Protestantism

» redback - Logic Breakdown

In response to Logic Breakdown posted by BrianTubbs:

Therefore, his response to those wanting a more overt Christian Constitution was absolutely proper and understandable in that day. There was no need for it!

Is this your way of agreeing with me without saying so. It seems so.

Or on closer review, are we looking at political hypocrisy? That while Washington preached the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction he made sure there was plenty of political interference. And the Religious Right continue the same level of interference to this day. Being able to quote the Bible AND Washington carries more clout!

Whether or not he's a Christian, wasn't he persuaded by the Christian view? So, does it really matter the colour of his jib?
PS: I hope we're all agreed (but I'm not holding my breath) that the military chaplaincy is a GOOD thing.

Theory vs practice is always a challenge. But if it gets one out of KP duties, can't be all bad!

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - A Safe Place

In response to Addressing a tangent posted by redback:
.
"I'm sure Americans have some possibly valid or obscure reason for dissecting whether or not Washington was a Christian...and ..."
.
Some of us do. Not me. I don't care too much one way or the other. He was, obviously a man held in the highest esteem--first in the hearts and minds of his countrymen.
.
The reason that might seem obscure to some and so valid to others is the continual strain America is under to become a Christian nation so our laws can be reflective of the religionism that exists in the minds of so many. What other reason would anyone have to make such constant efforts to paint our Founders as Christians?
.
I think it is obvious that America was founded on Christian principles; but, those principles were not church doctrine. Instead they were things like liberty and freedom of choice which came out of Christianity. In fact, out of Protestant Christianity unless I am way wrong.
.
The chaplaincy is good for a variety of reasons not all of which have to do with religion. When a youngster lay mortally wounded on some battlefield, it is only human decency to provide them with whatever solace is available. Yet, there are other reasons to have a chaplain around. There is an age old principle that puts them off limits to normal military justice--they provide a safe place for those who might otherwise be treated unjustly. I have personal experience to prove my point.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Let's try North Carolina

In response to Let's try North Carolina posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Migisi, you're just wrong. Many of the early state constitutions do express a stated preference for Christ or Christianity.
.
Never said otherwise.
.
Let's take a few steps back, and reexamine my reply to you in my post #23. You wrote: "Yet I believe ALL the state constitutions recognized God or Christianity."
.
I responded: "God, yes. They refer to God by a variety of names:". I provided most of the names from a number of state constitution 'preambles', and added "(Note: most of these names were commonly used by Deists then - and now.)"
.
Are these untrue statements? Did I say that the writers of ANY or ALL constitutions were Deists? No. I was referring specifically to the ~~names~~ for God.
.
I wrote: "The word "Christian" is used in the 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights, XVI (not its constitution)".
.
Is my statement untrue? I ~was~ mistaken separating the Bill of Rights and Virginia's constitution. They are one and the same. See the entire document here: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states... . I did not imply nor state that other state documents were void of reference to Christianity. In my post, I made no reference to any state except Virginia.
.
I ended my reply with: "None of the fifty state constitutions use the name 'Jesus' or 'Christ' as a name for God."
.
Show me where I'm wrong about the above statement.

-- posted by Migisi

» redback - L'accuse

In response to A Safe Place posted by pink101:

As a foreigner, I usually come at a different tangent on US-focused issues than others here.

Sorry, Pink, there was something inflammatory about Brian's: If that is truly an accusation... that incited a corrective response. I thought the current thread covered the question of Washington's faith so therefore was to-topic.

I think it is obvious that America was founded on Christian principles...

We throw it around like a motherhood statement...that America was founded on Christian principles. And I tend to re-visit motherhood statements. And I keep asking how we recognise a Christian in the street, what specific decisions for example of Washington's were the best example of these principles that Christianity apparently has a monopoly on. (So, twas a bit odd to analyse the example provided about Washington imposing a strict religious position despite his cited statement)

Once the founding of a nation has been "bedded down" comes the real work...the testing of theory with practice. A little bit of Christianity mixed with a bit o this and a bit o that?

Out of these Christian principles came the USA's version of democracy, free trade, the price of petrol, the construction of cities and relatively unfair distribution of the workforces etc. Not unique to USA I believe but I may be wrong.

Maybe somewhere along the way, these principles were tempered with other principles OR they remained set in Christian Concrete...inflexible...creating its own tensions.

You referred to 'human decency' re the chaplaincy. I have this funny idea that the human decency principle* (*ie its only theory) is not fully owned by Christianity nor that the USA's version-on-the-ground is beyond comparison. I have a pragmatice view to principles and ideals. I try not to ascribe to Christianity...what it may not deserve.

