A Christian Nation?

[Beavah]

Yah, returning to the original topic. There is no denying that America is currently, and always has been, a Christian majority nation. As a democracy, that means that the enacted laws necessarily reflect a Christian belief system. Without imposing requirements of belief itself, they enshrine a vision of community that reflects the majoritarian belief... including the Protestant Christian notion of individual conscience and dissent from ecclesial authority.

 

That Christian notion got us our notion of democracy in the first place, and a rejection of monarchy in favor of God-given inalienable rights of individuals. It was a Christian willingness to exercise their rights as the majority to impose laws that reflected their morality that ended slavery and protected the rights of workers. Christian majority notions are reflected in the way we treat not-for-profit charitable entities under the law, and our willingness to use tax dollars to assist the poor. Christian notions (along with anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant sentiment) led to the formation of public schools. Even corporate law hails back to ecclesial law's notion of juridic persons. Christian notions are so deeply embedded in our culture and laws that they are impossible to disentangle.

 

So yes, if you choose to live in the U.S., you are choosing to live in a culture and legal system based on Christian ethics. It is true that Protestant Christianity enshrined in the U.S. constitution their ethic of "religious independence," so that we recognize legally that individual rights/conscience "trump" the majoritarian will of the state in certain limited circumstances. But the emphasis is on limited circumstances, designed to protect dissent, not thwart the democratic will of the majority. And that majority will naturally vote laws according to its beliefs. Because of our Christian majority you can't own slaves. You can't have more than one wife. You can't confine your neighbors to menial jobs or secluded neighborhoods because they're in a different caste. Human sacrifice and cannibalism are out. Your wife is not your servant, and the public schools even (gasp) host dances. Marriage requires the consent of the parties, not the arrangement of the parents... and on and on. In all these cases, the democratic will of the majority prevails over alternate customs and faiths.

 

Only in limited circumstances does the Protestant notion of protecting dissent as enshrined in the establishment clause allow an individual to "trump" the will of the Christian majority. This allows freedom to worship, but not necessarily freedom to act on beliefs contrary to the majority.

 

 

 

 

 

[GernBlansten]

While I will agree that America is now and always has been a majority Christian nation, I reject the thought that our laws are driven by exclusive Christian values. Christians do not have a lock on morality. If that were the case, all of the big ten would be laws. The three that are laws (murder, theft, false witness) are universally accepted in all nations, even Muslim and Athiest ones. Except for the proposed gay marriage ban amendment, I would say America has kept it's Christian values (ones exclusively Christian) in check. Your local laws may vary.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

I am not disputing Gern, but does anyone know how Islamic Law views homosexuality?

[DanKroh]

Rooster, thank you for giving me credit on the biblical interpretation. Yes, I do not believe that is a correct interpretation of that verse, but I have heard of Christians that do.

 

So I will take that as a "yes, that is would be ok because the will of the majority goes, even if it means dissolving someone's marriage." Wow.

 

You did bring up the point that the Constitution is there to protect certain rights. But you and I disagree on the interpretation of the First Amendment. I do believe that codifying Christian morality into law violates my first amendment rights if that law is in conflict with my own religious beliefs.

 

I think we need to consider why we have laws. I see the purpose of laws as providing a benefit to society. Why do we have laws against murder? Because they benefit society. The other purpose of a law is to prevent you from violating the rights of someone else (which is also a benefit to society).

 

This is the main reason why I have a problem with any law that tries to regulate marriage. What benefit does it provide to society, other than to satisfy the morality of certain religions? Whose rights does such a law prevent from being violated?

 

I agree with whoever said that the best way to solve the abortion controversy is to define when life starts, but I'm not sure that can be accomplished without then starting another controversy.

 

For those who believe that life begins at conception, what is the basis of that belief? (This is a serious question, I'm not trying to be judgemental) Is there some verse in the Bible that has been interpreted to support this belief? I have seen many Christians cite the Bible to support the belief that abortion is a sin because it is murder, but have not seen any citation that explicitly says that conception is the start of a human life. What is present once the two gametes have joined that wasn't there before they joined?

 

Beavah, you may believe that Christian principles eventualy ended slavery, but it was also Christian principles (completel with supporting Bible verses) that defended slavery for a century after a bunch of non-Christian deists tried to get it abolished in the Declaration of Independence. Not to mention a non-Christian president (at least according to his own wife) who proclaimed their emancipation.

