Sunday open thread
Busy with family. Talk amongst yourselves.
Posted in: Uncategorized
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Dave Lucas » Say WHAT?
- Rachel Maddow Frank Schaeffer Spot the Hypocrisy
- Grand-Pianos.org
- GoPiano
- Grand-Pianos.org
- PianoTrade
- GoKlavierKlavierFan
- PianoMan
- PianoMan
- GoKlavierKlavierFan
- Ephedrine pills.
- Buy alprazolam.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Uncategorized
Riehl World View
» Bet: Ratings Fail - Oprah/Obama Christmas Special
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year planNewsBusters.org
» Oprah To Do Primetime Christmas Special With The ObamasRiehl World View
» Dowd: Dem Elites Displeased With Obama As Palin RisesStop The ACLU
» SEALs Charged With Assault for Arresting Top TerroristPundit & Pundette
» How much did that "tent" cost?
We shouldn’t be nation building in war zones. If we are not there to chase and kill the enemy, we should get out.
Gotta run. Catch your reply later.
On October 5th, 2009 at 3:35 pm, Roland said:
Actually, yes you do. You just believe that it can be tweaked to produce good results through…
You can not tweak a system that is inherently flawed by nature. Our system’s flaw is not lack of vouchers or the right standards.
Our system’s flaw is that it is run by government.
Blackstone:
One doesn’t need to include references to Fermat in every calculus paper they write. It doesn’t mean Fermat didn’t have a hand in the work.
As for the Declaration, it mentions a Creator. It doesn’t say Yahweh. It could just as easily be poetic or Spinoza’s god.
You’ve got to be kidding me. You are honestly telling me that this idea is unique to Christians? Please. Do I have to quote the Bible again where it endorses slavery?
Roland:
I think it’s kind of hard to seperate the two. The enemy thrives in places where not much of a nation is built. Furthermore, “the enemy” itself is a pretty nebulous entity that covers more than one nation. It’s a tough call.
Many Christians who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration as “proof.” The reason appears obvious: the document mentions God. However, the God in the Declaration does not describe Christianity’s God. It describes “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” This nature’s view of God agrees with deist philosophy but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.
More significantly, the Declaration does not represent the law of the land as it came before the Constitution. The Declaration aimed at announcing their separation from Great Britain and listed the various grievances with the “thirteen united States of America.” The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold, and we have more than thirteen states. Today, the Declaration represents an important historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our independent government. Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. Our presidents, judges and policemen must take an oath to uphold the Constitution, but never to the Declaration of Independence.
Of course the Declaration depicts a great political document, as it aimed at a future government upheld by citizens instead of a religious monarchy. It observed that all men “are created equal” meaning that we all come inborn with the abilities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” The Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity, nor does it imply anything about a Christian foundation.
Nature’s God? That sound’s an awful lot like something Spinoza might say. Hmmm…
Dammit Kingfish. You beat me to it.
Looking it over, it pretty clearly mentions a God who’s interested and involved in the affairs of man, and considers that an important philosophical idea. Now I’ll let you work out whether it’s more likely that this idea of theirs came from the Bible or from the pagan Greeks. Let me know what you come up with.
Nope, no goats here. Unless you can come up with some Greek or Roman philosophers who defended the dignity of the downtrodden the way Jesus did.
And slavery…man, don’t even go there.
Nature’s God more specifically a Diest viewpoint
“Appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions”. Deist viewpoint?
“With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence”. Deist viewpoint?
Blackstone:
See above. Kingfish dealt your argument a death blow. Also, as I said, “Nature’s God” is something Spinoza might have said. This is hardly Christian in nature.
This is not the point but here’s the New Testament:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206:1-2&version=NASB
…and Jesus in his words (according ot the Bible):
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012:47-48&version=NASB
…heck you asked for it. I never said these ideas about men being equal is exclusively Greco-Roman, but they certainly aren’t exclusively Christian.
Blackstone:
Hmm, clearly Hindu. No wait, Jewish. No wait, Muslim. Oh wait, Egyptian?
The most convincing evidence that our government did not ground itself upon Christianity comes from the very document that defines it– the United States Constitution.
If indeed our Framers had aimed to found a Christian republic, it would seem highly unlikely that they would have forgotten to leave out their Christian intentions in the Supreme law of the land. In fact, nowhere in the Constitution do we have a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment’s says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . .” and in Article VI, Section 3, “. . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802:
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”
Some Religious activists try to extricate the concept of separation between church and State by claiming that those words do not occur in the Constitution. Indeed they do not, but neither does it exactly say “freedom of religion,” yet the First Amendment implies both.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom:
“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”
James Madison, perhaps the greatest supporter for separation of church and State, and whom many refer to as the father of the Constitution, also held similar views which he expressed in his letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822:
“And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
Today, if ever our government needed proof that the separation of church and State works to ensure the freedom of religion, one only need to look at the plethora of Churches, temples, and shrines that exist in the cities and towns throughout the United States. Only a secular government, divorced from religion could possibly allow such tolerant diversity.
