Protestantism

» Migisi - Butting in

In response to Butting in posted by redback:
.
It seems to me the labelling of the USA as a nation founded on Christian values creates unrealistic expectations and limits it by definition.
.
Agree - it limits in many ways. It ignores and/or discounts nonChristian contributions to the founding of this nation, in particular, the Native Americans.
.
Quoting from:
http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nati...
"... It was Squanto who surprised the Pilgrims by greeting them in English and who helped the new immigrants survive that first winter, a season that produced the first Thanksgiving.... For his role in acculturating these English subjects to a new land, Squanto has been called a "Pilgrim Father"...
....
"Following publication of Cohen's article, suggestions that American Indian, and especially Iroquoian, thought had played some role in the genesis of a distinctly American conception of society and government became more numerous. In 1953, Ruth Underhill (Red Man's Continent) wrote that Franklin, Jefferson, John Adams, and George Washington all were familiar with the Iroquois polity, which, she said, "was the most integrated and orderly north of Mexico. Some have even thought that it gave suggestions to the American Constitution." Underhill also devoted some attention to the equality of women, and the political powers reserved for them, in the Iroquois structure. Like Wallace before her, Underhill also asserted similarity between the Iroquoian system and the modern United Nations. Both, she wrote, "dealt only with international concerns of peace and war."...
.
It's a motherhood statement so anyone...particularly a foreigner...who questions it is almost committing heresy.
.
No worries. We don't lock heretics up in stocks, and display them in the village square anymore. (wink)
.
BUT I would have thought the USA was greater then and now...than the sum total of whatever Christian influences existed at its founding.
.
Given the 'melting pot' citizenry - immigrants from every nation and every belief system in the world certainly have contributed to the US's greatness since its founding.
.
And some of this goes to the unfair criticism of Christians in politics.
.
The saying goes "All's fair in love and war... and politics".
.
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?
.
Um, it's impossible for the Christian base to pick the wrong man. Their God does the picking for them, according to Paul in Rom 13:1 - "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."
.
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'm not sure which founding principles/laws had a true Christian flavor.
.
I'm left with a view the motherhood statement RISKS being a classy bumper sticker.
.
You design it, and I'll market it. We'll make a milyun.
.
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.
.
I agree.
.
Once Jesus arrived, were converted prior heathens dragged screaming into applying these new, untested principles???
.
Many of these principles the heathens did 'by nature'... principles already 'written on their hearts'... their consciences bearing witness to them ... per Paul in Rom 2:14-15. They just 'came natural' to them?
.
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.
.
I referred earlier to some Native American (Iroquois) influences on the formation of government and the US Constitution - which some historians say were borrowed by early founders. As I said, I don't know which good principles were purely 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.
.
A universal principle, as in a 'law of nature'? If one has time and interest, there are some very interesting historic writings on the 'laws of nature' and 'nature's God' here: http://www.lonang.com/
.
If one is talking 'univeral laws', this is also an interesting new agey site - with brief mention of pre-Christian Essene beliefs: http://www.iloveulove.com/psychology/uni...
It lists 'sub laws', or human characteristics: Aspiration to A Higher Power, Charity, Compassion, Courage, Dedication, Faith, Forgiveness, Generosity, Grace, Honesty, Hope, Joy, Kindness, Leadership, Noninterference, Patience, Praise, Responsibility, Self-Love, Thankfulness, and Unconditional Love.
.
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 foundation the early drafters laid appears to have been firm enough to build upon. Clearly, the US Constitution was not (and is not) a finished 'project', but an ongoing one. Hence, the later additions, and the continued 'tweaking' even today as the nation evolves.
.
The chaplaincy issue seems all about a "challenge" waiting to be overcome.
.
An example of why nonChristian nations refer to our President and troops as 'Crusaders' -- an image we need to 'overcome'.:)

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Butting in

In response to Butting in posted by Migisi:

.
In 1953, Ruth Underhill (Red Man's Continent) wrote that Franklin, Jefferson, John Adams, and George Washington all were familiar with the Iroquois polity, which, she said, "was the most integrated and orderly north of Mexico.
.
The professor I had in Western Civilization lectured our class one day that the Native Americans were close to where the Athenians were just before they turned into a democracy. He told us that some experts claimed that had the Europeans not come to these shores, the Native Americans may have developed into a world class society.
.
Go figure.
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - The Problem

In response to The Problem posted by pink101:

To me, the problem is quite obvious.

For me, any problem I see (and we do see different problems) isn't so much in the definition per se of 'Christian nation' but the frictions and unreasonable expectations that arise when: beliefs held by one conflict with another's; when underlying real issues create an almost crippling intolerance; when streams within Christianity develop either an inclusive system OR an exclusive one. When we believe challenges become problems.

We should consider what the word meant at the time our founding Constitution was being ratified.

Agree. Definitions within a Christian faith system and principles behind nation-building etc ought to be robust enough to withstand some nibbling at their edges. But what when black is defined as white? OR as you indicate...when doctrine is confused with 'principle'.

The people in the South feel they lost the war, rather than the UK? Fits in with my earlier thoughts of how England handled its "loss".

The King and now Queen of England, are by law, the titular head of the Church of England. The law creates a Christian, rather than adhering to any Bible teachings. Ergo, a "Christian" King makes England a "Christian nation". That title, similar to the USA's title of a Christian nation doesn't work wonders for me. And some of that has to do with my dislike of clumsy generalisations.

