that this government that we live in now does not force us to live by their laws?

No. I am saying that government is force. Being a Christian government would be using force (because it is a government) to push a Christian agenda. I am against that.

 

[gtparts]

No. I am saying that government is force. Being a Christian government would be using force (because it is a government) to push a Christian agenda. I am against that.

So, you are an anarchist? We perhaps need to scrap all laws as being of no value. It takes force to implement the punishments associated with breaking laws. Makes no sense to me at all, but, then, I'm not you... and glad of it.

 

[JB0704]

So, you are an anarchist? We perhaps need to scrap all laws as being of no value. It takes force to implement the punishments associated with breaking laws. Makes no sense to me at all, but, then, I'm not you... and glad of it.

Somewhere along the way, I think we misread each other. So, for the sake of clarity......

I believe in government necessary to protect rights (personal, property, speech, commerce, religion, etc). Government has to use force to protect these rights. I do not believe Christian values should be forced on anyone. I do not believe there should be Christian government. Government should make religious practice a freedom, not a mandate.

Hope that clears things up.

 

[gtparts]

You are sadly mistaken. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and it can even be suggested that George Washington was a diest. Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin penned the DOI, along with 2 Christians, Robert Livingston and Roger Sherman. The constitutions author James Madison was extremely adamant, and rightfully so, about keeping religion and politics seperate.

I would fight to the death to prevent any theocracy. Throughout history they have been some of the most (and still are today) oppressive governments ever assembled. They NEVER promote freesdom. By the very definition you must surrender your beliefs to the state.

Our forefathers had a unique oppritunity. A clean slate to choose any government they wanted. Yes, they were a group of men whose majority was christian. Yet they chose to institute a government void of religion. Why? They understood nothing good ever comes when you mix religion and politics.

I would get behind a Christian government if it was the UCC Christians or the Universalist Christians.

Well put.

Gentlemen, please note the sub-forum heading. Perhaps you would like to continue this in one of the sub-forums designed for those who reject Christianity and Judaism or where discussion/ debate is expressly permitted to all comers. This isn't that place... unless the admins and mods have changed the rules without re-posting them. This thread may have been started in this sub-forum because the OP wanted feedback from Christians and Jews only. If not, it is in the wrong spiritual sub-forum.

Please read the second "sticky" in the SD&S sub-forum (posted by Ronnie).

 

[gtparts]

Somewhere along the way, I think we misread each other. So, for the sake of clarity......

I believe in government necessary to protect rights (personal, property, speech, commerce, religion, etc). Government has to use force to protect these rights. I do not believe Christian values should be forced on anyone. I do not believe there should be Christian government. Government should make religious practice a freedom, not a mandate.

Hope that clears things up.

I just don't see where having a truly, Christian, Bible-based government necessarily means that any religion will be forced upon anyone.

As for values, is it any coincidence that most of the values like honesty, compassion, forgiveness, etc., that are promoted in the Bible, are mirrored in many of our laws?

What values do you think should be "forced on anyone"?

 

[JB0704]

What values do you think should be "forced on anyone"?

None. I believe rights should be protected.

Problem with values is that they are subjective. Consider compassion. Many folks differ as to what compassion is. Forgiveness? Well, you and I might say we can forgive somebody and still throw them in jail. Christian forgiveness, like what Christ exercices, means no recognition of wrongs..no jail for the repentant...nobody wants that. Integrity can be enforced to the extent a lack of such infringes on another's rights (finance laws, etc.).

 

[gtparts]

Originally Posted by gtparts View Post #46
What values do you think should be "forced on anyone"?

None. I believe rights should be protected.

Problem with values is that they are subjective. Consider compassion. Many folks differ as to what compassion is. Forgiveness? Well, you and I might say we can forgive somebody and still throw them in jail. Christian forgiveness, like what Christ exercices, means no recognition of wrongs..no jail for the repentant...nobody wants that. Integrity can be enforced to the extent a lack of such infringes on another's rights (finance laws, etc.).

Again, it appears that you champion anarchy. Don't you recognize that at some point, so that everyone is not doing their own thing, the community standards need to be codified AND imposed on all who choose to remain in community. In fact, many points will not have universal support, to which those, who remain opposed must necessarily acquiesce.

The notion of any society requires that some individual rights be surrendered for the greater good of the populace. But it sounds like you are philosophically committed to no rule of law rather than limited personal freedom.

Again, I would plead the case that a truly Christian-based government would be far superior to anything we have ever had before, anywhere, at any time.

