America's "Judeo-Christian founding"

[tjhammer]

Rooster has claimed "others" are revising history, and that this country was really founded upon "Judeo-Christian" values (more precisely, his own view of those Judeo-Christian values). I wonder how you would be as a Citizenship in the Nation MB counselor to a Buddhist scout, Rooster?

 

It's pretty hard to claim exactly what the "Founding Fathers" of this country believed, mostly because they vary in number and importance, depending on who you read. However, it is true to say, that the following seven American leaders were all Deists and denied the divinity of Jesus: George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, and Thomas Paine. (Some online resources: http://www.deism.org/foundingfathers.htm http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html and http://dim.com/~randl/founders.htm )

 

History is being distorted rather rapidly by a GOP that's become dominated by the Christian conservative lobby.

 

Could you imagine our new Supreme Court nominee saying "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"? Today's GOP Senate would run for cover if they heard that, but the Senate under President John Adams put that in the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli, Article XI.

 

Today's Christian conservatives (and at least for now to a lesser extent the GOP they seek to control), are NOT representative of the philosophy this country was founded upon, nor do they embrace the constitution.

 

As I came of age and formed my political beliefs, I saw the Republican party as a sensible version of libertarian philosophy. In just the last decade, somehow that party has raced far away from libertarian philosophy to the point that the Democrats are probably closer to that belief.

 

What was the governing GOP perspective of "good, but less" government has been abandoned by the Christian fundamentalists that seek to bludgeon the country with their beliefs, while simultaneously claiming the role of the persecuted.

 

Religious fundamentalists that use government to impose their religious values on a minority is the exact opposite of the founding principles of this country. Those are the principles of a theocracy, and the mere suggestion that the USA might even remotely resemble a theocracy is antithetical to America.

 

A Christian fundamentalist minority (and a GOP willing to pander to them) are propping themselves up as a greater threat to the freedom that is every American's birthright, and manipulating history to justify that threat does a great disservice to the American ideal.

[GernBlansten]

Good on ya TJ.

I too think the Christian Right have seized the GOP and are pulling the strings now. That's the primary reason I left the party. For years, the GOP was the only party of reason and fiscal self control. You know, during the Reagen/Bush (GHWB) years. Their hard turn to the religous right flung me out the door, skipping down the highway.

 

I was born and raised a Lutheran. All the way through the confirmation ceremony. After high school, I lost my faith and focused on science for my answers. I was that way until my mid 30s, pretty much a practicing athiest. But there was something missing, something not explained by science. Not to mention I live in one of the most conservative christian regions in the nation, so pressure to follow is constant. In my quest for answers, I came across Deism. The more I studied it, the better I felt, that I was not the only one. Deism doesn't answer all my questions, but so far, its much better for me than any other form of religion I've come across.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Thanks, tj. Interesting thoughts, and interesting website. It will hopefully start a spirited discussion. You know, of course, that this could easily become a "quote contest"; at least it'll be interesting reading

 

Myself, I think that religions should be able to do what they want within their own walls, as long as they don't violate civil law (whether their actions are "right" is another discussion). The problem starts when they try to change civil law to reflect their own religious beliefs. So, it's fine for, say, Catholics (or whoever) to disallow gay marriage within their own group, but I don't believe that they have the right to impose that belief on everyone else. There are people who say that we need to go back to the traditional values taught in the Bible. There are others who say "be careful what you wish for".

 

I think it's one thing to found a country that includes religious concepts as part of its principals. I think it's quite another to include rules specific to particular religious sects. I think that that's what the founders were trying to avoid.

 

All you have to do is spin the globe around to see what happens when one religion becomes dominant in a country to the point that they control the government.

 

 

 

 

[Prairie_Scouter]

Well, Gern,

 

I think it's pretty safe to say that during the Bush Administration, the GOP has pretty much lost any claim to being the part of "reason" and "fiscal self-control", no?

[Kahuna]

While I agree that the Republican fundamentalist leanings bother me quite a bit and it would be extremely hard to make a case that they stand for fiscal restraint, I would strongly disagree that the Democrats are more Libertarian. BTW, I am Libertarian, but don't vote for that party because it's a wasted vote.

 

There are certainly some issues on the Republican agenda that would limit liberty: abortion, medical marijuana, flag burning bans, etc. They are definitely pandering to the religious right in developing their plans.