Blackstone:
You talk as if Christianity occured in a vacuum. It simply isn’t true. You can’t just go and claim the whole of Western society and thought as Christian just because many westerners are and were Christian.
I might as well claim gunpowder and chopsticks are exclusively Taoist or something.
That was a parable containing a metaphor to man’s relationship with God. Sure it accepted the existence of slavery, because that was the way things were back then. But it went farther than any philosophical movement at the time in treating slaves with dignity. There’s a reason why the earliest Christians included disproportiately large numbers of slaves. Some even served as deacons, because as the Bible notes, “there is neither slave nor free person” before God.
Exclusively? Try, not at all. That’s why I warned you not to go there when talking about slavery. History records no instance whatsoever of an ancient Greek or Roman declaring slavery to be wrong. It took Christian European civilization to finally wake up to that fact, and it was their Christian roots that ultimately led them to see the light on that.
One thing’s for certain: not pagan Greek.
Blackstone:
You don’t see how this is insane? The creator of the universe made flesh just accepted the way things were back then and instead of telling people to free all their slaves he just said to be nice to them. That’s absurd!
See my comments on chopsticks and gunpowder.
Is that so certain? It doesn’t specify they aren’t talking about Zeus. In any case, you are a bit behind. Kingfish once again beat your argument like it was a Christian slave.
I’m not getting into a theological debate with you. None of this does anything to help your contention that Greco-Roman philosophy had more to do (or really, anything to do) with the egalitarian philosophy behind our system of government than Christianity did.
I wasn’t aware that Zeus was ever considered the Creator.
Blackstone:
You will lose. The idea that Jesus was the perfect, loving, creator of the universe and still somehow failed to tell us that slavery is wrong is absolute nonsense. Either the Bible is wrong (and thus the basis of Christianity is flawed), Jesus was just a man, or he wasn’t so nice afterall.
To claim that it had no effect on Western thought and the founders is equally nonsensical. Do you honestly think Deism was not influenced by Democritus (for example)? Do you really think that Deism had nothing to do with ideas of separation of church and state? Are you telling me that a Representative Democracy was dreamed up by the founders who were ignorant of the systems of government the ancients had? If you are saying these things, then you really are quite ignorant.
…I almost forgot:
Yes, that’s a fair point. I forgot who it was in Greek myth. Kingfish? It doesn’t matter though. My point still stands, nothing in the Declaration is specifically Christian.
Zeus/Jove, killed his father.
The Hellenic Creator goddess was a titan, Gaia
Kingfish:
Thank you. OK, I might be back later. I got to go. See you guys.
On October 5th, 2009 at 4:38 pm,
Where did I say it had no effect? It’s you who’s trying to claim it had a greater effect, and you’ve come up with practically nothing to back that up.
No idea, but the quotes I mentioned from the Declaration of Independence are definitely not indications of Deist philosophy. You can’t rely on the protection of a God who no longer influences events.
Any more than “My kingdom is not of this world”?
Kingfish – You are holy and wise and greatly to be praised. May those who bless you be blessed, and may those who curse you have blown head gaskets. Or something.
Having fun with zero-tolerance again I see.
swede: Thank you, but I am at a loss..
Blackstone:
Practically nothing? Look at the whole of the Bible. It condones slavery and tyranny! Obviously, the ideas of democracy and freedom came from somewhere else. To try and then claim Christianity had a hand in all of this is like saying Taoism was responsible for gunpowder. Just because the culture that spawned a certain idea happens to be largely a certain religion doesn’t give that religion claim to that idea.
They don’t have to be. The ideas about various religions being unprovable and their claims being contrary to reason are part of the whole Deist (and atheist, and Pantheist, etc.) ideas. These philosophical musings were part of the Enlightenment thinking and an impetus for ideas like freedom of religion (for example). The Enlightenment, in turn, had it’s roots in the ancients. The Bible most certainly doesn’t espouse freedom of religion, heck it tells you there is only one true religion and everyone else is going to hell.
So what? Clearly, as I have quoted, the Bible supports tyranny and is not conducive to ideas of freedom of religion. All you are managing to do (if your quotes do what you claim) is show the Bible contradicts itself.
Kingfish:
Loss to what?
Swede:
IIRC, Kingfish claimed some kind of Deism. He’s more on my side of the fence than yours.
Yes, as zeroangel points out: The Old Testament is chock full of toleration of viewpoints different from Judaism.
/sarc
I consider myself a Diest for all that is worth.
