State religion

[ThinkingSapien]

Being from the UK and having almost no knowledge about the US public education system, do kids really have to pledge to the flag? Isn’t that in itself a form of secular prayer?

Is it right to expect people to pledge allegiance to a secular, political-cultural, man-made nation? Even if people are allowed to opt out, the implication is that this is something that people ought to do.

There was a time when students were obligated to say the pledge. However reciting the pledge was found to be in conflict with some religions. For example Jehovah’s Witnesses see such a pledge to be a form of idolatry. In 1943 the court ruling came that students are neither obligated to say the pledge nor stand up during the pledge. When I was in school the pledge was voluntary. There was a time block set aside where students could voluntarily say it or remain silent. There was also a moment of silence during which if some one wished to could be used for silent prayer, meditation, or any other silent non-distracting activity.

…]but every state-funded school is obliged by law to have a ‘daily act of worship’ of some sort in school. It usually takes the form of an assembly involving a non-denominational prayer to God and perhaps some traditional hymn at the end.

That wouldn’t work here. Rather, it didn’t work here. It was in the early 1960’s that the conflicts came up that resulted in bible readings and prayers no longer being compulsory. The cases that I know of that had been mentioned in previous messages:

• Engel v. Vitale (1962)
• Murray v. Curlett (1963)
• Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)

Murray v. Curlett (1963) is the one that people in the USA seem to reference the most because the plaintiff in the case was an atheist and the case seems to be referenced to emphasize a religious v. non-religious dichotomy. But the other cases involve people that had religions that were in conflict with some compulsory Christian activity.

So an atheist Christian isn’t out of the question. Also there are rituals or rules or other trappings.

I think what you are describing is sometimes called “Cultural Christian.” Some Christian sects today describe themselves as being both orthodoxy (correct belief) and orthopraxy (correct behaviour). A cultural Christian would emphasize the orthopraxy without the orthodoxy and may not believe that the God proposition is true. Such a person may follow the behaviour for other motivations such as tradition, pleasing their family, or fitting in to remain part of the social in-group. The only way of which I know to recognize a cultural Christian is for the person to disclose this stance to some one; since we don’t have access to a person’s mind recognizing it outside of disclosure may be challenging. (Sell also “Cultural Judaism”).

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I think what you are describing is sometimes called “Cultural Christian.” Some Christian sects today describe themselves as being both orthodoxy (correct belief) and orthopraxy (correct behaviour). A cultural Christian would emphasize the orthopraxy without the orthodoxy and may not believe that the God proposition is true. Such a person may follow the behaviour for other motivations such as tradition, pleasing their family, or fitting in to remain part of the social in-group. The only way of which I know to recognize a cultural Christian is for the person to disclose this stance to some one; since we don’t have access to a person’s mind recognizing it outside of disclosure may be challenging. (Sell also “Cultural Judaism”).

Yes. I was just exploring what he thought of the term. Many of the cultural Jewish people I know are agnostic/atheists. The tradition is more important than the belief.

I find the claim of philosophy rather than religion ridiculous but I’m willing to explore it.

If Christianity is a philosophy then so is Judiasm and Islam. Where Orthodox, Reformed etc are the Religion and Judaism is the Religion. Shia,Sunni would be the religion and Islam is the religion.

Also philosophy doesn’t have ritual so prayers aren’t part of a philosophy, nor are displays of ritual.

Also religion makes truth claims, Jesus is the Son of God, There is no God but Allah. Philosphy is a thought exercise and makes hypothesis not truth claims. There is no dogma.

The claim seems to be an effort to be an end around on prohibitions on displays of Religion by taking away the religion. So by distancing Christianity from Religion you must abandon the displays of Religion that are being lobbied for. Philosophies don’t pray. Philosophies don’t have celebrations. I guess it could be seen as an exercise in absurdism.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ngill

**You’ve already shown that you’re willing to redefine both Christianity and Religion, I think your dishonest tactics speak volumes for you. **

Your ad hominems speak volumes for you!

Knock it off!

 

[JamesCaruso]

Actually, having read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, as well as a lot of the writings of Jefferson, it becomes clear that the First Amendment is tied extensively to freedom of thought. While it certainly bans the establishment of a State Church, it goes well beyond that.

