"Christian" America same as Islamic Middle East

[HeWillProvide]

I frequently hear people say that if we do not keep Christianity out of America and its laws and policies, we are just the same as the government in the Middle East that forces its women to wear burkas and refrain from looking at men, etc. all in the name of religion.

I know that Christianity is, of course, not as “radical,” but how is allowing Christianity in our government different from them allowing their religion into their government? I guess, why can one government have religion but another cannot?

I think it’s definitely different but have trouble explaining why to others.

 

[Dale_M]

I know that Christianity is, of course, not as “radical,”

There certainly are radical Christians. We have them right here on CAF… people who want to install a monarchy, or who want to see Catholic ( or some branch of Protestantism) doctrine to be fully incorporated into US law.

but how is allowing Christianity in our government different from them allowing their religion into their government?

I’m not sure what you mean when you write “allowing Christianity in our government.” Could you explain that a little more?

 

[po18guy]

I frequently hear people say that if we do not keep Christianity out of America and its laws and policies, we are just the same as the government in the Middle East that forces its women to wear burkas and refrain from looking at men, etc. all in the name of religion.

I know that Christianity is, of course, not as “radical,” but how is allowing Christianity in our government different from them allowing their religion into their government? I guess, why can one government have religion but another cannot?

I think it’s definitely different but have trouble explaining why to others.

Christianity does not have roving patrols who beat those who are not in prayer at the specified time. Christianity does not stone adulterous women. Christians are not bombing other Christians in suicide attacks. Christians are willing to influence government, as we are called to do, but are not striving to establish a theocracy, which is the big difference between Christianity and Islam.

Those who say this to you are apparently trying to marginalize faith and squeeze Christianity completely out of the picture. In our modern world they will eventually have a choice only between Christianity and Islam.

 

[po18guy]

There certainly are radical Christians. We have them right here on CAF… people who want to install a monarchy, or who want to see Catholic ( or some branch of Protestantism) doctrine to be fully incorporated into US law.

This is an anonymous forum, where many things are easily said. Do you see these people forcing the issue or involved suicide bombings? I am pointing out that the difference is night and day.

 

[HeWillProvide]

There certainly are radical Christians. We have them right here on CAF… people who want to install a monarchy, or who want to see Catholic ( or some branch of Protestantism) doctrine to be fully incorporated into US law.

I’m not sure what you mean when you write “allowing Christianity in our government.” Could you explain that a little more?

Meaning, keeping the word “God” in the pledge of allegiance, swearing on a Bible in court, saying Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays in schools, keeping “In God We Trust” inscripted on federal buildings, etc…

 

[HeWillProvide]

Christianity does not have roving patrols who beat those who are not in prayer at the specified time. Christianity does not stone adulterous women. Christians are not bombing other Christians in suicide attacks. Christians are willing to influence government, as we are called to do, but are not striving to establish a theocracy, which is the big difference between Christianity and Islam.

Those who say this to you are apparently trying to marginalize faith and squeeze Christianity completely out of the picture. In our modern world they will eventually have a choice only between Christianity and Islam.

Thanks for responding. But I can still hear them countering, “Don’t FORCE me to have anything to do with religion.” It’s about mixing government with religion. Be religion-free. Or else we may turn in to that. (Annoying responses, I know, but frequent responses I receive from coworkers).

 

[Dale_M]

Meaning, keeping the word “God” in the pledge of allegiance, swearing on a Bible in court, saying Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays in schools, keeping “In God We Trust” inscripted on federal buildings, etc…

I guess I don’t see any of that having to do with Christianity. Even the “Merry Christmas” greeting is pretty much secularized, having more to do with Santa Claus than with Christ.

 

[po18guy]

**

Thanks for responding. But I can still hear them countering, “Don’t FORCE me to have anything to do with religion.” It’s about mixing government with religion. Be religion-free. Or else we may turn in to that. (Annoying responses, I know, but frequent responses I receive from coworkers).

The very foundation of our legal system and our laws is the Ten Commandments. God is acknowledged in our nation’s founding documents. So, atheists want us to throw this away. Such thinking has brought us the human holocausts, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, and is pushing for human cloning. They will try to achieve this, unless they are forced to convert to Isl*m first.

 

[manualman]

The comparison assumes that all morality and ethics are arbitrary and made-up. When someone compares Islamists and christian activists, you start by asking them if they believe all morality is arbitrary or if there really are things that are inherently good and others that are inherently evil (i.e. Natural Law).

