|
|
Post by ladytera on Nov 4, 2008 2:29:26 GMT -5
This was a different article. Again, thought it was food for thought. I may need to redo the ending eventually. Love you thoughts on your perceptions on the topic as well!
The answer to this is a simple yes and no. That doesn't sound simple, so elaboration is probably in order. America was founded on the most basic and all encompassing Christian belief, and as such was spared the disaster that almost always comes with a national religion. When the founders of this nation came to this land, many of them crossed the seas in an effort to escape religious persecution. In England, you were not permitted to hold high government office unless you were a member of the Church of England, and the reigning monarch was also God's proxy here on earth. Those of you who fear what a theocracy could bring in this country, and probably anyone else reading this, can certainly imagine the abuses that this kind of situation could lead to. For years the Irish and Scots were persecuted on ground of religion. The Puritan's fled England because they were not allowed to worship in the way they were led. In Muslim held lands, since the beginning of the caliphates the people lived in forced religious servitude regardless of their own beliefs. In Spain, there had been (and still was) the Spanish Inquisition. I'm sure there were other examples, but you get the gist.
In their wisdom, and drawing on their experiences, and their own deep faith, the founders recognized that man's rights were gifted him by God, not by Government. And that to safeguard those liberties, they must found their country on the one guiding principle that separates Christianity from the rest of the major religions, freedom. Okay, I hear you out there crying what?!? Christian's believe in Christ, the Crucifixion, the resurrection. They think if you don't follow Christ you'll burn in hell. How does that translate to freedom?
If you read the Bible, and gain an understanding of the Old as well as the New Testaments, it becomes clear that the continuing theme throughout is that of free will. Adam and Eve were given free will and chose to break faith with God. Jonah was given free will, and chose to run from God. Noah was given free will, listened and was saved. Moses was given free will, listened and was able to lead his people to freedom. Lot was given free will, listened, but his wife did not, so one was saved and the other perished. In Jesus, we have the ultimate in free will. God sent his son to die for our sins so that we might choose to follow Him and be saved, but we are still allowed the choice. The thing is, nowhere in all of that does it say you can save someone by forcing them to do God's will. Nowhere does it say that coerced Christianity is desirable, or even possible. For it also says that God knows your heart and mind, and if you profess faith, but do not have it you cannot be saved. So the only way, in Christianity, to salvation is by each individual's choice. The Bible also states that God is over all governments. That they are His means to maintaining order here on Earth. But that they are made of men, who are corruptible, and thus flawed.
Our founders, knowing all of this, then set about designing a government to safeguard this freedom given by God. Whether by design or accident, they created the only Constitution of its time that fully embraced this foundational principle of Christianity. They proposed a government that had separate powers to allow for as many checks and balances as possible to keep the government honest. They enumerated the specific powers that were vested in the central government to keep it on task and limit its power over peoples lives. They specified within the main content of the constitution that there could be no religious test to run for office to make sure that all people were allowed to compete for a voice in how their country was run. They specified that the government would be of the people, so there could be no ruling class, royal, religious or otherwise. And then they went on to specify certain rights that were not to be tampered with by the central government for any reason. One of these rights that they put forth was the freedom of (note that is of, not from) religion. This was to safeguard each persons right to commune with their God without fear of government intervention or reprisals.
In Jefferson's famous "Separation of Church and State" letter, he was speaking not to the government, telling them to keep religious types out, but to men of faith who feared their right to worship would be stripped from them by a majority who held different views. Jefferson went on to assure them that the constitution had safeguards to keep this from happening. His conception of a Separation of Church and State was not the commonly held position of today that faith should be kept out of government dealing, but precisely the opposite. He made it clear to the Baptists he was communicating with that it did not matter if the government was primarily run by people of a different denomination, the Constitution was designed to keep government out of the Church.
