Mandate For Liberty - Why Christian Fundamentalists Are Good For Your Freedom
- Thread starter MicroBalrog
- Start date
I would submit that it was that absolute faith that brought us out of those times of ignorance, cruelty and disease and brought us the fruits of being able to cure those nasty diseases etc. It was this faith that tamed the marauding Vikings, tamed the pagan savage Celts, influenced such thinkers as Leonardo DeVinci, influenced explorers such as Christopher Columbus, etc.
This faith gave us brilliant men like our Founding Fathers who were inspired by such thinking to write the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence to encourage us to be fruitful and protect our liberty to do so.
As a Christian, I will say that while Falwell and "The Christian Right" in general have their problems (Sucking up to the neoconservative Republican Party, looking too much to a corrupt government to fix problems and not to changing the hearts and minds of the people at the local level as our Founding Fathers and their like did), but being enemies to freedom is not one of them. Remember, it was the athiest and the Supreme court (federal government) who took the freedom to pray out of local schools, it was not Falwell or their contemporaries then that forced anyone to believe in the Triune God that they prayed to or otherwise lose their head. It is the supreme court that has tyrannically stated in case after case that you and yours cannot pray publicly at a football game, or in a classroom, or at any other event outside that space between your ears.
Well, there is room to debate these particular issues, but the bottom line of it is that you cannot have a truly free society without a moral base. That is a basis in absolute truth. Living in a society and enjoying liberty in the sense that our Founding Fathers believed is not the same thing that the French Revolutionaries and their libertarian contemporaries (I don't mean to overgeneralize, there are libertarians who kind of agree with my reasoning) believed as in: "Freedom is whatever you want to do whenever you want to do it." True liberty is the freedom of you and your community to produce and enjoy the fruits of your or their labor. If we followed your rational then we shouldn't have laws against drunk driving. Nothing wrong with drinking per se, nothing wrong with driving per se, but if you put the two of them together then it puts the rights of others at risk.
For me, I am against public education. Yes it was okay back in the 1950s when it was controlled de facto on the more local level, but it is a joke now. We need home and private Schools (preferably, as God leads your heart, Christian schools). Public School education is superfical, politically correct, taking parenting out of the hands of parents and a waste of taxpayer dollars. I am amazed just how much things have changed since I was in public schools in the 1980s and 90s.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
No, the Renaissance was the catalyst that brought on modern science and medicine. The Church was adamantly anti-science, and used its power to suppress all the advances that didn't fall in line with Scripture as interpreted in the day, all the way from the Middle Ages into the modern age. The religious establishment opposed surgery, the dissection of cadavers to learn about the human body, the heliocentric theory of the universe, and even stuff such as anaesthesia during childbirth (because it was God's will that the woman feel pain during birth, as a punishment for Eve's transgression in the Garden of Eden.) All our modern scientific and medical advances have happened in spite of religion, and not because of it.
The Founding Fathers may have been religious (in fact, most of them were Deists rather than evangelical Christians), but they fact remains that they knew very well the dangers of mixing state power with religion, and they made sure that our Constitution and Bill of Rights was religiously neutral. One could easily argue that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are actually diametrically opposed to the Bible in their core concepts and ideas. (Where do you find freedom of religion in the Ten Commandments? What's the biblical inspiration for freedom of speech and the right to jury trial?) There is no biblical base for the Constitution because the two contradict each other in many important respects, and a lot of the concepts found in the Constitution are simply nowhere to be found in the Bible.
I dispute both of your unspoken assertions...that religion is the only possible source of morality, and that the Bible contains such a thing as "absolute truth". It's a hodgepodge of fables and moral lessons that can be used to support any viewpoint you want. It has been used to defend slavery, segregation, and miscegeny laws in the past, so it doesn't seem to be a very reliable moral guide, unless you want to contend that those concepts are inherently moral. Every generation has its holy men who know exactly what the Bible means (and what God wants us to do), and it's always exactly coincidental with their own goals, preferences and prejudices.
MidnightRambler
New member
And the Dark Ages showed us how well things worked out when we instead followed "God's" will.
Harley Quinn
Moderator
MicroBalrog
I assert my God given right and disagree with you. You are really out in right field and me, I like center.
The bigggest problem with some of your assertions is the lack of guns to keep them out of my life when they want all my stuff to further their agenda.
Sorry, no thanks. I will keep my rights as they are in America and be very happy to vote on the 6th of June in 06. HMMMM 06-06-06 we are in for a special day.
HQ
I assert my God given right and disagree with you. You are really out in right field and me, I like center.