You’ve already shown that you’re willing to redefine both Christianity and Religion, I think your dishonest tactics speak volumes for you.

Well, I assume your calling me dishonest is in the best of all senses and not a slur against my character or a personal attack. I am actually very sincere in my belief that the founding fathers were trying to prevent the state from establishing a church, not the more liberal interpretation that others have put on it. Having a menorah or manger scene in the public square is certainly not the establishment of a particular religion, which is what the amendment specifies, it is merely giving recognition to the cherished beliefs of many persons in the citizenry. It does not in so doing espouse those cherished beliefs or promote them. If I wish you a merry Christmas, a happy thanksgiving, or a happy Passover, I am certainly not establishing a religion. If I own a boarding house with many people, I don’t mind them giving voice to their beliefs somewhere in the common living area in a tasteful and appealing manner, in fact, I might even help them. This whole notion that the ten commandments, manger scenes, references to God, etc. are strictly forbidden in the public square is taking the original words to the absurd IMHO.

As far as tactics go, I am trying to be straightforward in setting forth my beliefs, reasons and feelings, so I am sorry if you take me for using trickery or dishonesty in my words. Also, I accept the fact that Christianity and Religion can be used in various senses, I just think the ones I used were the ones pertinent to the issue at hand. I believe, on the other hand, that others use the same words in just the wrong sense in order to eradicate God from the public square; I don’t say they are not well meaning-- I only say they are wrong.

All authority comes from God, including that of the United States government-- oh, you may think it comes from the people who elected officials and so forth, but in the end, the state operates at the pleasure of the Most High. We elect leaders to do what is right for the country, and what is right for the country is always the will of the Creator, the One our Declaration of Independence says bestows on us unalienable rights. To eliminate God from our schools and public facilities is like eliminating references to science or literature from our curriculum or public speech. You may have your debates about whether there is a God or whether man causes climate change, but people have a fight to express these ideas, both in the public square and in private. To do otherwise is to suppress religious freedom, not protect it. God save our country from secularism that the haters of godly religions are trying to establish as the nation’s sole guiding principle. And is it not largely atheism and agnosticism that is masking itself as secularism? Is that what we in this country really want? It can be given its place, but it should not be given the only place. Let the vast majority of people who believe in God have their places. too.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Well, I assume your calling me dishonest is in the best of all senses and not a slur against my character or a personal attack. I am actually very sincere in my belief that the founding fathers were trying to prevent the state from establishing a church, not the more liberal interpretation that others have put on it. Having a menorah or manger scene in the public square is certainly not the establishment of a particular religion, which is what the amendment specifies, it is merely giving recognition to the cherished beliefs of many persons in the citizenry. It does not in so doing espouse those cherished beliefs or promote them. If I wish you a merry Christmas, a happy thanksgiving, or a happy Passover, I am certainly not establishing a religion. If I own a boarding house with many people, I don’t mind them giving voice to their beliefs somewhere in the common living area in a tasteful and appealing manner, in fact, I might even help them. This whole notion that the ten commandments, manger scenes, references to God, etc. are strictly forbidden in the public square is taking the original words to the absurd IMHO.

As far as tactics go, I am trying to be straightforward in setting forth my beliefs, reasons and feelings, so I am sorry if you take me for using trickery or dishonesty in my words. Also, I accept the fact that Christianity and Religion can be used in various senses, I just think the ones I used were the ones pertinent to the issue at hand. I believe, on the other hand, that others use the same words in just the wrong sense in order to eradicate God from the public square; I don’t say they are not well meaning-- I only say they are wrong.

All authority comes from God, including that of the United States government-- oh, you may think it comes from the people who elected officials and so forth, but in the end, the state operates at the pleasure of the Most High. We elect leaders to do what is right for the country, and what is right for the country is always the will of the Creator, the One our Declaration of Independence says bestows on us unalienable rights. To eliminate God from our schools and public facilities is like eliminating references to science or literature from our curriculum or public speech. You may have your debates about whether there is a God or whether man causes climate change, but people have a fight to express these ideas, both in the public square and in private. To do otherwise is to suppress religious freedom, not protect it. God save our country from secularism that the haters of godly religions are trying to establish as the nation’s sole guiding principle. And is it not largely atheism and agnosticism that is masking itself as secularism? Is that what we in this country really want? It can be given its place, but it should not be given the only place. Let the vast majority of people who believe in God have their places. too.