In the end the founders came up with the only Christian government on the planet, which has also led to one of the only countries that has not ever, nor can it ever, have a national religion. Kind of amazing if you think about it. If you don't believe me, check out the Beatitudes in Matthew 5. While there are those who think that we are reviled by fanatics, hated by despots and despised by cowards around the world because we are arrogant, or interfering, or greedy, this is not the case. We are attacked not because we are bad, but because we are free, and freedom, by it's nature is righteous. We are attacked because we are merciful, because we are generous, because we shine like a beacon on a hill, and those with evil in their hearts fear that light. We are a nation of men and women, as such we have our shortcomings. But we have the closest thing to a perfect form of government as is likely to be found, because it was made in the image of God by men of faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Dec 1, 2008 17:58:02 GMT -5
Meh, I really don't think that the only reason that people hate us is for our freedom, because we "shine like a beacon". It's a bit unfair to assume that the only reason that anyone could hate our country is because of jealousy or fear of "light". Maybe you could elaborate more on that if I misunderstood you, but it sounded a bit like you called all the people who dislike our country evil (or have evil in their hearts).
As for the whole free will thing, you know how I stand on that. But I would also like to say, just because our government is based on free will does not mean that it succeeds only because it was made in the image of God by men of faith. That's how I see it anyway. Sure, the Bible could have been where the concept of free will first came from (I'm not sure if this is true, correct me on that if I'm wrong), but I would still make the conclusion that this government is successful because of the free will it allows, not because it is based on the teachings of Christianity.
ETA: Btw, when I said 'you' I was being an idiot. xD Ignore that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Dark Moon on Dec 1, 2008 20:51:08 GMT -5
^Nope, the Bible is highly derivative. Almost any religion that believes in an afterlife also believes in free will. Christianity isn't alone on this.
The article does have a point. This country is a Christian country, influenced by Christian beliefs, whether we like it or not. And I do like it because the Christian influence gives us Americans a sense of free will, justice, the Golden Rule, bleh bleh etc. Those are the principles that our government promises, and it delivers that promise by hearing the voices of the American people. Here in the U.S., it's the government that fears the people, not the other way around. This is good.
However, INFLUENCED is the key word. Was Christianity the foundation of our government? Who knows how many of our Founding Fathers were true Christians? Many historical figures just paraded around Christian facades to gain popularity. Also, America wasn't the first civilization to realize that references to a god - any god - are necessary to rally the faith of the people. Look how powerful the Chinese dynasties became with the so-called Mandate of Heaven. The Egyptians thought their pharaoh WAS a god. Any civilization can believe that its government is ordained by god... until it crashes and burns. The article says that the founders proposed a government of checks and balances. The last superpower that had this form of government was the Roman Empire, the almighty shining beacon that ended up imploding on itself. Go figure.
Finally, on the last point... sure we're shining beacons of light. Sometimes we shine too brightly and end up blinding the world, but hey... So yeah, I agree with keyodie on that point.
|
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Dec 2, 2008 15:59:10 GMT -5
Ah, okay. I was totally making that up, it was more of a 'if' thing. xD
|
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Dec 11, 2008 6:36:34 GMT -5
Meh, I really don't think that the only reason that people hate us is for our freedom, because we "shine like a beacon". It's a bit unfair to assume that the only reason that anyone could hate our country is because of jealousy or fear of "light". Maybe you could elaborate more on that if I misunderstood you, but it sounded a bit like you called all the people who dislike our country evil (or have evil in their hearts). Not dislike, hate and attack us, there's a bit of a difference. I wasn't trying to be fair, I was articulating a point of view. Can you name other reasons why we would be so reviled? One of the greatest things I've noticed in life is that people do not like to be reminded of their shortcomings. So, when they see someone doing well, rather than applaud and take it as an inspiration, they belittle that person and try to tear them down. It's not much different with nations. It would not have the free will it does without the teachings of the Christian faith that were adopted as part of its foundation. That was kind of the point. As to the Bible being where the original concept of free will came from, I don't know. Nope, you weren't.  I wrote this for Helium.com a while back. |
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Dec 11, 2008 6:50:12 GMT -5
