It relates in that you can't look at one point in time and judge a nation by that one single point in time.
I do not support that our nation was based on biblical laws, but I strongly believe that the nation is forever tied to Christianity.
The First Great Awakening (1730) led to the American Revolution.
The Second Great Awakening (1800) led to that whole abolitionist and temperance thang.
The Third Great Awakening (1890) led to the welfare state.
The Fourth Great Awakening (Now) is a spiritual push.
Each of these are very broad but link America, religion, and Christianity strongly.
Also I'm not sure if I'm understanding you in that I'm hijacking the thread, but the topic of Christianity's link to America is somewhat of a hijack itself to "are there nice conservatives out there?"
As for law being written based on Christianity alone, no I don't think it should and has been, but it surely has influenced the law and our policies strongly.
Edited to add:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/256626.html
-Rudey
Quote:
Originally posted by KSig RC
This seems non sequitur, unless you can tie that in for me - I don't get how that relates to any sort of discussion on the influence of Christianity on the US in re: laws/founding/framers. (also this is a massive hijack by this point)
Even with specific issues (as you posited w/ abortion), I can't see how that influences discussion.
She claimed the US as a "Christian nation" and that our nation was framed after implicitly Christian principles. The implication came that the nation (and its laws, NOT state law) was based on "Biblical laws", an assertion that I can't imagine you would support.
Does this influence make the US a "Christian nation"?
Does this mean constitutional law should be based on Christian influence? How about common law?
Is this influence within the bounds of the ideals the nation was founded upon?
I'm not denying the influence, but in nothing I've ever read has led me to believe these questions can be answered in the positive (as has been implied by others, hence my only interest in the thread). I can begin to piece together an argument for the third, based upon a majority rule that does not preclude any particular minority, but relatively menial arguments re: secular government make the leap too far, for my mind.
Obviously my degree isn't in history, so feel free to give examples and I'll start the Hegelian dialectic in motion.
|