Of course, chaplaincy is better than my flippant KP response. A safe haven. Whether its "needed" or not is an irrelevant judgement IMO. A lifetime ago, I was the manager of a staff support team and know full well...personally & professionally... the tensions that arise.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - L 'accuse

In response to L'accuse posted by redback:
.
It's difficult for ME to understand from where it is that you are coming.
.
I think you and I are operating from two distinctly different understandings of what it means to be a Christian.
.
The title is thrown around as though it carries some magical qualities by some; while others use it to describe what it means to be a decent human being in these times.
.
It's difficult for me to understand if you are being cynical or if your inquiries are straight forwardly honest.
.
It almost seems to me that you try to play both sides of a street. Some of your comments and posts seem arcane to me. I have mentioned this before and am not afraid to accept the idea that it's my problem and not yours. So, it isn't necessary to show me up for my lack of intelligence compared to you or any other persons.
.
I thought my post to which you responded was straight from the shoulder. I wasn't trying to be coy. My comment that America is founded on Christian principles and not church doctrine seems clear enough to me. I pointed specifically at liberty and free choice.
.
Certainly, it is true that there are those forces in which individuals and groups misappropriate principles for their greed and selfish purposes; but, what makes any one think that means that all or even most Americans support them in their unjust ways? I don't support the idea that America can march rough shod over other peoples. My position is an old Americanism, "Live and Let Live".
.
I don't think you can find a single comment I have made in any of my posts where I have put any other people down for being inferior to Americans. As far as I'm concerned, the indigenous people of Australia are due as much respect as are any of the people who live in Israel or any other part of the world including America. Maybe this is an area where fault can be found in my attitude?
.
(j' cuse?)

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Butting in

In response to L'accuse posted by redback:
.
Is it [dissecting whether or not Washington was a Christian] to "affirm their faith..." a possibility YOU suggested...not me...or is it a need to pigeon hole everybody into categories the pigeonholed person is then expected to live up to?
.
For Christians, to affirm Washington's Christianity as THE reason he was a great leader. I think your previous (post 15) example of "twisted logic" recognized it... "unless the President is a Christian, he can't be a good man; Washington was a good man ergo he is a Christian." However, there were nonChristians who historians acknowledge as great leaders: Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and a number of others of 'disputed' beliefs. So, the formula isn't 'one size fits all' regarding 'good' men.
.
And I keep asking how we recognise a Christian in the street,
.
That's easy. Look for the bumper stickers and fish symbols on their cars. (sarcasm)
.
what specific decisions for example of Washington's were the best example of these principles that Christianity apparently has a monopoly on.
.
Maybe our resident historian can list the Christian principles from which these sprung: the Poll Tax, Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, the Treaty of Greenville, Fugitive Slave Act of 1793?
.
Being a declared heathen or a deist or Budhhist in the Presidential elections doesn't impact on the voter?
.
Anyone who is a nonChristian is a 'heathen', Spider. Until 1786, the Episcopal Church was the official "state church" of Virginia. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe (Deist 'heathens') knew they had to align themselves with the 'state church' in order to have influence, hence they joined the Episcopal church. Yes, Washington belonged to one too. An interesting article here on how religious affiliation and frequency of worship plays a role in today's elections: Religion and the Presidential Vote: A Tale of Two Gaps
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=240
.
Regarding the chaplaincy...
.
From what I've read, there are around 1500 Protestant chaplains, 500 Catholic priests, and 7 - SEVEN - rabbi chaplains in the active-duty Army. Is that right, Brian?
.
U.S. Army is Looking for a Few Good Rabbis http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/k...
Quoting from the above:
"After 9-11, Captain Goldman [Migisi: a rabbi chaplain] raised concerns about discrimination, harassment and demeaning remarks and behavior directed against him, and more significantly, against his faith. He was being harassed and demeaned by Christian fundamentalist chaplains and military officers at Fort Stewart, Georgia. He raised these concerns through channels, in the proper manner."
.
------------------
.
Fort Leavenworth Chaplains Accused of Anti-Semitic Publishing
11 June 2007
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061107...
Quoting the above: "Weinstein said a right-wing fundamentalist Christian agenda under President Bush has hijacked the military.
.
"The rise of evangelical Christianity inside the military went on steroids after 9/11 under this administration and this White House," Weinstein said in an interview. "This administration has turned the entire Department of Defense into a faith-based initiative."
.
--------------------
.
Are U.S. troops being force-fed Christianity?
October 4, 2007
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1004/p13s0...
Quoting from above: "Since the Revolutionary War, the armed services have tried to ensure that soldiers can practice their faiths, and that chaplains serve not only those of their own sect but all who may need pastoral care. The services have also sought to adhere to the First Amendment prohibition of any government "establishment of religion."
.
"In the 1990s, for instance, the Air Force's Little Blue Book of core values highlighted religious tolerance, emphasizing that military professionals "must not take it upon themselves to change or coercively influence the religious views of subordinates."...
.
"Perhaps the most visible situation - and the one that set Weinstein off on his mission - involved the evangelizing of cadets on the part of some faculty and staff at the Air Force Academy (AFA) in Colorado Springs, Colo., which came to light in 2004. Congress held hearings, DOD conducted an investigation, and the head of the academy acknowledged significant problems. Weinstein's cadet son experienced the pressures as a Jew.
.
"In 2006, MRFF learned of a video produced by Christian Embassy, a group that conducts Bible studies at the Pentagon and seeks to evangelize within the armed services. Aimed at fundraising for the group, the video was improperly taped in the Pentagon and involved endorsements by Army and Air Force generals in uniform."
.
----------------------
.
Pentagon Chaplain Accused of Aiding Proselytizing
30 August 2007
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/083007...
.
-----------------
.
Evangelicalism's rise among military chaplains an issue -
Proselytizing is cause of concern
January 28, 2006
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/...
.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - First Principles