^Nope, the Bible is highly derivative. Almost any religion that believes in an afterlife also believes in free will. Christianity isn't alone on this. Not sure what you mean by derivative. I don't think that's actually true though. Most other religions have requirements for the approval of their God's, and steps that must be taken to go to the right place after death. I'll stipulate here though that I don't know as much about other religions as I do about Christianity, and my impressions may be incorrect. I made that statement in the article based on several conversations with my Dad (who does know about other religions), and the things I've heard and read about other religions. Christianity is the only one I've found so far that takes the concept of free will equally to all individuals as the main thing in it's tenets. Totally agreed there. Actually, several of them were NOT Christians. Which was also part of the point. They understood the need for free will, including in religious activities, and therefore the need to limit the government in that area. Much of that understanding stemmed from the fact that some of them were not believers in the prevailing religion of the time. That's why while the founding documents refer to a Creator, they do not specify a God. The article doesn't say that our government was ordained by God. Nor was that my intent when I was writing it, although I think I know the bit that gave that impression. Our government was specifically set up to avoid being thought to be ordained by God. The people are sovereign and "ordained by god" to rule their own lives, the government is elected by the people. All governments eventually fall. Like I said, they are made up of people, and people are flawed. However, Rome was one of the largest and longest running, as well as having one of the broadest impacts on the Western world in history. They're government was a bit different than ours, in that it was actually imperialist, and that was eventually what led to its downfall. So, because the world is less than we are, we should make ourselves less than we are so as not to offend? That is self-defeating, and harmful not only to us, but to those who will lose the example of how to succeed for themselves. Just out of curiosity, how do we blind the world? |
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Dec 11, 2008 19:11:49 GMT -5
Not dislike, hate and attack us, there's a bit of a difference. I wasn't trying to be fair, I was articulating a point of view. Can you name other reasons why we would be so reviled? One of the greatest things I've noticed in life is that people do not like to be reminded of their shortcomings. So, when they see someone doing well, rather than applaud and take it as an inspiration, they belittle that person and try to tear them down. It's not much different with nations. So you really think that the only reason that anyone could hate the US is because of jealousy? And yeah, if you're talking about nations in general, I guess you're right to a degree. But to assume that people all around the world that hate us do so because of jealousy? Some reasons I can think of off the top of my head: Bush and the war in Iraq (that took place regardless of the lack of the UN's support), our country's arrogance and ignorance, and our failure to sign the Kyoto Protocol. I don't want to start a political debate, and I'm not saying that I agree with these views, but these are some of the reasons I've heard from people who dislike/hate the US. You can't assume that everyone hate us because we are so great. It comes off as very arrogant to me. www.vexen.co.uk/USA/hateamerica.html#ReasonsUnless by attack you mean literally attack, not just throw insults... But even then, they have their reasons. It would not have the free will it does without the teachings of the Christian faith that were adopted as part of its foundation. That was kind of the point. Can you explain that to me? Because from what I know, the whole idea of free will came from the fact that James I made it illegal to attend any church other than the Anglican Church, and that many people were upset because they did not agree with everything that was taught by that Church. Could it not just be the desire for freedom of religion (the whole reasons pilgrims came here in the first place) that resulted in the freedom here? Nope, you weren't. I wrote this for Helium.com a while back. Oh okay. xD I'll just pretend I knew that the whole time. |
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Dec 12, 2008 6:47:35 GMT -5
So you really think that the only reason that anyone could hate the US is because of jealousy? Ummm. In a word, yes. Well, perhaps ignorance too. Who do you think makes up nations? That would be the people. So, it kind of follows that the reasoning of one would stem from the reasoning of its components. Umm, I beg to differ here. We were hated well before that. The Iraq war didn't start until after some fanatical butt heads flew planes into civilian targets here on our soil. As to UN support, Russia blocked action, they've always hated us, and they were doing business with Iraq (in violation of the UN embargos). France blocked us, they've been pissed at us since we had to liberate them at the end of WWII, and they were doing business with Iraq (in violation of the UN embargos). Germany blocked us, they've been pissed at us since we kicked their butts in WWII, and then rebuilt their country. In their defense however, their President (or Prime minister, or whatever it is in Germany) at the time had just won an election based on the promise that he would not commit German troops to another foreign war. Had the UN agreed to the action in Iraq, Germany would have been required to commit troops, and therefore I can see the validity of their position. Honestly though, there was no need for UN approval. We are a sovereign nation, not beholden to the UN when it comes to our national security. We do not need their permission to go to war. Nor did we act "unilaterally" as the folks at the UN who were trying to stop us from toppling their pet dictator were screaming at the time. We had a coalition of nations that had something like 37 members at the time, including Britain, several Eastern European nations, Australia, Canada, and Japan. That's hardly