Go to ANTINOUVEAUANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM
- Add a comment
- Go to GOVERNMENT CAN BE SEPARATED FROM CHRISTIANITY
you did?
I've got to read it.
besaides -- we've got to get back to disagreeing again -- I can't stand it when I don't argue some.
posted by
Xeno-x
on December 30, 2004 at 4:06 PM
| link to this | reply
We better stop this lovey dovey stuff someone might write
a post about us--
oops--too late, I already did!
;-)
posted by
PastorB
on December 29, 2004 at 5:16 PM
| link to this | reply
yeah unicorn it makes sense
what am i doing?
I'm agreeing with you again!!!
sheesh!!!
we all see the same thing from different angles
does that make sense?
even Kooka
there's a center there.
we all move toward that center
we cannot tell others how to move toward that center
so we all express ourselves from our personal perceptions.
I can't perceive what you perceive and vice versa.
So your truth might not be mine.
and that seems odd
and at odds
and counterproductive
but it's where our truths lead us that counts.
but we can do nothing but live by the truth we know.
that's the most honest and the highest form of faith
posted by
Xeno-x
on December 29, 2004 at 5:09 PM
| link to this | reply
This discussion between Westwend and Unicorn has been fruitful by exposing areas of agreement and disagreement in a thoughtful way. I don't much care for the ongoing debate about what religion our founders were. Conservative Christians insist that our founders were mostly devout traditional Christians, while secular liberals insist they were deists and atheists. There seems to be some evidence to support both the argument that they were largely religious and the argument that they were not attuned to orthodox thinking and opposed to religious governance. Both can be true. As long as we agree that they did not want the government to establish a state religion and require a particular religious practice, that is sufficient agreement on the First Amendment. We will have relatively trivial debates over application, such as whether saying "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance constitutes an establishment of religion, or whether allowing school prayer or religious displays on public property is establishment. But religious freedom is best understood as freedom to practice any faith or none at all as long as one does not interfere with someone else's right to do the same. I think we can reach a near-consensus on this. There might still be those who would require us all to practice one faith or another, but they are probably marginal political forces.
posted by
Dyl_Pickle
on December 28, 2004 at 5:38 PM
| link to this | reply
West, do you remember a long time ago
your wrote a post titled "My helluva life" or something to that effect? Where you spoke of many of the things that you have done? We had a lot in common actually in that, and it seems that we both are "simple country folk", which in no way implies that by being "simple" we are stupid or simple minded. We just appreciate the basics of that kind of lifestyle. My faith isn't any different from that, it's just the simple lifestyle of believing God and taking Him at His word. We are both educated people, but I (like you have I think) have learned much more just from the "school of life" and researching, seeking answers ourselves, it just so happens that I use the Bible as my main--not my only-point of reference.
If I tell you that it is raining here and you say "it's not raining here so it can't be raining there", does that make either of us a liar? Does it mean that the rain I see and feel is false? No, the statement is based on where we are at in that moment of time. Does that make sense?
By the way, it is raining here and we just had a beautiful double rainbow! Which, btw, the rainbow signifies a promise from God. Of course a scientist or meterologist may argue that point, but it wouldn't make either of us wrong.
posted by
PastorB
on December 28, 2004 at 3:05 PM
| link to this | reply
i agree unicorn
basic morals do not have to be religious in context
Tv humor has deteriorated -- humorless risque language and sexual innuendo. no attempt to be really humorous.
it seems interesting what you tell us about your type of Christianity.
I have to be able to take the time to find what you've said.
see we aren't always in disagreement.
posted by
Xeno-x
on December 28, 2004 at 1:09 PM
| link to this | reply
west, that is where I think you are wrong
since when do basic morals have to be "religious" in their context? My concern is that society as a whole has gotten themselves so confused about the difference between right and wrong that they will settle for anything. This is evidenced very well by just what we see on television. I know that you are a few years older than me and therefore you can remember I'm sure, a time when words such as "damn", "bitch", "shit", "ass", (for example) were not "allowed" on television. But now, these words are the status quo, some people don't find some shows humorous or interesting unless this language is used. This is just one example of what we've allowed to become "acceptable" in our society today. This doesn't cover a fraction of what is "status quo" in this day and age. In the 50's & 60's we had the First Amendment, but surely it wasn't abused as it is today. Why is that? Why have we become so complacent and just accept things saying "that's the way it is" instead of saying "that's the way it is, but that doesn't make it right and we CAN do something to change it"?
As far as my "type" of Christianity, I think I've expressed that numerous times, although it has been manipulated and taken out of context just as many. I go against the flow and grain of "traditional" Christianity, which is why I don't adhere to any man made "doctrines" or pronounced faith statements. I have discovered that I am far to radical to be accepted by the majority of denominations, much like Jesus who was a radical rebel Himself. I've had to shake the dust off my sandals in many a "church" and have been better off for it. When anyone starts to compromise their beliefs and what they know to be the truth in Gods word, this is when "acceptance" of immorality sets in.
posted by
PastorB
on December 28, 2004 at 7:35 AM
| link to this | reply
nothing wrong with morals, unicorn
all religions have them
but this is a secular country -- religion is a thinig to be expressed privately and personally, except if one wants to express it in some manner to another.
it is not a function of government to express religion. That's not in the constitution.
let's see- it is to promote domestic tranquility, for one thing -- that is to provide order of some sort and to provide services for the people that will promote their own well-being.
religious favoritism does not promote domestic tranquility.
and as far as judging you to be "traditional", that is mainly a conclusion drawn from many things you say.
other descriptions could be such as "fundamentalist", or "conservative". But that is just a judgement based on what I have read of you so far.
I (and maybe others) would welcome your description of your type of Christianity.
posted by
Xeno-x
on December 28, 2004 at 7:11 AM
| link to this | reply
*accept
posted by
PastorB
on December 28, 2004 at 6:44 AM
| link to this | reply
and besides that, the status quo
that I will not except is that sin and immorality have to be the norm! I know that our Nation was not founded on "Christian" principles but was founded on Biblical principles. What do you find so offensive about having morals put back into our country?
posted by
PastorB
on December 28, 2004 at 6:44 AM
| link to this | reply
man I wish you'd stop categorizing me!!
If you think I'm some kind of "traditional" Christian, than you don't know squat.
posted by
PastorB
on December 28, 2004 at 6:39 AM
| link to this | reply
Bravo Westwind...
I think if many adults would study American history more closely, they would understand that while many of our leaders held Christian values that influenced their leadership, they also understood how dangerous it was to allow religion to influence our governments. Many documents on file in the Library of Congress expressly detail their desire to not to support one religion over another and other religions are often mentioned as a concern in the new land.
In addition, to allow religion to be part of our civil structure, we are inviting the table to be turned and inviting government to interfere in our religious practice. Bad news over in England and the reason many of our families came here in the first place.
Good post. Thanks for the insight!
posted by
Deverdoodle
on December 27, 2004 at 9:12 AM
| link to this | reply
Good post...I think it's dangerous for any religion to have too much power,
just as it is for any government to have too much power. When you mix the two together you get the inquisition and dark ages. We don't sure don't need that!!!
posted by
Ariala
on December 27, 2004 at 8:57 AM
| link to this | reply