 

[TheBishop]

Again, it appears that you champion anarchy. Don't you recognize that at some point, so that everyone is not doing their own thing, the community standards need to be codified AND imposed on all who choose to remain in community. In fact, many points will not have universal support, to which those, who remain opposed must necessarily acquiesce.

The notion of any society requires that some individual rights be surrendered for the greater good of the populace. But it sounds like you are philosophically committed to no rule of law rather than limited personal freedom.

Again, I would plead the case that a truly Christian-based government would be far superior to anything we have ever had before, anywhere, at any time.

I'm sorry if you feel if I am unworthy of discussing said topic in this sub forum becuase I do not adhere to your particular principals of religion. However this is not a topic on religion but rather a type of government. It is probably in the wrong section. It would be a akin to asking if a communist government would be acceptable to card caring members of the red party, or Time magazine subscribers.

That being said your opinion of government greatly contrasts the founders of this nation. They had a chance to institute a christian-based government, and they were primarily christian. So why didn't they? Becuase they knew it spelled disaster.

Like our fore fathers I believe in government based on the rule of law. Laws to protect individual liberties, from threats both foriegn and domestic. You do not have to sacrifice liberties to form a society. A society willing to place itself above the rights of an individual, must first admit that:

a. Rights are granted by the majority and are not natural rights endowed by our creator.

b. May at anytime according to the whims of the state change those rights to suit their desires.

Our fore fathers had the understanding that societys do not have rights, individuals have rights, and they must be protected by all for all. They also understood that liberty is universal (as they framed it), by placing it in the highest priority first, the laws derived from such would be just. That all just laws are moral. Morality on the other hand is not universal and is a poor foundation for justice.

I would suggest reading "The Rights of man" by Thomas Paine. It is a remarkable piece on government, social order and the concept of rights.

Agian, with a clean slate, why didn't a group of men, that were a dominant majority of christians, institute a christian government when they had the chance?

 

[Sterlo58]

No
There are good reasons for separation of church and state. Nuff said, I don't like to get into these debates.

 

[JB0704]

Our fore fathers had the understanding that societys do not have rights, individuals have rights, and they must be protected by all for all. They also understood that liberty is universal (as they framed it), by placing it in the highest priority first, the laws derived from such would be just. That all just laws are moral. Morality on the other hand is not universal and is a poor foundation for justice.

Exactly. That is not anarchy. That is freedom! Anarchy would be if we did not protect rights.

In reference to G2's response:

Society's morality shifts over time. Think about how different inter racial marriages are viewed now compared to 50 years ago. There was a time when "society's morality" led some to argue for a legal prohibition of such relationships. What if this morality was law? We would be, rightfully so, called prejudiced.

That is just one reason why I think morality is poor basis for law, and protecting human rights is the only fair and just way to allow liberty for all. Sure, this basis allows some stuff that is less than cool (flag burning), but at least we don't end up forcing folks to go to church and marry people of the same skin color.

 

[gordon 2]

A few individuals who participated in this thread have said that they have been surprized! by the responses to this tread.... I'd be curious to find out in what way(s)?

A quick note is that the pole is almost split numbers wise like the amercian electorate, or almost 50-50.

My view of why the founding fathers wanted to seperate religion and government for practical reasons was simply for the facts that their political worlds and history informed them. Oliver Cromwell and the "might is right" justification of British Authority was front and center to these people. Combine this with free and enlightened thinking and something had to give.



Personally I find that the way people vote might be more due to "doctrine" rather than faith. People vote from what they believe to be the purpose of christianity and the purpose of governments. Most of this belief is from our religious doctrine, not faith.

One doctrine that jumps to my face is what the Kingdom as expressed in the Gospels means and what is the key purpose of christians. Some say it is making other christians and others say it is makeing an ever better Kingdom. And inbetween we disagree on what are the great commissions and what is the Kingdom... and like the jews of old we mix up the role(s) of civil governance and role(s) of salvation individual and to all peoples.

I wonder if what a society is, how its culture interacts, is in fact a spiritual fruit, by with christians can judge themselves? Take for example that the roman soldiers stopped flogging Paul because he was a Roman and John Ashcroft and others indicating that "universal freedom" applies only to americans. One wonders where God comes in our lives and where we walk out on Him.

 

[gtparts]

I asked,

Originally Posted by gtparts
What values do you think should be "forced on anyone"?

Your reply follows:

None. I believe rights should be protected.

Problem with values is that they are subjective. Consider compassion. Many folks differ as to what compassion is. Forgiveness? Well, you and I might say we can forgive somebody and still throw them in jail. Christian forgiveness, like what Christ exercices, means no recognition of wrongs..no jail for the repentant...nobody wants that. Integrity can be enforced to the extent a lack of such infringes on another's rights (finance laws, etc.).