acting against the wishes of the rest of the world. Our country is neither ignorant nor arrogant. If you insist on referring to us that way, please give me some examples. Many nations didn't sign the Kyoto Protocols and those that did are now regretting it as their economies are showing a steep decline as a result (even before our current turmoil sent them south) and there is little to no return. If you look at the papers out of England and Australia over the last year, you'll start to see the rumblings of folks who have been paying enormous taxes to fund the Kyoto Protocols, and are still being told that the world is going to end ten years later. One of the main Global Warming guys in Australia even admitted that the impact of man made global warming and our efforts to mitigate it are never going to result in any kind of meaningful impact. There are reasons we didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol, and reasons why we should never do so. I'll see if I can find details of all that later (this was almost a decade ago, so it's not fresh in my mind at the moment). Some of the countries that did not sign? China (one of the largest producers of "green house gases" on the planet), India (another of the largest producers), and Brazil. There were more, but those are the ones I remember off the top of my head. I moved this thread to the article discussion area so we could do just that if the feeling strikes.  So have you asked them why they think those things about us? Have they been able to give you a coherent reason? Conviction often sounds arrogant, it doesn't make it less true. I can assume that until someone gives me specific coherent reasons otherwise. Um, wow. Okay, this guy is entitled to his opinions. I don't have time at the moment to read through his entire rant. But essentially, what he seems to be saying is that because we don't bend over and grab our ankles every time the rest of the world doesn't like something about us they are justified in their hatred of us. It is not our job to make the rest of the world like us. It is our job to be the best country we are capable of being, and first and foremost to preserve the freedom of our citizens, which includes preserving our economy, preserving our military superiority, and preserving our competitive markets. All of those elements are essential to freedom, and to hate those things is to hate freedom. You can't separate them. It is also essential for our freedom that our government defend us from our enemies, that means blowing them off the planet if they refuse to stop attacking us. The commentary on Japan is interesting. They don't hold Hiroshima and Nagasaki against us. There is a reason for that. The hundreds of thousands of lives lost during those two bombing pale in comparison to the millions who would have been lost if the war had continued. War is always ugly, which is why we go to great lengths to stop them before they get started and finish them as quickly as possible. How can you say that with a straight face? You mean you honestly believe that 19 men flying planes into a civilian facility and killing 3000 people was justifiable by any standard of reason? No. Free will came from the Bible. The idea that the choices in our lives were ours to make without God's interference. Now, if you believe that God is the be all and end all in power, then you'd have to figure that he meant us to live lives where we were free from the interference of lesser beings (i.e. other humans) in our choices as well. Many of the pilgrims did come here seeking religious freedom, but that was not what prompted the emphasis in the founding documents. Notice the famous line of the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." It goes on to list the ways in which the British King had violated those, and other rights of the colonies as grounds for their dissolution of the ties with the empire. But what it basically says is that our Creator first gave us Life (without which the rest would be kind of useless), Liberty (freedom, without which the rest would be impossible), and then the Pursuit of Happiness (not Happiness, but the right to pursue it, for which you need freedom). That concept was the foundational idea behind the government that the Constitution eventually outlined, and it is drawn straight from the premise of the Christian belief that God gave us life, and the freedom to do what we choose with it. Ergo, we were founded on the basic tenet of Christianity, which included the idea that you couldn't force someone to be a Christian. We'll go with that.  |
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Dec 12, 2008 8:11:23 GMT -5
Like I said. I have no interest whatsoever in a political debate. My only point in that paragraph was that jealousy is not the only reason. Unfortunately, the reasons that I stated are what other people think of us. As for the arrogance/ignorance part, from the way some of the people of America act, it is very easy to get the impression that we are ignorant and arrogant and have little knowledge about the world outside of America. Granted, some of their criticisms are ignorant, but that doesn't mean they're jealous. Again, that was my only point there.
As for the website, yes, he does have his opinions. Just like you. But what he's saying is in no way a rant. He actually has a fairly neutral standpoint. He is listing the reasons of why people hate America, not the reasons why he hates America. Try scrolling up and reading the other pages.
And since when did the word reason have to mean good reasons? I was not saying that terrorists have a good reason for attacking us, was I? I would never say that. I said they have their reasons, that is much different. They think we're immoral and they've been taught all of their lives that America is evil. That is their reasoning.