 

The Democrats, on the other hand, are pretty anti-democratic, it seems to me. They have been unable to get their agenda enacted into law and have resorted to putting judicial activists on the courts of the U.S. who will simply legislate from the bench. That's exactly how the BSA has gotten itself mired in all these attacks from the ACLU. If the judges in this country would base decisions on law and the Constitution, the ACLU suits would be laughed out of court.

 

I am the furthest thing from a fundamentalist Christian, but it strikes me that our Judeo-Christian origins (notwithstanding the religious views of the Founders, many of whom were without doubt religious liberals of one form or another) has served us pretty well in the value system of the country. I don't care much for the value system of the left, which appears to be that of Michael Moore and Hollyweird: If the evidence contradicts their view of things, they simply lie about it. I agree with the left on many issues, such as abortion rights and medical marijuana, but disagree with them on many more.

 

I particularly disagree with the Democratic left on their apparent feeling that we, the population, are not to be trusted to make our own decisions. They seems to stand for the proposition that they know best and are better able to decide what's good for us. Both parties are guilty of that, but the Democrats more than the Republicans.

 

[tjhammer]

Kahuna (BTW, it's impossible to read your screen name without briefly flashing on a tropical vacation on the beach!), I agree with much of your observation.

 

I believe the Democrat's problems (much of what you've outlined) is NOT with the Democratic party, but with their leadership. The rank and file of that party makes a far more articulate argument for what the party should stand for than any leader I have seen come along (though I was very impressed with Barrack Obama's speech at the Democrat's convention).

 

I have always been a Republican. But I feel that party rapidly slipping away from it's ideals as it rushes to become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Christian fundamentalists.

 

Government is not a blunt object to deny the American ideal; good government is a limited tool to empower the American ideal.

 

[Kahuna]

tjh: I agree completely. I think the Democratic party leadership is out of touch with it's constituancy. Apparently, there is some concerted effort being made by dismayed rank and filers out there to bring the party more in line with mainstream.

 

Meanwhile, I have no real choice but to hang with the Republicans and hope they don't go as far to the right as the other party leadership has to the left. I can only believe that they, like the BSA, will be able to read the tea leaves and see past the waving hands of the religious right.

 

BTW, your take on my screen name reflects pretty much my view of life. :-)

[Prairie_Scouter]

I dunno, fellas. This adminstration has done a lot to take us away from the American ideal, and have taken unprecedented steps that they justify by waving the tragedy of 9/11 in our faces. Hundreds of people are being imprisoned without due process, access to attorneys, or even simple notification to their families. They want to try these people in secret courts using secret evidence and without providing them with any means of defense. Since they can't get away with torturing them anymore, they just send them off to other countries to torture them for us. They want to extend the Patriot Act to spy on honest Americans for any reason they choose, since they want to get rid of all oversight on their activities. They want billions of dollars in funds that will go unaccounted for. They've spent hundreds of billions of dollars waging war on a country, in a war we were told would be self-funding, and now we find that the reasons we were given just weren't true. (Oh, sorry, our leader declared that war over about a 1,000 U.S. military deaths ago. My mistake.....). Where's America, fellas? In the prisons in Guantanamo? In the backrooms in Washington where our leaders formulate energy policy in secret meetings with oil industry executives? In Iraq, where our soldiers die in a war that doesn't even seem to have a reason anymore? In Europe, where we walk away from treaty obligations? Maybe in space, where we work on plans to build space based weapons platforms in violation of international treaties? Heck, the man stands up and says he's found Jesus, and suddenly everything he does is golden. For the life of me, I can't imagine how we're letting this happen. If there's any administration that's NOT living the Judeo-Christian ethic, this would be the one, I think.

[Eagledad]

>>I believe the Democrat's problems (much of what you've outlined) is NOT with the Democratic party, but with their leadership. The rank and file of that party makes a far more articulate argument for what the party should stand for than any leader I have seen come along (though I was very impressed with Barrack Obama's speech at the Democrat's convention).

 

I have always been a Republican. But I feel that party rapidly slipping away from it's ideals as it rushes to become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Christian fundamentalists.

[Lynda J]

This country was founded on the right of religous freedom. That no religion should control the Government.