If they claim the latter, then you simply point out that Islamist principles are NOT compatible with the fundamental dignity of the human person and Natural Law whereas christian principles ARE.

If they claim the former, then pull out a wicked knife and say “So it’s really only an arbitrary rule that keeps me from gutting you like a fish and taking your wallet right now, huh?” Then assure them it is a plastic prop knife - quickly! Hopefully, they’ll get the point (no pun intended).

 

[NTOT]

I frequently hear people say that if we do not keep Christianity out of America and its laws and policies, we are just the same as the government in the Middle East that forces its women to wear burkas and refrain from looking at men, etc. all in the name of religion.

What these people frequently say is wrong, of course.

I know that Christianity is, of course, not as “radical,”

Radical, as in?

but how is allowing Christianity in our government different from them allowing their religion into their government? I guess, why can one government have religion but another cannot?

The government could bar anyone who is Catholic or Christian from participating in government or from voting. That way only the aetheist religion would be allowed to influence actions of the government. Otherwise the government could force anyone who is Catholic or Christian to renounce their moral beliefs and act as aetheists whenever they participate in government functions. For example, Catholic congressmen could be forced to vote as aetheists whenever a bill comes up, otherwise they are kicked out of congress and punished.

I can name a few countries which operated in such fashion.

 

[JimG]

Christianity does have a moral code. And the whole of Western Civilization is built upon Christian moral principles, (not that Christian nations have always lived up to them.) Christianity also supports the natural law and believes that civilized societies ought to live according to the natural law.

But even though Christian civilizations have been built on the basis of Christian moral law and the natural law, Christianity has never sought to impose every jot and tittle of its moral code into civil law.

And Christianity has nothing comparable to Sharia Law. Muslims often make the point that sharia law provides a complete basis for living and for organizing an Islamic state, and that societies ought to live according to sharia law. This makes the religious law the supreme law of the land.

Christians don’t have anything like that. There are moral principles that we expect Christian legislators to abide by when they meet to decide upon civil laws. Thus, murder is prohibited in civil law not because it is against Christian moral law, but because individual legislators, formed by Christian moral principles, believe that it is a serious enough offense to be criminal under civil law, and not just moral law.

The very diversity of religions within Western countries militates against the inclusion of purely religious precepts in civil law.

 

[Swan]

Actually, the U.S. Constitution was written with the principles of the Enlightenment in mind. The Founding Fathers were creatures of the Enlightenment and many were Deists who used the word “God” but did not mean it in the accepted Chrisitian sense of the term. We only started putting “God” on our money until the Civil War era then was removed again around the turn of the century and stayed off for over 30 years. “God” was only added to the Pledge in 1954. I’m not saying Christianity had no impact, I’m sure it did. But to suggest that Chrisitianity, especially the conservative kind, played a major role is disingenuous. The fact that there a bar against any state sponsored religion was the 1st Amendment should make it obvious that full freedom of religious thought and libery was a prime goal. These are the facts that are often revised by conservatives Christians.

 

[mlchance]

Actually, the U.S. Constitution was written with the principles of the Enlightenment in mind.

And as seen through the filter of centuries of English common law rooted firmly in a Christian view of the world that included a long-standing ethical critique of monarchy/government as being accountable to divine law. One can no more separate the Christian background from the question than one can separate a painting from its canvas. To attempt to do so would be to destroy the painting, just as social experiments that attempted to de-Christianize society ended inevitably in mass murder and terror.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[JimG]

Protestant Christianity was so firmly rooted in the culture that public schools were essentially non-demoninational protestant schools. That was part of the reason that Catholics developed a parochial school system.

 

[edwest2]

**

Thanks for responding. But I can still hear them countering, “Don’t FORCE me to have anything to do with religion.” It’s about mixing government with religion. Be religion-free. Or else we may turn in to that. (Annoying responses, I know, but frequent responses I receive from coworkers).

Meanwhile, the gay community in Massachusetts is forcing little kids to read gay story books in public school.

Let’s review:

Early 1960s: Prayer taken out of public schools.

A Nativity was common in front of the local City Hall. No one had to bow in front of it, leave money in it or even look at it if they didn’t want to.

But slowly, gradually, the ACLU, in the name of “protecting” religion began their campaign. How many religious monuments have been removed from public buildings? Public land?

A local community to mine used to have outdoor loudspeakers that played Christmas songs. An ordinance was passed that allowed them to play the music but not the words.

If anyone here thinks that America is somehow more religious or “dangerously” religious as it was 40 years ago, they are wrong.