And thanks for the explanation on free will/the Bible.
|
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Dec 12, 2008 16:10:06 GMT -5
Now how are we supposed to get the debate boards going again if you're not interested in debate? You're the most talkative person on the board!?!?! You're welcome. On the Bible/Free Will issue, I have to say my explanation is a bit over simplified (I still stand by it), and if you want to talk about all the various reasons for the Revolution, there were a multitude of them, probably including the one you mentioned about James I (although I think that as earlier?). There were also a lot of other Christian influences, besides the idea of free will. That's why you see so may religious symbols in the capitol, and especially in courts around the country. It gets a little frustrating when people talk about that being a violation of the Establishment Clause. Those displays are more like historical markers, denoting where many of our most basic laws came from. Even though not all the founders were Christian, they all saw the value of the laws laid out in the 10 commandments, and those were adopted as the laws of the land. Not everything in the Bible, and not only from the Bible, but it's silly to deny it now out of some PC baloney. |
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Dec 12, 2008 21:23:05 GMT -5
Ahhh I see. And yeah, I agree with you about that. Do you believe the same about the Pledge of Allegiance though? If you do, that could be something to talk about.
And haha sorry, but I've never been good at debating politics. I don't know much about it at all, so all of my arguments would end up being lame.
|
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Dec 12, 2008 23:50:52 GMT -5
What about the pledge? The Under God part? That was added many years after the original pledge was adopted, and was again not meant to denote the Christian God specifically, simply a God that was above the country and looking out for it. Personally, I don't have much objection to people skipping that part, or just standing respectfully for the pledge if it bugs them that much, but I do have a problem with being told I can't say it that way, or can't teach it to my kids that way. Or that the schools can't teach it that way. It's been that way for more than half a century now. Just because it's become en vogue to object to religion these days doesn't mean we should submit to the tyranny of a small minority of people trying to silence every one else on the grounds that they are offended by a word. Now, if someone were to start making laws that you can't run for office, or hold a government job, unless you are a Christian, (or a Muslim, or a Jew, or an Atheist), then there would be Establishment Issues. This other crap is just something for people to complain about so they will ignore the real losses of liberty that many in government are trying to achieve. As to your debate skills, there are no lame arguments. Debate is a useful means of educating yourself in any topic. Most things in life are touched by politics one way or another, so it's good to not only understand what the issues are, but also what you believe and most importantly why you believe the things you do. Otherwise, you'll never be able to impact how your world works, and you'll never be able to sift truth from rhetorical BS. So, come argue with me sometime. If you don't want to support a position, or even if you don't have one, ask questions, and poke holes in the arguments others respond with. The more you do it, the more you'll learn, and the better informed and able to express yourself you'll be. |
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Dec 13, 2008 2:47:40 GMT -5
I moved our discussion of the pledge to the designated thread, hope that's alright with you. As to your debate skills, there are no lame arguments. Debate is a useful means of educating yourself in any topic. Most things in life are touched by politics one way or another, so it's good to not only understand what the issues are, but also what you believe and most importantly why you believe the things you do. Otherwise, you'll never be able to impact how your world works, and you'll never be able to sift truth from rhetorical BS. So, come argue with me sometime. If you don't want to support a position, or even if you don't have one, ask questions, and poke holes in the arguments others respond with. The more you do it, the more you'll learn, and the better informed and able to express yourself you'll be. Haha yeah, I suppose you're right. But from all of the political debates I have seen, there is always and I mean always a counter-argument for everything. I would not have the patience or the knowledge to keep a political debate going for that long. I would be interested in participating in political discussions though. And I will ask you questions when I have them. |
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Dec 13, 2008 3:43:56 GMT -5
I moved our discussion of the pledge to the designated thread, hope that's alright with you. Absolutely! I responded to a bit of that over there, but I've gotta do some other stuff before I get back to that. LMAO. Of course there's always a counter argument. They are pretty much eternal questions, from eternally opposed view points. Sadly, I have listened to enough over the years that I could argue both sides of an issue, and sound perfectly lucid from either view point. That actually makes it easier to debate, but it also makes me long winded. I'll look forward to any questions you got, in either debates or discussions (they really the same thing for the most part, it's just how you approach it). Catch you later. |
|
|
|
Post by Lady Dark Moon on Dec 29, 2008 19:08:44 GMT -5