The bigggest problem with some of your assertions is the lack of guns to keep them out of my life when they want all my stuff to further their agenda.
Sorry, no thanks. I will keep my rights as they are in America and be very happy to vote on the 6th of June in 06. HMMMM 06-06-06 we are in for a special day.
HQ
MicroBalrog
New member
I recommend you read Gertrude Himmelfarb's book, The Roads to Modernity: The British, French, and American Enlightenments
Religion did never play a purely negative role in the advancement of science and thought - think of Newton, Pascale, and so forth.
Please. Read any modern history textbook. In fact, I challenge you to find me a completely unbiased history textbook, politically. Wait... you can't. Because no such book exists.
The content, the very language of books and their sillabi are sources of bias. This is, again, the overt purpose of public educaiton - the promotion of values. Just ask any educator.
And that's the reason you give your children more than one book to read.
As you point out, there are no history books written that lack the biases of the author. So are you proposing reading no history at all? Of course not - when a clear bias is found you counter it with a different bias from a different book.
Schools don't necessarily have the time to do this with their history courses. But you can certainly supplement your kids reading, just with discussion, if you wish. However, even biased history contains the important facts and dates - the motivations of the characters is up for grabs.
I think you realize, though, that you chose the example of history because that is the worst subject to suffer from bias. But it is only one subject - are you taking kids out of schools due to half an hour of history, or are you afraid of the "values" being taught in geometry, physics and language arts? Are you afraid that if you children read Oscar Wilde they'll become gay? Will a discussion of the geologic age of the earth make them not believe in God?
As you point out, there are no history books written that lack the biases of the author. So are you proposing reading no history at all? Of course not - when a clear bias is found you counter it with a different bias from a different book.
Schools don't necessarily have the time to do this with their history courses. But you can certainly supplement your kids reading, just with discussion, if you wish. However, even biased history contains the important facts and dates - the motivations of the characters is up for grabs.
I think you realize, though, that you chose the example of history because that is the worst subject to suffer from bias. But it is only one subject - are you taking kids out of schools due to half an hour of history, or are you afraid of the "values" being taught in geometry, physics and language arts? Are you afraid that if you children read Oscar Wilde they'll become gay? Will a discussion of the geologic age of the earth make them not believe in God?
Bruno was burnt at the stake for theorizing that the Earth revolved around the sun. It was considered to be that much of a threat to church teachings.
Galileo was placed under house arrest, and almost executed for proving Bruno's theory.
Where's the positives in those actions?
Harley Quinn
Moderator
If you dwell in the past with religion
It is all pretty negative in my opinion. The fighting we are doing in the name of Christianity and Islam and Judaism is not much better in todays world.
Human nature I guess, sad when you think about it or read to much material, then you really understand, that it is just another control issue.
Those who choose not to believe, they are welcome to their views and I am welcome to mine, God bless America, if there is one.
HQ
It is all pretty negative in my opinion. The fighting we are doing in the name of Christianity and Islam and Judaism is not much better in todays world.
Human nature I guess, sad when you think about it or read to much material, then you really understand, that it is just another control issue.
Those who choose not to believe, they are welcome to their views and I am welcome to mine, God bless America, if there is one.
HQ
invention_45
New member
I'll try this again. It didn't seem to make it onto the board last time.
Imagine the arrogance. Using what was given to you to use. Or maybe it was given to you not to use, i.e., for no reason at all. That makes sense.
Is the world really in that big a mess? If it is, you'd think that God, who's supposed to be omnipotent, could make it otherwise. Or maybe he's not all that loving and chooses to let it be this way.
Looks like a logical mess to me.
Imagine the arrogance. Using what was given to you to use. Or maybe it was given to you not to use, i.e., for no reason at all. That makes sense.
Is the world really in that big a mess? If it is, you'd think that God, who's supposed to be omnipotent, could make it otherwise. Or maybe he's not all that loving and chooses to let it be this way.
Looks like a logical mess to me.
heathen
invention_45
New member
Forget my last post. It's a rehash of the previous one, which I somehow haven't been able to view for the last few days. Wha'happened?
Does being moral means one has to be religious also? An atheist can be a moral man. I know folks who claim to be Christians who are not what I would classify as moral folks. wearing a label has nothing to do with morality.
Morality is conformity to a set of rules, laws and beliefs. Your religious beliefs define what they consider to be moral or right for you and other members of your church. They do not define morality as a whole for all of society or the laws of the land that define the standards for right behavior.