On the other side of the isle - I enjoy my Christmas decorations in and outside my home. I enjoy my parishes Mass, decorations and celebrations. My town doesn’t put up a crèche and I don’t feel slighted in the least. I don’t get offended when people wish me happy holidays. I like the diversity that my children are exposed to. A place for everything and everything in its place. I’m happy in my space and like that others have the space to be happy as well.

[BIBLEDRB]ECCLESIASTES 3:9-15[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[JamesCaruso]

On the other side of the isle - I enjoy my Christmas decorations in and outside my home. I enjoy my parishes Mass, decorations and celebrations. My town doesn’t put up a crèche and I don’t feel slighted in the least. I don’t get offended when people wish me happy holidays.** I like the diversity that my children are exposed to. A place for everything and everything in its place. I’m happy in my space and like that others have the space to be happy as well. **

[BIBLEDRB]ECCLESIASTES 3:9-15[/BIBLEDRB]

What I hear is “live and let live.” If no one cares enough to try to make a society that conforms to God’s morality, not my opinion of morality, but God’s revealed truth, then society will capitulate to the line of least resistance. It’s no wonder that we have legalized abortion; state sanctioned gay unions; and the HHS mandate for employers to provide health plans that provide contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs. There is even a petition to the White House to deem the Catholic teaching on homosexuality hate speech.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

What I hear is “live and let live.” If no one cares enough to try to make a society that conforms to God’s morality, not my opinion of morality, but God’s revealed truth, then society will capitulate to the line of least resistance. It’s no wonder that we have legalized abortion; state sanctioned gay unions; and the HHS mandate for employers to provide health plans that provide contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs. There is even a petition to the White House to deem the Catholic teaching on homosexuality hate speech.

[BIBLEDRB]1 John 4:20-21[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[lynnvinc]

If I were to babysit your children off and on for 7 years and told them how Christianity was wrong in many, subtle ways…then I told your children how to look at life, how to understand human sexuality, how to understand Nature, Human interactions of every kind…EXCEPT…I never mentioned God, would I not be indoctrinating them into my religion anyway?

Public Education indoctrinates our children with a secular religion. What do you call that secular religion?

And our parents and Sunday School endoctrinates us in our religion.

I attended public schools all along and had absolutely no problem with the lack of religious education in them.

I don’t think my teachers were atheist (in fact one was also my Sunday School teacher, and her husband, my band teacher, was the adult choir master in our Presbyterian church), but they never pushed their religion on us. In fact my Sunday School/mathmatics teacher was also my Home Room teacher (where we’d meet for about 15 minutes before classes started for the day), and she used to have us all take 5 minutes of silent time, which we could used to think about the day or become calm and collected or pray or whatever. However, she never made it into a prayer thing, and we never had prayers at school, but we did have them in Sunday School and at home…

In India what happens in public schools, the teachers often promote Hinduism, even tho India is also a secular nation, supposedly with some separation of church and state.

I sort of like the idea of separation of church and state. I really wouldn’t want teachers promoting satanism, or even some different religion than my own (now Catholic).

An interesting thing. In my Presbyterian Sunday school – years before I ever learned about evolution in high school – they taught us evolution from a Christian perspective, probably figuring we’d be taught it from a secular perspective in high school.

Well, it was so intriguing, and gave me such an awesome appreciation of God (beyond the typical David Copperfield magician sitting on a white cloud image most people have), that I went on to become an anthropologist and never had one iota of problem in accepting the science of evolution (or the science of anything else) and retaining a very strong belief in God and the Gospels. Whatever teachers had to teach about science only served to strengthen my faith in God. So when I met some science majors in college who said they were atheist, I couldn’t believe it at first. I thought surely they must have a greater faith in God than those in other fields.

We are taught to accept evidence (and let the chips fall where they may); and I fully accept the evidence laid out in the Gospels – the miracles, words, works, and resurrection of Jesus. I’d trust what a bunch on peasant apostles would have to say over elitists with agendas.