Not dislike, hate and attack us, there's a bit of a difference. I wasn't trying to be fair, I was articulating a point of view. Can you name other reasons why we would be so reviled? One of the greatest things I've noticed in life is that people do not like to be reminded of their shortcomings. So, when they see someone doing well, rather than applaud and take it as an inspiration, they belittle that person and try to tear them down. It's not much different with nations. Same with keyodie... I'm not too great on history and politics, but what about our screwing around with other countries? For decades we've been overthrowing politicians in the Middle East. Even now, we're poking around in the new Iraqi government, trying to protect our own interests. We're probably the biggest player in world affairs, and if the other players don't like what we're doing, they'll try to tear us down. We say we're trying to free oppressed people, etc. etc., and we may have good reasons for doing so, but the point is that being the most powerful nation in the world AND interfering with other nations will piss people off. It would not have the free will it does without the teachings of the Christian faith that were adopted as part of its foundation. That was kind of the point. As to the Bible being where the original concept of free will came from, I don't know. What about England? For a long time the law forced everyone into membership to the Anglican Church, so the government certainly embraced Christianity. However, with its long history of absolute monarchies, it certainly didn't embrace free will. The pilgrims came to America to escape religious persecution, so their idea of free will came from years of oppression. Not sure what you mean by derivative. I don't think that's actually true though. Most other religions have requirements for the approval of their God's, and steps that must be taken to go to the right place after death. I'll stipulate here though that I don't know as much about other religions as I do about Christianity, and my impressions may be incorrect. I made that statement in the article based on several conversations with my Dad (who does know about other religions), and the things I've heard and read about other religions. Christianity is the only one I've found so far that takes the concept of free will equally to all individuals as the main thing in it's tenets. What I meant by derivative is that Bible stories are eerily similar to stories told by ancient civilizations thousands of years before the Old Testament was even written. Take Noah and the Flood, for instance. That could have been derived from the Sumerians. And doesn't almost any religion that believes in an afterlife also believe in free will, whether such is specified or not? It's your choice - heaven or hell. Obey the Creator, and you go to heaven. Disobey, and you go to hell. The entire heaven/hell concept is impossible to follow without belief in free will, so it certainly isn't a Christian concept. Actually, several of them were NOT Christians. Which was also part of the point. They understood the need for free will, including in religious activities, and therefore the need to limit the government in that area. Much of that understanding stemmed from the fact that some of them were not believers in the prevailing religion of the time. That's why while the founding documents refer to a Creator, they do not specify a God. Right. They studied the past, observed the power of the people, and decided that government and people must cooperate for a successful nation. How is Christianity a foundation for that? The article doesn't say that our government was ordained by God. Nor was that my intent when I was writing it, although I think I know the bit that gave that impression. Our government was specifically set up to avoid being thought to be ordained by God. The people are sovereign and "ordained by god" to rule their own lives, the government is elected by the people. Ah, okay. All governments eventually fall. Like I said, they are made up of people, and people are flawed. However, Rome was one of the largest and longest running, as well as having one of the broadest impacts on the Western world in history. They're government was a bit different than ours, in that it was actually imperialist, and that was eventually what led to its downfall. Right. But the checks and balances system was derived from the Romans and probably not influenced by Christianity. So, because the world is less than we are, we should make ourselves less than we are so as not to offend? That is self-defeating, and harmful not only to us, but to those who will lose the example of how to succeed for themselves. Just out of curiosity, how do we blind the world? As with all countries and people that gain great power, we tend to overreach our boundaries. There are ways to help less privileged people without interfering with foreign government. We shouldn't be arrogant is all. Because the world is less than we are? What are we, demigods? This attitude of superiority is precisely what, I think, will lead to our downfall. The fact that we're a world superpower isn't purely caused by our form of government. What about agriculture? Crop yields? Climate? Country size? Population size? Like you said, humans are flawed. Thus, government is flawed. We can still improve. We can still learn from other countries. My reference to "blinding the world" is precisely this mentality that we are OH EM GEE we are the greatest nation on earth and everything we do is awesome!!! |
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Dec 31, 2008 1:14:58 GMT -5