None? Really? I value human life, as does most of the population to one degree or another. The outgrowth of that are laws against homicide. The homicidal psychopath has no such values. He only values whatever sick pleasure he/she derives from killing. How are his/her rights being safeguarded?

You say, "I believe rights should be protected." Really? Then I suggest you campaign against all laws, for they all place burdens on the rights of someone and are obviously the result of some value being determined and codified. "None", my friend, is to support the destruction of our legal system and foster the implementation of anarchy.

You can't guarantee the rights or freedoms of one group or individual, unless you deny the rights and freedoms of others. All laws are predicated on violation and condemnation. Legislating behavior (based on moral precepts) is the heart of any justice system, however it may be flawed.

 

[JB0704]

None? Really? I value human life, as does most of the population to one degree or another. The outgrowth of that are laws against homicide. The homicidal psychopath has no such values. He only values whatever sick pleasure he/she derives from killing. How are his/her rights being safeguarded?.

To take a life, you have to deprive another of rights. I am not aware of the homocidal maniac's right to murder folks.

Again, values are just what individuals assign. Rights are guaranteed by either law (speech, religion, etc.) or nature (life, liberty, etc.). These are what must be protected. A murderer cannot act on his compulsions without denying another individual the right to live.

You say, "I believe rights should be protected." Really? .

Yes, really.

Then I suggest you campaign against all laws, for they all place burdens on the rights of someone and are obviously the result of some value being determined and codified.

No, why would I campaign against laws that protect rights?

That, my friend, is to support the destruction of our legal system and the implementation of anarchy..

No, it is protecting human rights.

You can't guarantee the rights or freedoms of one group or individual, unless you deny the rights and freedoms of others..

Yes you can once you define where rights begin and end (see comments below).

All laws are predicated on violation and condemnation. Legislating behavior (based on moral precepts) is the heart of any justice system.

No, you can protect rights, you can't protect values. Use your murderer above, he values killing, but that infringes on rights. One, you are arguing semantics. Two, you seem to confuse values and rights. Your, and my, rights end at the tip of your nose.

I honestly think you are looking for something to argue with here.

My position has and always will be that rights exist until they infringe on the rights of another. Values wil change, and should not be legislated.

I hope you can see the difference.

 

[TheBishop]

JB0704 good reply.

GT, I think you have lost the meaning of definable rights. There are no rights you have to surrender in order to form a happy, healthy, and vibrant society. Rights are unalienable. We are endowed with them upon the gift of the first right, life. The essence of liberty is the right to the disposal that life in the pursuit of our own individual happiness. These are the only true rights. We can only claim them if we allow others the same right. To impose on those rights, by force, or fruad, as an individual or group is to concede your own claim to those rights.

This is the underlying principal shared by the creators of this nation. They instituted a government of men to protect these rights, then created a constitution granting the people secondary rights to protect themselves against government.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

Thomas Jefferson

 

[gtparts]

To take a life, you have to deprive another of rights. I am not aware of the homocidal maniac's right to murder folks.

Again, values are just what individuals assign. Rights are guaranteed by either law (speech, religion, etc.) or nature (life, liberty, etc.). These are what must be protected. A murderer cannot act on his compulsions without denying another individual the right to live.



Yes, really.



No, why would I campaign against laws that protect rights?



No, it is protecting human rights.






Yes you can once you define where rights begin and end (see comments below).



No, you can protect rights, you can't protect values. Use your murderer above, he values killing, but that infringes on rights. One, you are arguing semantics. Two, you seem to confuse values and rights. Your, and my, rights end at the tip of your nose.

I honestly think you are looking for something to argue with here.

My position has and always will be that rights exist until they infringe on the rights of another. Values wil change, and should not be legislated.

I hope you can see the difference.

And exactly where do rights come from? Obviously, rights vary from place to place, time to time, and from culture to culture. Rights that have their origin in human values, then, aren't and cannot be absolute.

And all legislation is based on values. Further more, laws do not guarantee rights. Laws merely impose some form of punishment or compensation AFTER codified rights are violated. Laws have been used to deprive people of their "rights",.... another consideration.

 

[gtparts]

JB0704 good reply.

GT, I think you have lost the meaning of definable rights. There are no rights you have to surrender in order to form a happy, healthy, and vibrant society. Rights are unalienable. We are endowed with them upon the gift of the first right, life. The essence of liberty is the right to the disposal that life in the pursuit of our own individual happiness. These are the only true rights. We can only claim them if we allow others the same right. To impose on those rights, by force, or fruad, as an individual or group is to concede your own claim to those rights.