And I also trust for the most part what my teachers and scientists have to say, understanding that science is provisional and subject to change with better/more evidence and theories; and people do make mistakes and don’t have complete knowledge and understanding of everything.

Let us be thankful to God for our Church, our parents, our teachers, our schools, and the scientists, who study God’s creation.

 

[Emerite]

As a parochial high school student, a college professor once told me that he didn’t believe in religion, however he felt his children needed to be like other children, so they became “Unitarians.” Over the years since, I’ve noted a subtle disapproval of being a good, practicing Catholic, which only serves to strengthen my Catholic beliefs and causes me to study further and learn more about the truths of Catholicism. And other non-practicing Catholics and Christians express that they have no need for religion, but, from my observation, lack serenity, hope and self-actualization in their later years. Nothing else in the world compares with the happiness and peace we receive from our faith.

 

[lynnvinc]

As a parochial high school student, a college professor once told me that he didn’t believe in religion, however he felt his children needed to be like other children, so they became “Unitarians.” Over the years since, I’ve noted a subtle disapproval of being a good, practicing Catholic, which only serves to strengthen my Catholic beliefs and causes me to study further and learn more about the truths of Catholicism. And other non-practicing Catholics and Christians express that they have no need for religion, but, from my observation, lack serenity, hope and self-actualization in their later years. Nothing else in the world compares with the happiness and peace we receive from our faith.

It’s a rough world we live in. So many are turned off of religion. I think it behooves us as practicing religious people to try and get thru to them.

First by simply being good, bec methinks the reason people are turned off of religion often has to do with supposedly religious people acting like jerks. Osama ben Laden comes to mind…tho to me it’s unclear he was actually a religious person; he was certainly NOT like the kindly and considerate practicing Muslims I’ve known. However, there are many other examples…we can look at ourselves when we stumble and act in unChristian ways (every day for me ).

Second, by trying various “outreach” methods.

Our adult nephew is visiting. His father died when he was a child, and he turned against religion. Last night my husband was trying to convince him of the value and importance of religion, while nephew was complaining heately about religion. And I had to sort of agree with him, having run into so many people professing to be religious and acting in such terrible ways, almost as if they use religion as a skirt to hide their badness behind (while the unreligious have no such “skirt” and just have to be good if they want people to think they are good). Things like self-righteous arrogance and meanness. Even Jesus spoke against those types, the pharisees, etc. as a brood of vipers.

I broke into the argument with, “I think God may even be against religion.”

It was like throwing a wrench into the argument. My nephew immediately took up the idea (at least he does believe in God, or this helped restore that). Yes, God would be against religion, he said. And God wouldn’t expect all this false-hearted ritualism, etc. etc., but only that we be good and kind to each other

The argument went on…mainly about so many religious people being bad people, etc.

I later broke in with how I thought why many in my husband’s family were not very religious is because his mother was very mean to everyone. She used to have her hour of prayer each day, plus various other prayers throughout the day, and presented herself as the epitome of a religious person, but was extremely mean to everyone. My nephew knows, bec he saw it many times and heard stories about it, tho did not suffer too much from the meanness. I told how I had one time brought this up at my Carmelite meeting – how my “religious” prayerful mother-in-law was so mean that it turned some of her children off of religion. My Carmelite president responded in a very soft voice, “maybe without all that prayer she would have been worse.”

That put another wrench into the argument.

I don’t know if any of this is going to help. But I think, with God’s help, we need to be creative and keep striving to get thru.

 

[Emerite]

It’s a rough world we live in. So many are turned off of religion. I think it behooves us as practicing religious people to try and get thru to them.

First by simply being good, bec methinks the reason people are turned off of religion often has to do with supposedly religious people acting like jerks. Osama ben Laden comes to mind…tho to me it’s unclear he was actually a religious person; he was certainly NOT like the kindly and considerate practicing Muslims I’ve known. However, there are many other examples…we can look at ourselves when we stumble and act in unChristian ways (every day for me ).