In response to Butting in posted by Migisi:
.
For some reason we are caught up in a struggle about what we mean by our society.
.
In the beginning when the founding of our society was questioned as to whether we would set out on our own or be detained as subjects to the British Crown, our Founding Fathers laid claim to ideas of the Liberty of Choice--should human beings have the right to choose what they would believe or not.
.
The arguments were not about Church Doctrine; but, they were about the human experience in that a person should be able to own their own belief systems or should they be subject to some other human being who was said to be their superior in one way or another, ie., their better.
.
They distinctly held two basic ideas of liberty; one in which a person was at liberty to the unalienable rights human beings possessed in the natural and ungoverned state of nature, or the other idea in which a person of privilege was able to have rights over some other human being of an inferior caste. Generally, for some reason, the latter idea that a man could have rights over another man was more prominent in the genteel South and the first more prevalent in the Yankee North. Whose liberty were they talking about--the ruling class's or the liberty of We the People.
.
If my understanding of American History holds, the Southern ideas were most often buttressed by biblical references while the Northern ideas were more buttressed through ideas out of the Enlightenment.
.
I don't think the enlightened ideas were fully grown; but, they were budding and what we would definitely call liberal or progressive in today's jargon.
.
Men like Emerson helped grow those ideas. Men like Lincoln struggled to bring focus to those ideas and to frame them in the forefront of American belief. We still struggle and the divide has come to be more apparent during the past quarter century.
.
Lincoln proclaimed on the battlefield of Gettysburg, "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that 'all men are created equal'." And, he said that his generation was in a test to see if such a nation could long endure.
.
The struggle continues--we see it here. Our society is still being tested.
.
I'm on the side of the Founders.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - L 'accuse

In response to L 'accuse posted by pink101:

To start with, I had and have no problem with the post...and am puzzled by your response to mine.

'OBJECTIVE' definition: "free from personal feelings or prejudice, unbiased."

It's difficult for me to understand if you are being cynical or if your inquiries are straight forwardly honest. It almost seems to me that you try to play both sides of a street.

Like Brian, this either/or style effectively questions my honesty...and I will respond. Instead of perpetually ascribing arcane or dishonest motives to the WHY and WHAT I post or that I am insulting you ...to show me up I ask you to consider the possibility I'm instead, being objective. Which side of the street do you expect me to be on! Whose side I'm supposed to be taking? I think my posts may make more sense to you and Brian if you ceased this approach.

I think you and I are operating from two distinctly different understandings of what it means to be a Christian.

You did describe yourself somewhere as being the epitome of a Christian (words to that effect) and that Migisi was a Christian but didn't know it...a diagnosis she denied. So, who knows what your label is for me! ABC

I'm thinking Brian and Wendell have different versions again. SO, what's the big deal about me having a different idea? Actually, if you really read my posts...I'm trying to get sense out of it all...by asking open questions...despite your cynicism that's what I'm doing. And NONE of MY posts are questioning anyone's integrity or faith here.