Same with keyodie... I'm not too great on history and politics, but what about our screwing around with other countries? For decades we've been overthrowing politicians in the Middle East. Even now, we're poking around in the new Iraqi government, trying to protect our own interests. We're probably the biggest player in world affairs, and if the other players don't like what we're doing, they'll try to tear us down. We say we're trying to free oppressed people, etc. etc., and we may have good reasons for doing so, but the point is that being the most powerful nation in the world AND interfering with other nations will piss people off. Name me a time, in the last 100 years, where we have interfered in the politics of other nations without the direct request of an allied nation or a threat against our security from that nation. We are within our rights to protect our national security, regardless of the feelings of other nations, just as they are within their rights to protect theirs. We are also within our rights to assist our allies when called upon to do so. Which was precisely my point. England is a nation with a national religion. Its monarchies were founded on the idea the the royal families were representatives of God on earth, kind of like the Egyptian pharaohs, which is actually not a tenet of Christianity, and led to massive abuses of power throughout Europe over the years. At our founding, free will, particularly in religion, was established as a requirement of a free people. As I said, I'm not as familiar with other religions and their legends. I do know you are correct that the story of the flood is told in many religions, which is one of the reasons it is believed to have actually happened. However, I'm not sure how far back Sumerian history goes, as far as I can tell from the recent Humanities reading I've been doing, their history does not predate that of the Bible, as the Old Testament goes back before 6,000 BCE. Yes, and no. Most other religions have a defining concept of fate or predestiny that robs people of their free will. You see that most prominently in the pre-Christian polytheistic religions, (Greek, Roman, etc.). Even Judaeism, and I'm fairly sure in Islam, there are all sorts of rites and rituals that must be performed in order to pass into Heaven, that are not a requirement in Christianity. No. The people must not cooperate with the government for a successful nation. That merely leads to tyranny. They determined that the people must be in charge of the government, and they also observed (though not in the constitution, but in the Federalist Papers) that a Representative Republic could only work in a nation populated by people who believed strongly in a religion such as Christianity. It is the only type of society that gives the people a foundation of morals, compassion, and understanding that keeps it from falling into corruption, decay and apathy. Is that confusion or agreement? Rome was influenced by Christianity to a great degree, as it was the predominant religion at the time of its fall. However, I don't think I said that the checks and balances derived from Christianity, although, you might be able to make some weird, twisted correlation between the three branches of government and the Trinity, but I really hadn't given it much thought, and in all honesty, don't think that's where it came from. The truth is, there are a lot of influences on the eventual details of our government. Some of the structure came from Roman influence, many of the laws were British influence, some of it is uniquely ours. What came about in the end was an entirely unique government and country. No, actually, we can't. The fact is that most less privileged people as you call them are less privileged because their governments are poorly run, oppressive tyrannies. We are called upon to fix it for them, by them, by the world communities, by our own people. To do so, we have to fix their governments, otherwise, we are simply putting money into the hands of dictators who will use it to further oppress the people we are trying to help. Yes, actually, it is. And no, we are not demigods. We are the sole remaining superpower. We have a form of government, and an economic structure that far outstrips that of any other nation on the planet, now or in the past. So, yes, the world is at the moment less. Those that are catching up are doing so by adopting similar forms of government and economic policies. This isn't an attitude of superiority as you call it. It is simply a statement of fact as things now stand. Okay, take a look at China and the old Soviet Union. They have about as much land mass as we do, possibly more. They have similar climates through most of their countries, similar amounts of available farm land. China far outstrips us in population. They both had plentiful natural resources as well. And yet, the Soviet Union fell, and is still trying to grasp its old glory by running roughshod over its neighbors and the international community. China is still for the most part a third world nation, except in the areas where capitalism has been allowed to take root. There is a constant concern for the communist government that the populace will revolt, and so any dissent is crushed swiftly and painfully. So, tell me again that it has nothing to do with our form of government. I never said we couldn't. But, these days, mostly what we learn from other countries is what not to do if we want to continue our prosperity. I also never said everything we do is awesome. But, this mentality of needing to apologize for our excellence and achievement is precisely the type of mentality that I was referring to that will bring about our downfall. |
|
|
|
Post by Lady Dark Moon on Dec 31, 2008 11:20:44 GMT -5