I agree that it’s better to not be preachers and flaunt our faith, but to live a Christian life so as to set an example – actions speak louder than words. My mother taught us to offer our work and studies as a prayer, or to pray quietly, rather than make a great show of piety. This is far preferable to attending novenas, daily Mass, etc., yet being unkind to our fellow men. I know of several cases where meanness has been a turnoff to non-practicing Catholics. And above all, we were taught to treat everyone kindly, regardless of race, creed or nationality, just as Jesus Christ would do.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Yes. I was just exploring what he thought of the term. Many of the cultural Jewish people I know are agnostic/atheists. The tradition is more important than the belief.

Indeed. I had a friend in high school whose family was Hindu. he didn’t believe that what he had been taught about Hinduism to have been true. However he continued with the ritual of his family to keep them happy. To know that he thought it wasn’t true you’d have to be one of his closer friends. To outsiders looking in he was Hindu.

Those that follow the tradition/ritual/customs of a religion without believing it is true seem to fall into a group that hasn’t been tested as much in court. If some one is sticking with a custom for reasons of acceptance and he or she finds herself in a position where that tradition is prohibited how likely is such a person to complain? I don’t know any one that has been in this scenario, but I suspect such a person wouldn’t complain so long as their community is unaware that he or she is not engaging (or allowed to engage) in one of their religious customs.

I find the claim of philosophy rather than religion ridiculous but I’m willing to explore it.

If Christianity is a philosophy then so is Judiasm and Islam. Where Orthodox, Reformed etc are the Religion and Judaism is the Religion. Shia,Sunni would be the religion and Islam is the religion.

One of the challenges here is in finding a definition or criteria for a religion that doesn’t unfairly exclude others. With an earlier definition of religion in the USA people that followed various types of Buddhism or Unitarians would not be considered followers of a religion.

The claim seems to be an effort to be an end around on prohibitions on displays of Religion by taking away the religion.

I think this may be true. There have been other events in which a religious stance was secularized to get around restrictions on enforcing religion. Some of the blue laws may be an example of this. There have been blue laws to try to enforce keeping Sunday a day of rest/worship. These laws may restrict the operation of a business. To get such laws passed there is no reference to God or religion in these laws. Instead there is some other rationalization for the restriction. In present times the blue laws are not as ubiquitous as they once were. Here in Georgia one of the laws blue laws (no alcohol sales on Sunday) has been eroding away. But there are still places that have parts of such laws still implemented.

So by distancing Christianity from Religion you must abandon the displays of Religion that are being lobbied for. Philosophies don’t pray. Philosophies don’t have celebrations. I guess it could be seen as an exercise in absurdism.

Also note that personal philosophical decisions are not protected by the constitution. I think this was part of a 1961 ruling but I would have to look it up.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The subject of the existence of God is discussed in the works of almost all great philosophers of history. To say that it is a religious theme, but not a philosophical one, is to rewrite history.

“I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen.” And Again to Jefferson: “Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell.”

Adams, to be sure, was no traditional Christian. History calls him a Unitarian, much opposed to the divinity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. Like Jefferson, and consistent with the deist tradition, he was a thorough rationalist and would have nothing to do with miracles and the Catholic Church. Yet, like Jefferson, he had a deep and abiding fondness for the character of Jesus. “The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…. I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.”

 

[ThinkingSapien]

First by simply being good, bec[ause] methinks the reason people are turned off of religion often has to do with supposedly religious people acting like jerks. Osama ben Laden comes to mind…tho to me it’s unclear he was actually a religious person; he was certainly NOT like the kindly and considerate practicing Muslims I’ve known.

He seems to be religious. However I know there are those that will point the finger at his religion and say that is the reason he promoted the actions that he did. But I think such a conclusion would be hasty. While his religious views are a factor in his decisions there are other events that form part of the the explanation for his behaviour. I’m going to avoid detailing it here since it would possibly derail the thread.

However, there are many other examples…we can look at ourselves when we stumble and act in unChristian ways (every day for me ).

Something relevant here, and also illustrated by the reference to Osamsa bin Laden is that people will make associations between an individuals behaviour and the group(s) to which that person belongs. This can happen for religion, nationality, ethnicity, gender, age, occupation, socioeconomic status, and so on. When such associations are made but are false I think the term is “hasty generalization.”