Blackstone:
…one more thing to drive home this Taoism / gunpowder analogy. You are trying to pretend that Christianity evolved in a vacuum (as I said before). It most certainly didn’t. The Bible is full of all kinds of evil by today’s standards; slavery, tyranny, misogyny, and so forth. Where else did these other standards come from? Do you honestly think that only Christians would have been capable of working out the idea that slavery is wrong? That makes no sense.
Just as you can’t claim Christianity led to abolitionism, you also can’t claim that the spiritual, interpersonal, and philosophical tenets of Taoism made it so gunpowder could have been discovered. They have nothing to do with one another. In fact, as I said, the Bible clearly condones slavery and tyranny.
The religious principle of the Declaration establishing the justification for treason against the king was Deism, not Christianity. If you read what people actually say, you would know that I oppose theocracy and advocate seperation of church and state, as most knowledgeable Christians do. Saying a deist would be closer to atheism than Christianity is a little goofy, dontcha think?
As a Deist I question all organized religion based upon a “revealed” text, hidden from reason.
I believe in a Creator God. I find the writings of T. Paine and E. Allan quite helpful.
Swede:
No point about the Declaration is valid anyhow. It isn’t a founding document and has no legal power as Kingfish pointed out earlier.
Not in a practical sense. In a practical sense a Deist and atheist are more or less identical. The only point we differ on is the instant of Creation. From there on out it’s more or less the same. Kingfish isn’t an ID advocate and, as he said, questions
…just like me.
On October 5th, 2009 at 7:36 pm, zeroangel said:
Not a founding document?
On what date was our country founded?
What document was signed that day, to found our country?
The Declaration is not just “a” founding document,
it is “THE” founding document!
r4l, I said a prayer as soon as I read your post. Is this who you were talking about?
If so, praise be to God it appears that he will be OK!
ITTRP:
Go back and read Kingfish’s post’s:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/04/sunday-open-thread-14/comment-page-4/#comment-818053
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/04/sunday-open-thread-14/comment-page-4/#comment-818068
…then you will see what I mean. You can stop playing semantics games. The Declaration has no legal authority, and that is the point.
Then start saying God save the queen! Without it we are still British subjects. You can’t make your own constitution when you are still under the authority of another Government.
Swede:
Oh stop playing silly games. Kingfish’s point was well made. The Declaration has no legal authority and it’s mention of a Creator (natural, Deist, or otherwise) is a poor place to look to support the claim that our nation was founded upon Christianity.
In 1864, Benjamin Franklin Morris’ book Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States was first printed. It had been out of print for more than 100 years. If you can find an original copy, it’s only because you have looked in the deep recesses of university libraries where the volume is probably collecting dust on dimly lit library shelves. Organizations like the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have done their best to ignore the content of the massive compilation of original source material found in this book. If Americans ever become aware of the content assembled by the author, the arguments for a secular founding of America will turn to dust.
Reprinted for the first time in over 140 years in 2007, this book has already been through it’s seventh printing. Don’t miss out on the fantastic wealth of information this book has in store! Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States could very well be responsible for rediscovering the truth of America’s Christian foundation.
Yet, somehow the founders left it out of the Constitution! Gee, that’s a pretty significant oversight. It’s amazing how deluded you are ITTRP.
Geez zero. Why do you keep arguing with people even when they agree. The nation wasn’t based on Christianity. This is why you get so tedious. Accusing other people of semantics when that is your whole game. BTW if you think the constitution does not embrace Judeo-Christian values you are in lala land.
Nite all. Early flight.
swede:
Who is agreeing with me?
It absolutely does not which has been part of my point concerning the evil in the Bible and my gunpowder-Taoism analogy. You are the one that resides in lala land. Heck, you also think some lala land mumblings are valid science.
…and yet still no religious test for public office. Man, these guys are really bad at following through.
No conflict there, zero.
“select and prefer” refers to voters using their own judgement.
“no religious test” was to prevent the government from establishing religion, (not to prevent voters or office holders from endorsing religion).
ITTRP:
…and what happens at some future, hypothetical point when the religious landscape of the nation changes and Christians are no longer a majority? The fact that our founding documents are secular and we have no religious test for office will make short work of your idea that the founders wanted a “Christian” nation.
The answer is simple and obvious. The Muslims will dump the Constitution and replace it with sharia.
Roland:
LOL. Well I was thinking of the “none of the aboves” like you and I.
Yeah, things can change.
In the Bible, people are often referred to as grass in that they temporarily exist, as compared to God’s glory and power (See: Ps 37:2;103: 15; Isa 40:8; 51:12; James 1:10). In the end times, people with evil intent were foretold to grow in such great numbers that they would cover the ground like the vegetation or grass (See: Ps 92:7). Being somewhat religious, I take comfort in this biblical fact–it helps me keep my sanity.
Christianity tells us to be good.
The Asian philosophies and religions tell us more about how to be good.