First, Washington is or isn't a Christian...and you're not concerned either way. Fair enough...that's your view and that's OK. Second, the statement issued by countless people...and repeated by you about the "USA being founded on" yada yada yada. You reminded me it's also worthwhile for me to examine what that means. And I won't repeat my comments. What interests me does not always interest you and Brian. That's OK.

LOGICALLY, I'm not taking sides and am being 'objective' within its ordinary meaning.

-- posted by redback

» redback - Butting in

In response to Butting in posted by Migisi & Pink:

Pondering posts to/from all here...hoping to make my mud less slippery:

It seems to me the labelling of the USA as a nation founded on Christian values creates unrealistic expectations and limits it by definition. It's a motherhood statement so anyone...particularly a foreigner...who questions it is almost committing heresy.

My home...Australia...was founded on many overlapping, complex things, including convict labour. It's harder for us I think to have a comparable (to the USA), meaningful debate on our founding principles. (Maybe that's where Pink and I have "confusions")

BUT I would have thought the USA was greater then and now...than the sum total of whatever Christian influences existed at its founding. And some of this goes to the unfair criticism of Christians in politics. Sorry if that sounds like I won't take sides.

I read recently that the current Presidency was won on the back of a strong religious base. So, if that base ever picks the wrong man, how does the USA describe it? When the founding principles and laws get "eroded" by ordinary, everyday dealings with its own citizens and the world...losing maybe some of its Christianic flavour, how is it described? I pondered all that within the context of this topic's title.

I'm left with a view the motherhood statement RISKS being a classy bumper sticker.

Chicken & egg: I don't doubt that principles like 'human decency' and 'freedom' are among the Christians' spiritual principles but IMO they aren't unique to nor make...Christianity...unique. Once Jesus arrived, were converted prior heathens dragged screaming into applying these new, untested principles??? Or were some good principles also appropriated by Christians as worthwhile. And once they started work on the US Constitution, how many were purely, untainted, clinically Christian.

Whenever I read similar comments, there is an inference that if it is a good principle, only Christians really believe AND practice it. Otherwise it would be described as a more universal principle. The "Christian nation" in this sense is seen in a judgemental, contrasting term.

Maybe it is only about bumper sticker levels? ABC

One thing I read within the cited articles you provide is the need to examine things top to bottom...bottom to top...side to side (3C) for consistency. If it made sense to some when Washington said it, does it make sense to the majority when THEY do it. Even if Washington had an inkwell etc.

A part of the baggage I bring with me from a lifetime ago...is the concept of post-implementation review. Probably a more modern term for it now. But basically, whenever a major 'project' was implemented, we waited then reviewed if it worked. Not as major as starting up a post British USA but some pretty major stuff. The principles are the same.

The chaplaincy issue seems all about a "challenge" waiting to be overcome.

I hope this helps explain WHY I ask.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - The Problem

In response to Butting in posted by redback:
.
To me, the problem is quite obvious.
.
It is all about the definition of what it means to be a Christian nation.
.
We should consider what the word meant at the time our founding Constitution was being ratified.
.
When we speak of Christian principles in comparison to Christian doctrine, we make a clear differentiation in meanings. Principles are standards and rules while doctrines are ways to believe.
.
The king of england at the time of America's founding was considered to be a Christian ruler. And he was held in the lowest possible esteem as an evil tyrant. Churched people were of different types in the late eighteenth century--some were fanatically strict while others were only mildly concerned with their ideologies of the after life and there was an entire people in between.
.
The attempt to claim America was founded as a Christian nation is more relative to the Religionist movements of the present day. As far as I can see, it's something that comes out of America's Religionist South where people wear Christianity on their sleeves, lapels, wrists, bumpers, t-shirts, walls, and windows. When the Civil War was fought, the people in the Southern states were by far the most religious of all Americans. When they lost the war, they took it that God caused them to lose because they weren't Christian enough. They took the defeat as a chastisement--as an object lesson to cleanse their souls. They used the Bible to prove their belief in slavery. And that tells you something of their Christianity.
.
Religionists will not allow the idea that the definition of the word, Christian, is that of respectability and honesty in fair dealing with one's fellow man. It has to mean that a person is a born again Evangelical who witnesses for Jesus Christ at every possible opportunity. They carry on a double life--one with each other in their churchified circles and one with their worldly acquaintances at work, at play, and in the bars and taverns where they ride mechanical bulls.
.
America was founded on certain ideals that came out of Christianity mixed with ancient Greek philosophy.
.
America's founding has far more to do with Greek philosophy than it does Christian thought. But, I think this is the area where the idea of Christian nation comes into being.
.
Christianity can be defined as a mix between Judeo and Greek philosophy.

-- posted by pink101