Our adult nephew is visiting. His father died when he was a child, and he turned against religion. Last night my husband was trying to convince him of the value and importance of religion, while nephew was complaining heately about religion. And I had to sort of agree with him, having run into so many people professing to be religious and acting in such terrible ways, almost as if they use religion as a skirt to hide their badness behind (while the unreligious have no such “skirt” and just have to be good if they want people to think they are good).

My personal stance is that “religion” (and the words derived from it) can become to general of a term for some discussions. The word is inclusive collections of practices and belief that can be constructive, destructive, or some of both for groups and individuals. Grouping them all together and then trying to put a “good” or “bad” label on them may be an overly broad generalization; and I think that may be what your nephew is doing (I could be wrong as I don’t know your nephew).

I later broke in with how I thought why many in my husband’s family were not very religious is because his mother was very mean to everyone.

I had a talk with some one this weekend that also describes herself as non-religious though she was raised in a religious home. Surprisingly she thought that I might have been religious and that I might have a problem with her not being religious. Having gotten to know more about her she seems to be “spiritual but not religious.” It seems that there is a trend for some people to disconnect themselves from organized religion without abandoning some of the religious concepts all together. The person I talked to still has a concept of an interactive/invasive creator of the universe, but disagrees with the Christian and Muslim concepts of Yahweh/Allah/God. I didn’t think to ask at the time, but after reading your post I do have some curiosity about why she did not conform to Christianity or Islam (she was exposed to both growing up, and seems to have high familiarity with both the bible and the Qu’ran).

 

[lynnvinc]

He seems to be religious. However I know there are those that will point the finger at his religion and say that is the reason he promoted the actions that he did. But I think such a conclusion would be hasty. While his religious views are a factor in his decisions there are other events that form part of the the explanation for his behaviour. I’m going to avoid detailing it here since it would possibly derail the thread.

…

Something relevant here, and also illustrated by the reference to Osamsa bin Laden is that people will make associations between an individuals behaviour and the group(s) to which that person belongs. This can happen for religion, nationality, ethnicity, gender, age, occupation, socioeconomic status, and so on. When such associations are made but are false I think the term is “hasty generalization.”

…

My personal stance is that “religion” (and the words derived from it) can become to general of a term for some discussions. The word is inclusive collections of practices and belief that can be constructive, destructive, or some of both for groups and individuals. Grouping them all together and then trying to put a “good” or “bad” label on them may be an overly broad generalization; and I think that may be what your nephew is doing (I could be wrong as I don’t know your nephew).

…

I had a talk with some one this weekend that also describes herself as non-religious though she was raised in a religious home. Surprisingly she thought that I might have been religious and that I might have a problem with her not being religious. Having gotten to know more about her she seems to be “spiritual but not religious.” It seems that there is a trend for some people to disconnect themselves from organized religion without abandoning some of the religious concepts all together. The person I talked to still has a concept of an interactive/invasive creator of the universe, but disagrees with the Christian and Muslim concepts of Yahweh/Allah/God. I didn’t think to ask at the time, but after reading your post I do have some curiosity about why she did not conform to Christianity or Islam (she was exposed to both growing up, and seems to have high familiarity with both the bible and the Qu’ran).

I think you are very right. My own academic school of thought is that the human condition is impacted (but not solely determined by) the cultural dimension (which would include religion as beliefs and values).

It is also impacted by the psychological, social, biological, and environmental dimensions, and these as analytically, but not concretely separable.

In other words, religion or a particular religion is not the sole determinant of people’s behavior (good or bad), but has an impact on it.

I’ve also tried to bring that up to my nephew and his anti-religious friends, but you practically have to go to college and study that particular school of thought to have it sink in.

My sister-in-law uses the tact of saying, blame the person (for his/her bad behavior), not the Church.

One could also point out that the Church is there for sinners who want to repent and make amends, and is thus full of sinners, many of whom sometimes have a hard time overcoming their sinfulness.

Western history, as bad and full of evil as it is, I’m wondering how it would have been without Catholicism, with Church guidance, without St. Francis and the other saints…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

lynn

Western history, as bad and full of evil as it is, I’m wondering how it would have been without Catholicism, with Church guidance, without St. Francis and the other saints…

So far as the enemies of the Church are concerned, you will never hear about all the good done by the Church over the centuries. That is the weakness of every argument about the good effects of religion. The critics of the Church are glad to cite a few wicked popes. They are not so glad to cite the myriad of saints.