The idea of First Nation (USA) or the less formal Aboriginal nation here goes to our broader clumsy approaches to an inclusive global society.

America's founding has far more to do with Greek philosophy than it does Christian thought.

It's far too complex a mix for me to quantify it...and I don't exclude influences beyond the Greek's...but you are agreeing with my earlier comments, digda notice?

So, the topic question of whether there were deist and secularist involvement as well...is conceded by me.

-- posted by redback

» redback - Butting in

In response to Butting in posted by Migisi:

On the one hand you give me many brain fodder links to check out...on the other I give you many disparate thoughts to respond to. Thanks.

I understand in 1854, Chief Seattle's reply to the reservation offer, included:
Even the white man, whose God walks and talks with him as friend to friend, cannot be exempt from the common destiny.
according to a wall chart in my study.

We don't lock heretics up in stocks, and display them in the village square anymore. (wink)

No, your techniques are far more sophisticated now. Why even 'torture' is far better defined.

Um, it's impossible for the Christian base to pick the wrong man.

Aaah! The Religious Right have NO power if the wrong Prez is selected. And that Prez would have pseudo authority in their eyes.

I'm not sure which founding principles/laws had a true Christian flavor.

That's OK. It remains an unanswered question for me that I simply add to the endless ones. I don't know all the questions...so why am I entitled to all the answers?

A universal principle, as in a 'law of nature'?

That too! But I had in mind the label for it when it has far broader application than just one group eg Christian. Most of my comments here go beyond parochial interests. I need a thesauris. Common law principles go beyond Christian principles...but the word I seek is no further than the tip of my tongue.

-- posted by redback

» redback - duplicate post

I coulda used this wasted post for more but the elusive thoughts I seek are also ...no further than the tip of my tongue.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - The Problem

In response to The Problem posted by redback:

.
"...but you are agreeing with my earlier comments, digda notice?"
.

.
I agree often with what most everyone posts here.
.
And, I also disagree frequently.
.
I guess my problem is that I don't read everything that is posted as some of it goes off on tangents. And, maybe not reading it all adds to my confusion?
.
.

.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Is democracy a 'Christian' principle??

In response to Butting in posted by pink101:
.
"Happiness is more generally and equally diffus'd among
Savages than in civilized societies. No European who has
tasted savage life can afterwards bear to live in our
societies." --Benjamin Franklin, 1770
.
I think you, and perhaps Brian, might appreciate this. It's worth exploring the influence 'savages' had on the creation of this (ehem) 'Christian' nation.
.
The Six Nations: Oldest Living Participatory Democracy on Earth
http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nati...
.
Quoting from the above:
"The original United States representative democracy, fashioned by such central authors as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, drew much inspiration from this confederacy of nations."
.
Except for the occasional mention of Squanto and Sacagawea, NA contributions are not usually recognized, or taught, in US History/Civilization classes. Your professor was a rare one.
.
If you have some time, it's worth the read, IMO.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Is democracy a 'Christian' principle??

In response to Is democracy a 'Christian' principle?? posted by Migisi:

.
I have the deepest respect for Native Americans and believe their culture had a great influence--for the good--on America. Too bad, there was so much bad in our culture.
.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Is democracy a 'Christian' principle??

In response to Is democracy a 'Christian' principle?? posted by pink101:

.
Too bad, there was so much bad in our culture.
.
There was/is good and bad in all cultures.
.
I wonder if the Indigenous Australians contributed to the formation of Australian society and government - as our first peoples did here. Any info on that, Red?

-- posted by Migisi

» redback - Is democracy a 'Christian' principle??

In response to Is democracy a 'Christian' principle?? posted by Migisi:

A point from your earlier post:

Clearly, the US Constitution was not (and is not) a finished 'project', but an ongoing one.

In context with my earlier comments, your Constitution ALLOWS amendments. And the fact you DO have amendments shows it's under a continuous improvement cycle...so it's all good. Over here, we tried to intervene before clumsy laws were enacted that had unforeseen, no such enabling provisions. And some of these laws had major adverse impacts. I'm proud to say I've given Cabinet-in-Confidence advice on several occasions.

Our Constitution was only created in 1901 by a foreign country's Act of Parliament ie the UK. Here's a summary in case you're interested but we're really new at and slow to change our Constitution. interesting to review, at least for me:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/Pubs/onlin...

You'll see some "final" steps to separate us from the UK were only taken in 1986. The major repercussions of the 1992 Mabo decision (land rights) finally saw our Aboriginal peoples being taken seriously. They've only been allowed to vote since 1967 but have been allowed to serve in all the wars incl WW1 which for us was from 1914-1918.

And in the opening of the new Parliament 12 February...the new Prime Minister's first act will be to apologise to them. Certainly for the 'Stolen Generation' but tis an expected can of worms as other "disadvantages" need remedy/apology.

I wonder if the Indigenous Australians contributed to the formation of Australian society and government - as our first peoples did here. Any info on that, Red?

See above comments. Prior to 1967, the Federal government had no jurisdiction to 'deal' with Aboriginal peoples so each State tackled it. Their input varied. The current contentious Federal interventions is based on a belief the States have failed.

Apart from an emerging (due cause) activist element, they are not politically aggressive peoples. It's hard to identify of the Aboriginal leaders, who actually best speaks for the majority. But, historically, they have achieved much...and this can't have been without good garden variety input into our nation.

There was/is good and bad in all cultures.
Exactly. The USA is not isolated with a lot of this stuff. It's exacerbated when one has an unfair expectation of another.

-- posted by redback