 

When GWB was elected I tried to tell people that he would be the worst thing to happen to personal freedoms, womans rights, the environment and education. I am still waiting to proven wrong.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Hi Barry,

 

Ah, you Oklahoma guys. I have friends in Tulsa and Enid. We always have really interesting discussions :-)

 

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I'd be the last one to identify myself as representing the political mainstream I just represent me. On the other hand, I'm not sure anymore where the political mainstream is. I don't think the mainstream is represented by the present administration. The items I mentioned probably are talking points for liberals, but they're also major failures of this administration in my view. We did have a terrible tragedy on 9/11, there is no doubt about that. But that's been used as an excuse to do things that we all would have viewed with disgust just a few years earlier. If we have to protect America by using the same tactics as our enemies, what exactly are we protecting?

 

In religious matters, we should, I think, err to the side of freedom of expression. As I've said, every religion should be able to act as they see fit, but they shouldn't be allowed to place their views into civil law in such a way that limits the religious rights of others. That's what the gay marriage laws are about. This is a pretty gray area, tho. The U.S. passed laws disallowing polygamy, which is okeedokee according to the LDS. I don't know where to draw the line.

[Kahuna]

When GWB was elected I tried to tell people that he would be the worst thing to happen to personal freedoms, womans rights, the environment and education. I am still waiting to proven wrong.

Lynda, can you explain exactly how this administration has deprived you of personal freedoms, your rights as a woman (I assume you are a woman:)), impacted the environment or handled education differently that a Democratic presidency under any of their candidates? Just curious.

[Eagledad]

>>In religious matters, we should, I think, err to the side of freedom of expression. As I've said, every religion should be able to act as they see fit, but they shouldn't be allowed to place their views into civil law in such a way that limits the religious rights of others.>When GWB was elected I tried to tell people that he would be the worst thing to happen to personal freedoms, womans rights, the environment and education. I am still waiting to proven wrong.

[Rooster7]

This country was founded on the right of religous freedom. That no religion should control the Government.

 

Actually, you have that backwards. The government shall establish no religion. This does not preclude the government from any religious influence.

 

Eagledad said it quite well. The majority, regardless where they derive their morality, are free to vote for those who represent their interest. And those representatives are free to create laws that reflect those peoples interest.

 

Of course, your natural reaction will be what about the protected rights of individuals? Or rather, that seems to be the refrain chanted as if it were a natural reflex, by those who support homosexual rights. Fine, a perfectly reasonable question assuming that homosexual behavior is a protected right. However, many Americans if not most believe that such a protection has been the invention of liberal judges, who like to create law vice interpret it. Individual rights are clearly spelled out in the Constitution. Even back in those days, they were aware of the existence of homosexuals. And more so then than now, they believed that homosexuality was behavior based not an inherit orientation. Clearly, if the founding fathers thought this was a behavior worth protecting, a right which should be afforded any and all, they had the intelligence to ensure its protection by incorporating the necessary language in The Bill of Rights. I wonder how they managed to over look this protection.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster says:

 

...assuming that homosexual behavior is a protected right. However, many Americans if not most believe that such a protection has been the invention of liberal judges, who like to create law vice interpret it.

 

People can believe what they want, but facts are facts. A number of states (including mine) have adopted statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public employment, private employment (with some limitations), public accommodations, housing, etc. Those statutes were adopted by the legislatures of those states, not by judges.

 

Individual rights are clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

 

Well, I would dispute that, there are constant debates, discussions, court cases, books taking various points of view, etc., regarding the scope and meaning of some of the rights protected by the Constitution, so it really isn't all that clear. Probably the best example in this context is the section of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibiting states from denying equal protection of the laws to their citizens. It does NOT say what characteristics are to be taken into account. The Congress in the 1870's (when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted) probably did not have equal rights for women in mind, and yet since that time the courts have stated that both the state and federal government are limited in their ability to take gender into account. (Only limited, not prohibited -- which is why the statute limiting the military draft to males is constitutional, but a statute that said that only men can be employed as accountants in federal departments (to take a ridiculous example) would be unconstitutional.

 

With regard to homosexuality, the law of "equal protection" is in flux at the moment. The federal and state governments are NOT prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, for example, under the federal constitution. (As noted above, state law may be a different story, because a state can recognized more rights than federal law does, though of course such laws only apply to state and local governments in that state.) To date, the courts have upheld the military laws that criminalize homosexual behavior, though the recent Texas "sodomy case" suggests that at some point, this may change.