 

[JamesCaruso]

[BIBLEDRB]1 John 4:20-21[/BIBLEDRB]

It is hard to tell whether you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me, since your verses support our striving for the kingdom of God on this earth as it is in heaven with both individuals and societies as a whole abiding by the will of God. I will assume you are disagreeing with me, in which case, I don’t think you understand what loving your brother, or neighbor, is. It is certainly not refraining from telling him when his behavior is displeasing to Almighty God; it is certainly not passively allowing the state to create laws and structures that are counter to God’s law; it is certainly not being cowardly in putting forth God’s word, taking a stand for truth, and working hard for the establishment of a society that reflects God’s will for the world. And I am not talking about being a nut.

Jesus told us he did not come to bring peace to the world but to set one family member against another. The truth divides. It only unifies those who are willing to accept it.

The gospel is offensive to many, because it tells them they must change their ways in order to be pleasing to God, but it is the charge of every Christian to do just that. When a discussion arises, we can lay back and be “loving” or we can shed God’s light on the discussion, which in fact is the loving thing to do. Fear of what other people will think of us should not deter us from boldly telling others what God’s word teaches. If we are always in the presence of people who have no desire to hear God’s word about the issues, then we are probably keeping company with the wrong people. I have found myself in just such a situation, and now I know that I was in the wrong company. Making your companions others who share your values is a large step toward holiness.

I hope I didn’t misinterpret you words. Anyway, what I said is good advice, IMHO, for everyone.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

It is hard to tell whether you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me, since your verses support our striving for the kingdom of God on this earth as it is in heaven with both individuals and societies as a whole abiding by the will of God. I will assume you are disagreeing with me, in which case, I don’t think you understand what loving your brother, or neighbor, is. It is certainly not refraining from telling him when his behavior is displeasing to Almighty God; it is certainly not passively allowing the state to create laws and structures that are counter to God’s law; it is certainly not being cowardly in putting forth God’s word, taking a stand for truth, and working hard for the establishment of a society that reflects God’s will for the world. And I am not talking about being a nut.

Jesus told us he did not come to bring peace to the world but to set one family member against another. The truth divides. It only unifies those who are willing to accept it.

The gospel is offensive to many, because it tells them they must change their ways in order to be pleasing to God, but it is the charge of every Christian to do just that. When a discussion arises, we can lay back and be “loving” or we can shed God’s light on the discussion, which in fact is the loving thing to do. Fear of what other people will think of us should not deter us from boldly telling others what God’s word teaches. If we are always in the presence of people who have no desire to hear God’s word about the issues, then we are probably keeping company with the wrong people. I have found myself in just such a situation, and now I know that I was in the wrong company. Making your companions others who share your values is a large step toward holiness.

I hope I didn’t misinterpret you words. Anyway, what I said is good advice, IMHO, for everyone.

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 7:1[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]John 8:7[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 6:42[/BIBLEDRB]

That being said, when I was younger man and studying scripture in school I was offered this advice - The bible is like looking down a well, you see your own reflection.

I try and focus on the good I see rather than the flaw, and hope others offer me the same courtesy. God knows I’m not perfect.

 

[antunesaa]

Or it could be that organized/institutionalized religion is what is in mind here. Not all implementations of religion are organized religion.

What if your religion happens to be of the organized sort, like Catholicism? You must change religion: that seems to be your answer. Makes no sense to me and even trying to promote that uber secular idea is a direct attack of religious freedom. Why should I be able to organize a firm, a trade union, an university, an environmental agency, but not a religion? Anyone who wishes to belong to an organized religion should be allowed to do so, and without state interference (provided broad guidelines related to human rights, etc., are fulfilled).

 

[antunesaa]

A rose by any other name smells the same? I’m not even sure what nondenominational Christianity means. It is, but it isn’t? If it has a meeting place and you can be a member, I guess it defines itself as a church. If it has neither, I guess its a philosophy or slant on life.

Reminds me of Hazel Motes’ “Church Without Christ”, from Flannery O’Connor’s great novel Wise Blood. Or Hoover Shoat’s “Holy Church of Christ Without Christ”, from the same novel, which made Shoats an affluent man.