This is the underlying principal shared by the creators of this nation. They instituted a government of men to protect these rights, then created a constitution granting the people secondary rights to protect themselves against government.

Thomas Jefferson

And who endows us with those inalienable rights? It is certainly not granted by the mere fact that one is alive (examples: capital punishment and abortion). People are denied life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness every day. We even do such things to ourselves. So much for the philosophical idea of inalienable rights.

The idea that our government grants us rights is laughable. We, the people, created the government to preserve our basic rights by yielding power to government and some of our rights, in the bargain. Government derives its power from the consent of the governed. And, again, government fails to protect those rights. A murder victim is no less dead when government finally arrives and punishes the murderer. Racial, age or sexual discrimination occurs and then (maybe) the miscreant gets tried and convicted after the fact.

 

[JB0704]

And exactly where do rights come from? Obviously, rights vary from place to place, time to time, and from culture to culture. Rights that have their origin in human values, then, aren't and cannot be absolute.

And all legislation is based on values. Further more, laws do not guarantee rights. Laws merely impose some form of punishment or compensation AFTER codified rights are violated. Laws have been used to deprive people of their "rights",.... another consideration.

Ok GT, you have lost me now. I am not really certain what we are debating anymore.

Where "rights" come from is debatable according to an individual's worldview. Freedom of speech is not guaranteed in the Bible, neither is freedom of assembly, and the right to keep and bear arms is nowhere in the NT. I do believe "rights" should be defined and should be defensible from a philosophical, not religious, position. The problem with religion is that everybody sees it differently. You and I may agree on some aspects, others won't. For instance, I believe some rights are endowed by our creator, as the founders indicate, and others are guaranteed by govt. Free speech is often limited by religion (see Islam's treatment of those who draw cartoons of Mohammen, Christianity, when taken to extremes, would limit one's ability to speak out against the church). However, guaranteeing rights is the primary role of government in a free society (thus the reason I scratch my head at your anarchy claim). Protecting your right to live over your neighbor's right to kill is an acceptable use of force. Making you and your neighbor go to church, IMHO, is not.

Lets take a step back and consider your position. Our society currently "values" a progressive tax structure which punishes achievement. It is societal values which are triumphing over property rights. Our current tax code is written in such a way, and influenced in such a way, that the masses can claim the ownership of other's property. These values will change over time, and we can see this currently. But, if we had well defined property rights which were protected, such an aggression would be limited.

I agree that laws deprive certain "rights," but do not see where it is relevant to the topic. The discussion was whether or not we would impose a Christian govt. I saw this as an imposition of Christian values. I do not see where there is a biblical context for using force to persuade folks to live a "christian life." Jesus never did it. I don't think I will jump on board either.

I know that kind-of meandered around, but I am really having a tough time understanding why you think forced Christianity would be an ideal, when in fact, there could not be a "truly Christian government." One concept eliminates the other. Christianity is all about choosing God through faith, and government is force.

 

[TheBishop]

And who endows us with those inalienable rights?

Yaweh, allah, jesus, satan, it really doesn't matter the name. Our forefathers left the term ambigous and just creator.

It is certainly not granted by the mere fact that one is alive (examples: capital punishment and abortion).

Yes it most certainly does. Your examples one is a punishment for infringement on others rights, and one is a matter of definition. For me the only logical time to grant the right to life is at conception.

People are denied life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness every day. We even do such things to ourselves. So much for the philosophical idea of inalienable rights.

Where and Why? Does that means its right? Please give me an examples. It is an impossiblity to infringe on one own rights.

The idea that our government grants us rights is laughable.

Agreed. I do not think anyone has suggested that.

We, the people, created the government to preserve our basic rights by yielding power to government

Yes.

and some of our rights, in the bargain.

NO! What rights must we yield to government?

Government derives its power from the consent of the governed. And, again, government fails to protect those rights. A murder victim is no less dead when government finally arrives and punishes the murderer. Racial, age or sexual discrimination occurs and then (maybe) the miscreant gets tried and convicted after the fact.

You lost me on the rest.

 

[TheBishop]

And exactly where do rights come from? Obviously, rights vary from place to place, time to time, and from culture to culture. Rights that have their origin in human values, then, aren't and cannot be absolute.

And all legislation is based on values. Further more, laws do not guarantee rights. Laws merely impose some form of punishment or compensation AFTER codified rights are violated. Laws have been used to deprive people of their "rights",.... another consideration.

You really need to read this:

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/