Morality is conformity to a set of rules, laws and beliefs. Your religious beliefs define what they consider to be moral or right for you and other members of your church. They do not define morality as a whole for all of society or the laws of the land that define the standards for right behavior.
invention_45
New member
They actually didn't do any such thing. They simply stopped the ability of a school to require praying.
Only because they can no longer get away with it.
THey never "required" anyone to pray. Praying is something you either do or don't do. Teachers, or principles over the intercom or coaches at football games would say "let's open up the day/game/class with a word of prayer." People who understood what this mean't would bow their heads and participate. Nobody ever said "bow your head or you are in trouble." It wasn't something you ordered someone to do, it was just something you did or didn't do. Period. This is the way it is even in church services. Nobody is in there with one eye cracked open looking to come down on the one guy who is not praying with everyone. The Supreme court came along and said everyone else can't do that anymore because it might "offend" someone.
............
Only because you are looking at it from human terms. That is the limit of yours and our understanding. God is infinite. He sees far more than we do. It is a hard concept to wrap your mind around because we are only human.
This thread is going to get canned soon if it is not turned to something gun related, so I will try to steer it in that direction.
Most everyone in this forum agrees that we have the right to keep and bear arms. We should be able to carry, own or use a gun as we see fit short of intentionally or neglegently violating someone elses' right to life.
We agree that there is a right to life and a right to keep and bear arms to protect and defend that right.
These concepts are echoed throughout the Bible. The old testament laws indicate a right to life and a right to self defense of self and home.
With this in mind, our own Constitution and indeed Old British and other Western laws (and even some nations outside of the Christian West (most notably ancient Roman Republic) have laws that protect the community and individual from the oppression by the state. Indicating that there is a law higher than the law of the state. That the state, made up of imperfect sinful men, is something not to be trusted and must be restrained just as man must be restrained with laws against theft and murder and such. The right to keep and bear arms is just one of them.
Now, since we all agree that we have these rights, but clearly not all of us agree that there is an absolute authority (the Bible) or even that their is a God who makes his authority known then why then do you believe that we have a right to keep and bear arms? Or for that matter, why do you think you have any rights at all beyond what man (the government) gives you? If this is the case, then you don't really have any rights at all, all you have are privileges that the government (man) can give you take away as they see fit whether it is Geo. W. Bush, Adolf Hitler, LBJ or Emperor Nero. If you believe this, then there is really nothing more to discuss in regard to the legal and political forum because you have to solid ground to stand on when saying "I have the right to own/carry a gun" or "the state of ________ or the Federal government better not come confiscate my gun."
Self-preservation is an instinct inherent to every animal on the planet. It can often be overshadowed by the instinct to protect ones' young - which can be considered an even larger instinct to preserve the species itself - but it's always there. That instinct seems to have naturally developed into our desire to use the best method available to act upon it. Some believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a divine gift. I believe it's just a human construct; we have the right because we are sentient and have chosen to have the right.
okay, I'm with you. But the question is WHY do we have that instinct that tells us that we have the right to self preservation and the preservation of our own. WHY is life instinctively precious to us? For example, why when you see an old woman slip and fall in the parking lot, why do you instinctively rush to help her. Animals don't do that....in fact, they might even rush over to finish off the unfit fellow animal for food
Doug, we are talking about school authorities (who are government employees) and children, who are informed repeatedly that they are supposed to obey teachers, coaches and principles. They don't say "or you are in trouble", but to say that it isn't implied or that children will understand that it is optional is pure fooey.
Whether it is optional or not is besides the point that when public servants suggest prayer in the work place they are taking the position of advocating their religious views on behalf of the state they represent. The point of seperation of church and state is that no citizen should have reason to believe that the government shows any favoritism in regards to faith and that they are never coerced into changing that faith in order to utilize public property.
One can certainly give students specific time to reflect, contemplate or even meditate without causing a conflict. But show me a prayer you'd advocate that doesn't involve the monotheist word "God", and therefore be a coercive affront to the parent of every Buddist, Hindu, atheist or whatever.
That's why the Supreme Court pulled the plug. They don't care what your kids believe or do - they just don't want government employees suggesting what is proper when it comes to faith.
What is your problem with that?
We most likely evolved that trait as every other creature has in order to preserve the continuation of the species. Why? Science doesn't attempt to answer 'why', only 'how'. I may instinctively rush to help that old woman but if she were to fall in New York City I'd probably be the only person that bothered to give her a second glance. Not everyone would do the same as you and I.
Many animals help each other out in such ways. Homo sapiens are animals, don't forget that.