Name me a time, in the last 100 years, where we have interfered in the politics of other nations without the direct request of an allied nation or a threat against our security from that nation. We are within our rights to protect our national security, regardless of the feelings of other nations, just as they are within their rights to protect theirs. We are also within our rights to assist our allies when called upon to do so. Of course we're within our rights. But the point is that whatever our reasons for doing so, we have interfered and continue to interfere. Other nations don't like what we're doing, so they attack us. Jealousy isn't the only reason we're being attacked. What pragmatic politician challenges the world superpower merely out of jealousy? Okay stupid point. I just reread the article; forget what I said about England for now  But about the last point... wouldn't that only work under the assumption that the concept of free will comes from Christianity alone? What about the Roman Republic? It lasted for four centuries before Catholicism swept Rome. In fact the majority was pagan, if I'm not mistaken. The epic of Gilgamesh contains a flood story that predates the Old Testament. Almost everything in the Bible is derivative of earlier mythologies. Even the concept of the virgin birth originated from Egypt (Horus, whom some researchers compare to Jesus). Likewise, Christianity didn't invent the concept of free will. It simply adopted it. How do rituals rob followers of free will? You perform the rituals and go to heaven. You don't and go to hell. It's still individual choice, just with different requirements. Christianity requires belief in Jesus as savior to go to heaven. On the other point, Calvinism was a Christian movement that believed in predestination, so it seems like it depends on how you interpret the word of God. The way I interpret it, despite all this talk of free will one question keeps baffling me. If God is omniscient and sees into the hearts of men, wouldn't he be able to tell the Christians from the non-believers from the start? Surely he doesn't think that a child born and raised in a devout Jewish family would spontaneously convert to Christianity? Again, the Romans had a republic before the rise of Christianity. Heck, Athens had a true democracy during the age of polytheism. Haha I thought you were arguing that our government is ordained by God. Right, so our successes can't be attributed solely to Christianity. Sure, the Christian influence has been nice, but it isn't the foundation of our government. Belief in free will, for example, is required for all governments to function. If people break the law of their own "free will," they go to jail. Don't all governments function this way? Ours just gives individual citizens more rights because the pilgrims were escaping oppression of their rights in England. We have more rights, but how does that translate to having the only Christian government on the planet? Has it worked? Has our occupation in Iraq benefited poverty rates? I never said it has nothing to do with our form of government. Our government is great. But it doesn't PURELY have to do with our form of government. Our founders had the benefit of a fresh start. They learned from the rest of the world's mistakes and took care not to repeat them in this new, relatively isolated, geographically welcoming land. Government does play a part in it, but so do other factors. Notice how we're the third largest country in the world, below only Russia and China. And you're right - Russia and China both had/have governmental issues. But they hardly define the "rest of the world." The "rest of the world" may be smaller, less agriculturally productive, less geographically fortunate. You just sounded a bit arrogant is all. Can you elaborate please on this mentality? From what I've read, no one has apologized for anything thus far. Sure, the media pokes at our faults, but like I said, we're not perfect. |
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Jan 1, 2009 8:40:37 GMT -5
Of course we're within our rights. But the point is that whatever our reasons for doing so, we have interfered and continue to interfere. Other nations don't like what we're doing, so they attack us. Jealousy isn't the only reason we're being attacked. What pragmatic politician challenges the world superpower merely out of jealousy? Before I get into the answers, just let me say you are a blast to debate with. You have so much to say, and while I'll probably never agree with much of it, here or elsewhere, you make your points well. Point taken. Perhaps I need to go back and rework parts of the article, or do more research on other religions so I can argue the point some more. Again, point taken. I will state that the Christian Bible is unique in many respects from what I've known of other religions, including while I was studying, many moons ago, the Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Norse mythologies. The difference is in the means of salvation, and it's a little hard to explain. Other religions believe that grace comes from actions on the part of the believer. Christianity is based on the concept that grace comes from God and cannot be earned, because we are unable to meet the demands of purity that salvation requires. That was the central point of the life and crucifixion of Christ. Denominations are all about interpretation, which is why I have issues with organized religion while still being a firm Christian. As to that last bit, yeah, I'm pretty sure he does. I touched on this a bit in the Christianity thread. I don't know how exactly it is supposed to come about, but Revelations is pretty clear about the point that every knee will bow to him and call him God. It's clear about so little else (there so much imagery and metaphor), I gotta figure there's a reason that that point is clear. How? I don't know, because I'm not omniscient, and I kind of have the feeling that this is one of those things we're not meant to know while we're still here, or can't comprehend from the perspective of standing on this earth we call home. But, the Bible also said he is God the Father of all humans, not just the Jews or Christians. So, since I figure he knows what he's talking about, I figure he's got that part covered somehow. If you really want to confuse hell out of yourself, ask yourself this one. If He's omniscient, and knew all the misery we would cause him, in the beginning before he created the heavens and the Earth, why did he bother making us? True, but I'd like to point out that a republic and a democracy are two different things. |
|