There was no cussing or swearing or partial nudity on TV in the 1960s. Comedians were funny, not saying f*** all the time or giving graphic descriptions of sex acts like they do now.

Anyone who thinks that America is in “danger” of becoming like “them” just needs to do a little research.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Swan]

Even in a society where most of the citizens are Christian you’re going to have various “brands” of Christian thinking spread over a spectrum from conservative to liberal - this is true with any religion/philosophy. In the early decades of U.S. history, we had a more homogenous society. That has changed markedly in the past 200 years and societal norms and laws have changed with it. Yet there are some folks on the radical right who would like to see the US become a conservative Chrisitian theocracy. This won’t work because our population is so diverse (and because we never set out to be a theocracy to begin with but, indeed, to be the opposite). The 10 Commandments are pretty broad - I’ve seem people on CAF argue about “you shall not kill”. And an enforcement of the First Commandment would pretty much violate the First Amendment (because it specifies that people reconize and worship a specific deity). And, again, English Common Law has evolved over the centuries and the Enlightenment brought many new ideas/ideals and interpretations of rules of law. Washington was not Moses.

 

[edwest2]

What you write about is the worship of the mind of man as exemplified in what is called the Enlightenment. The Founders recognized a Creator but some here want people to forget about that. To only point to those aspects of American history that suits their view of the way things should be. Find some pictures of the Supreme Court building. Among the statues on it is Moses holding the Ten Commandments.

Peace,
Ed

 

[spectrm]

Well - I can see that when one of us rational ones hasn’t stepped in, yet, it devolves into self-idolotry and demonization of the opponent.

On a serious note, the push for religion (particularly christianity) in US political policy and culture is disturbing on many fronts. There are many people of faith - non-atheists - who would like to see less religion on the campaign trail. Many of these as well as atheists and non-monotheists alike don’t believe the Bible should be sworn over, at all. The book doesn’t mean that much to me, personally. Have me swear over the Constitution or my grandmother’s grave, in a court of law. Either one would be more suiting. As for ‘In God We Trust’ - I certainly don’t, and I don’t believe I should have to pay tax money for the ink to print it. It’s a tawdry stupid point, but it’s to illustrate that point further. This is something that is meant to be representative of our population, and there’s a large portion of it that these practices alienate.

And a serious point of contention on our founding fathers. Many of them were deists - the better majority of those, christians. But many, including George Washington, we simply theists. This is all well documented in Martha’s letters to her pastor - she was Unitarian, and George did find some solace in the teachings of that church, but never so much as to attend regularly. Many more of the founding fathers fit this same profile give or take a few details. Jefferson was a Christian Universalist - there is no trinity, only oneness. Samuel Adams was an avid atheist, though some letters suggest he was pantheist, though more out of lack of scientific knowledge than actual belief. He frequently argued, via pen (because the two would always get drunk and come to blows, in the face to face) with his cousin John Adams (a devout Catholic) about theology. The Ten Commandments are no more embedded in the Bill of Rights (btw - there’s nothing in the Constitution prohibiting murder - that’s all done by state and municipal statute) than Hammurabi’s Code (read: not at all). The laws were determined by committee, not divine ordinance. Benjamin Franklin (a protestant…can’t remember which sect, but very faithful) didn’t come down from a mountain with the Bill of Rights in ink and parchment. If he had, being the notoriously clumsy and inappropriate man that he was, would’ve enacted a scene out of a Mel Brooks movie and we’d originally have had 15 Ammendments to start outright.

<OFF TOPIC - FOR COMEDIC PURPOSES ONLY>
He once wrote in his monthly almanac:
“I once asked a fair maid on the streets of Philadelphia, about the age of 30 and had child - What say you to a thousand dollars in exchange for relations? She replied, Why I think that a fair bargain. So I say to her, What say you to one dollar for the same contract? She replied, Heavens, no! What kind of girl do you take me for!? To which I said: I thought we had already established that. I was assessing the going rate.”

• not necessarily verbatim.
  </OFF TOPIC - BACK TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED POST>

I don’t compare the christian right in America to Islamic fundamentalism - but I can see the escalation path. I don’t believe the catholic church is the problem in the least. It’s mostly the born-again sects. The most ignorant mouths are often the loudest. I don’t believe this brand of fundamentalism (and I’ve seen it here at f.c.c, too) is truly christianity. Christianity in it’s pure form is good and powerful. The majority of the christianity that’s practiced today, however, is a bastardized form. Jesus would be rolling over in his proverbial grave (though, I’m sure the analogy ‘he tosses and turns in his sleep, about us’ would strike a positive chord with most of you).