[DanKroh]

OGE,

 

Islam considers homosexuality a crime, and in Muslim countries, is often punished with death by stoning, hanging, or beating.

 

Edited to add: However, keep in mind that in those same countries, a woman leaving her home without being covered head to toe might face the same punishment....(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[OldGreyEagle]

So in Muslim Countries where women are allowed to walk the streets with faces visible, Homosexuality is accpeted?

 

I beleive that life begins at conception. I don't base it on scripture but on this thought process.

 

The sperm and the egg are single cells and without each other they have a short exisitence. The sperm will die and the egg aborbed in the uterine lining. But, once they unit, they start to change. That mass which was 2 cells starts to duplicate and then develop specialized cells. This mass of tissue has the potential of developing into a human being. Any artificially induced process that disrupts this process is termination of life.

 

Many pregnacies are naturally terminated, the "Spontaneous Abortion", it happens. But in all the times I ever heard about a woman "miscarrying", the phrase "she lost the baby" is always heard, never, "oh well, a bunch of tissue that might have been a baby gave her a problem." Pro-Choice advocates say that a woman has a right to determine what happens to her body. That potential human, that mass of cells trying to develop into a person will someday become separate and apart from the woman, it is no longer her body, its his/her own.

 

Women seeking to have an abortion talk about not wanting to have this baby, they say they dont want to raise the baby, they arent ready to care for another human. They never say, or I havent heard them say that I want to remove this mass of tissue before it becomes a human.

[GernBlansten]

OGE, how does Islamic Law deal with homosexuality? Well, you make my case on how we should tread very, very carefully when passing laws based on majority religious values.

 

My own solution to the whole gay marriage issue is to remove the word marriage from the government lexicon. Call it a civil union where two adults can enter a contract to secure the legal benefits and responsibilities that marriage currently grants. Then relegate marriage to the churches. The church can marry who they like and reject those who they don't. Marriage in itself would provide no better or worse treatment in the government viewpoint. It would be a two step process, get your civil union contract accepted by the government, then if you wish, have the union blessed by the church through marriage.

[Beavah]

While I will agree that America is now and always has been a majority Christian nation, I reject the thought that our laws are driven by exclusive Christian values.

 

Ah, Gern. I don't think I said "exclusive." As others have pointed out, the ideas that have gone into our laws have also come from English common law, and native tribes, and freemasons, and immigrants who brought notions from their native lands, and on and on. My point was only that if you support democracy in a majority Christian nation, you will get laws that reflect that Christian sensibility.

 

I do believe that codifying Christian morality into law violates my first amendment rights if that law is in conflict with my own religious beliefs.

 

Aye, there's the rub. Society cannot survive if any individual can freely "trump" the law and the community with personal belief. Prohibit murder? But I personally believe that I should kill old people who are in pain (Kevorkian), or young people who are permanently handicapped. You're infringing on my belief. Prohibit polygamy? But I'm an ex-Saudi prince who believes that I have a right to 20 wives to serve me at my whim. Prohibit theft? But I believe stealing from the other tribe/group/class is an act of righteousness. Prohibit pedophilia? But some individuals believe it to be a legitimate expression of mentoring love. Put red at the top of stoplights? But I'm Irish and I believe green should be at the top, it's part of my religious and cultural heritage and resistance to the "Orangemen" protestants in my native land.

 

Wherever you go in the world, the laws will reflect the cultural and religious views of the native community. In a democracy, they will reflect the beliefs of the majority. Get over it, or go baricade yourself in a cabin in the mountains and try not to be part of any community. But if you want the benefits of community, the laws of the community come as part of the package.

 

Beavah, you may believe that Christian principles eventualy ended slavery

 

Nah, it's not a question of belief. The historical record is pretty clear. It was Christians, acting on their faith, that ran the underground railroad and acted politically to end slavery. And sure, south'ners on da other side attempted to find biblical justification for slavery, because that was the only natural way to fight the notion of freedom in a Christian nation.

 

For those who believe that life begins at conception, what is the basis of that belief?

 

Science and genetics. From that point, provide food, shelter, and oxygen, and the organism takes care of itself. And there's no denying it's human.

 

At very least, I think dat almost all of us would agree that the start of human life is no later than the presence of a heartbeat and/or neural function (the absence of which generally defines death in most states)... generally the 5th week.

 

I confess that defining who is alive/human/worthy of protecting strikes me as more than a little bit repugnant. Too many atrocities have been committed in history by trying to change the definition to exclude people from "humanity."

 

[DanKroh]

OGE says:"Women seeking to have an abortion talk about not wanting to have this baby, they say they dont want to raise the baby, they arent ready to care for another human. They never say, or I havent heard them say that I want to remove this mass of tissue before it becomes a human."

 

My take on that is that women speak in terms of a baby because that is what will happen if they do nothing, not so much because they think of what is inside of them currently as a baby.

 

So, from OGE's answer, it is the potential that determines the start of life. Ok, that's an interesting position. So does that mean that we should also outlaw IVF, because the procedure produces embryoes that have that potential to life that will then be destroyed (or left to sit in a freezer until they are no longer viable)?

 

But are there any actual words in the Bible that speak against abortion (explicitly, the termination of a pregnancy, not just "murder") or that define the start of human life?

 

Personally, I'd like to see us spend the time and energy used fighting the abortion fight to instead find practical ways to reduce the situations in which women seek abortions. Better and more available sex education. Better and more available birth control (including sterilization). Better support for women (and men) who decide to bring an unplanned pregnancy to term and either keep the child or put it up for adoption.

 

I see a lot of practical problems arising out of forcing women to have a baby, some of which didn't exist pre-Roe. DNA/paternity testing being a big factor. A lot of men are going to be forced to pony up and take responsilibity, who might not have before DNA testing became so reliable. When transportation to a state where abortion is legal is more available, will women be prosecuted in their home state for having an abortion out of state? What about women who lose a pregnancy because of self-neglect? What about women who lose a pregnancy at all; will they have to go to court to prove that it was "natural"?

 

I think if you want to support banning abortions, you should have answers to the entire can of worms that trying to enforce such a law is going to open.

[GernBlansten]

OGE, on the topic of miscarriages, how many funerals are held for prenatal miscarriages? Sure, families who want the child grieve, but never have I heard of a funeral held for a miscarriage. Never seen a headstone in a cemetary either for the prenatal. Perhaps in some independant churches churches they do but not any of the mainstream ones. So from that, do churches view the prenatal as full humans with souls?

[DanKroh]

Beavah says: "Science and genetics. From that point, provide food, shelter, and oxygen, and the organism takes care of itself. And there's no denying it's human."

 

So by your definition, a tumor is a human life (not your intention but that's how it reads). It comes from a human, it takes in nutrients and oxygen, and takes up space (shelter) in a human body. Why is a day-old zygote deserving of respect, but we remove and discard tumors (even benign ones, so can't use the life-threatening argument). What is it that makes the zygote different? Yes, it is alive, but so are many other things that we do not protect.

 

You then go on say it's the presence of a heartbeat or neural activity. But that's not conception. So abortions would be ok if they are performed in the first 5 weeks?

 

[DanKroh]

Gern asks: "...on the topic of miscarriages, how many funerals are held for prenatal miscarriages? Sure, families who want the child grieve, but never have I heard of a funeral held for a miscarriage. Never seen a headstone in a cemetary either for the prenatal."

 

I have. From a sad personal experience, I have known people who have had funerals for a miscarried baby, but in this case, it was after a late miscarriage (mid-second trimester) when the fetus is actually delivered, but not viable outside the mother.

 

Interestingly, at least in MA, "death certificates" are issued in the case of "miscarriages" if the pregnancy is further along than 20 weeks. At that point, it is counted as a "preterm birth" and not a "miscarriage".

 

Not sure about other states. Just know from my personal experience in MA.

[OldGreyEagle]

A tumor does not have the potential to develop into a human being, fetilized tissue does

[OldGreyEagle]

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[DanKroh]

OGE, not it doesn't, that's why I didn't say that it fit your definition. But Beavah's definition didn't include that criteria.

 

But what about those embryoes left over after IVF, OGE? Where do they fit in?

 

Gern also brings up some other practical issues, if you want to protect the life/rights of a fetus, how far do you go? Do they get life insurance? Are they entitled to citizenship; if life begins at conception, then your country of citizenship should be where you were conceived, not where you were born, right? Obviously anyone causing harm to the fetus would be culpable for prosecution, but you might find a sticky situation in proving that someone actualy caused harm to a fetus.