» GC Stats |
Members: 329,770
Threads: 115,673
Posts: 2,205,413
|
Welcome to our newest member, zryanlittleoz92 |
|
 |
|

04-14-2005, 01:41 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Taking lessons at Cobra Kai Karate!
Posts: 14,928
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by moe.ron
If I use her definition on what constitution a nation being religious based nation, then Indonesia is. According to her, the US is a Christian nation. Then, Indonesia is an Islamic nation. However, if we go technical, neither the US is a Christian nation nor Indonesia. US is a secular nation that prohibit the estbalishment of religion by the government. For Indonesia, it's not entirely true. There is a ministry of religion. It is has little power and is more of a think tank. However, it is funded by the taxpayer. There is also a Shari'a court in some district. The Shari'a court can be over turned by the "regular court."
Back to the topic, Indonesia guarantees religious freedom according to its constitution.
|
What other Islamic nations offer freedom of religion moe.ron?
And while America was not created with Christianity as its official religion, it is a country that is steeped in Christian history. Quite a bit of the populace has selected leaders based on this. There have been 4 great awakenings (see Robert Fogel) that have controlled the fundamental structure of the state and the issues which are voted on. At the same time, it can be said that America is diverse in this age - especially since certain migration restrictions were lifted in the 1960s (see Diana Eck).
Hence the summary is:
1) America has a strong link to Christianity while Christianity is not the official religion.
2) There is a sense of tolerance that is coupled with the influx of immigrants in the last half of this century which led to diversification of religions
3) This sense of tolerance and freedom of religion is rare in Muslim countries and actually the opposite - a downright contempt for non-Muslim dhimis - has occured in most nations leading to repression (especially in the examples stated earlier of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran).
-Rudey
|

04-14-2005, 01:47 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Taking lessons at Cobra Kai Karate!
Posts: 14,928
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by KSig RC
This is true, but barely even tangential to the argument. The foundation of the US was certainly not steeped in the principles of Christianity, which is what we're trying to relay to Conniebama here.
The overwhelming majority of the US has been Christian since its inception, and no one's arguing the influence or power of that bloc - actually I immediately retract . . . I'm not arguing that. Others are, which is pretty wrong.
|
To totally put aside Christianity even as playing any role in the foundation of this country is ridiculous. Ethical and moral problems are driven mainly through technology and technology has allowed for a whole new set of issues in this day that conflict with the views (Christian or not) from centuries earlier. Very few people would argue that the founders of this nation would be fighting to keep abortion legal for example.
Christianity (and the flip side) have had a strong relationship to America since it's founding, now, and will in the future. The rise in religion really came in that First Great Awakening period. Christianity however, was not the "official" religion of the country in the past. Who knows if it will be in the future.
-Rudey
Last edited by Rudey; 04-14-2005 at 01:52 PM.
|

04-14-2005, 01:58 PM
|
 |
Super Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Counting my blessings!
Posts: 31,422
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by moe.ron
Malaysia
Although not technically an islamic nation, Indonesia guaranteed freedom of religion.
I would argue that Saudi Arabia is not an Islamic country. It is a monarchy.
I would even go further and say there is no Islamic country, if we mean that the entire judicial and government system is based on the Qur'an.
|
If Malaysia does offer freedom of religion, it's news to me. It's also news to my sorority sister, who was legally killed by her husband in Malaysia!!
__________________
~ *~"ADPi"~*~
♥Proud to be a Macon Magnolia ♥
"He who is not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
|

04-14-2005, 02:03 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,571
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by honeychile
If Malaysia does offer freedom of religion, it's news to me. It's also news to my sorority sister, who was legally killed by her husband in Malaysia!!
|
What does that have to do with the freedom to choose a religion?
Islam is the dominant religion there, but I have a friend who grew up there whose family is Buddhist, and I know Hinduism and Christianity are also practiced there.
|

04-14-2005, 02:05 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Taking lessons at Cobra Kai Karate!
Posts: 14,928
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by sugar and spice
What does that have to do with the freedom to choose a religion?
Islam is the dominant religion there, but I have a friend who grew up there whose family is Buddhist, and I know Hinduism and Christianity are also practiced there.
|
Those religions can be practiced in quite a few countries but the governments can still be repressive of those that don't practice the majority religion. There is not full freedom of religion.
-Rudey
|

04-14-2005, 02:10 PM
|
 |
Super Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Counting my blessings!
Posts: 31,422
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by sugar and spice
What does that have to do with the freedom to choose a religion?
Islam is the dominant religion there, but I have a friend who grew up there whose family is Buddhist, and I know Hinduism and Christianity are also practiced there.
|
Obviously, the very mention of "Malaysia" hits a hot button for me. I know that people can practice other religions, but there are also huge signs saying, "Muslims may not enter here" or "Christians not permitted here" etc. I'll be the first to say that I'm talking out of emotion, and probably out of turn. But I will go to my grave making sure that people don't forget my sister - the last letter I received from her was smuggled out of the country, and she begged me to tell people about Malaysia.
I'll shut up now.
__________________
~ *~"ADPi"~*~
♥Proud to be a Macon Magnolia ♥
"He who is not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
|

04-14-2005, 02:18 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Who you calling "boy"? The name's Hand Banana . . .
Posts: 6,984
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rudey
To totally put aside Christianity even as playing any role in the foundation of this country is ridiculous.
|
Again, that's not what I'm saying - I'm merely pointing out that its role was not primary compared to other interests. I'll be the last person to out the learning model of perception and application. However, the fact that a relatively large number of influencial framers had serious disagreements with the Christian churches of the time makes it difficult for me to assign more than a tertiary role (although I will not dispute that role's existence or influence).
|

04-14-2005, 02:23 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Taking lessons at Cobra Kai Karate!
Posts: 14,928
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by KSig RC
Again, that's not what I'm saying - I'm merely pointing out that its role was not primary compared to other interests. I'll be the last person to out the learning model of perception and application. However, the fact that a relatively large number of influencial framers had serious disagreements with the Christian churches of the time makes it difficult for me to assign more than a tertiary role (although I will not dispute that role's existence or influence).
|
And I am saying it did play a role and the issues of today were not around at the time of the framing of the constitution.
People can beat this all they want but what is the discussion about at this point? Does Connie disagree that the US did not have Christianity as its official religion? Do you and others disagree the character and policies of this country are STRONGLY influenced by Christianity?
What is the discussion about? To me it just seems like personal attacks, sometimes veiled, over and over without point. The truth of the matter is quite a few people are in this thread, on each and every side, knowing nothing about the topics of history nor religion.
-Rudey
|

04-14-2005, 03:06 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 9,328
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by KSig RC
Again, that's not what I'm saying - I'm merely pointing out that its role was not primary compared to other interests. I'll be the last person to out the learning model of perception and application. However, the fact that a relatively large number of influencial framers had serious disagreements with the Christian churches of the time makes it difficult for me to assign more than a tertiary role (although I will not dispute that role's existence or influence).
|
I'll go with this - it's much more of a middle ground than has been suggested.
Also, the Founders/Framers were very good politicians; after the experience with Great Britain, they weren't going to start alienating people on the basis of religion.
This has been a long-standing debate in history, so we're not going to answer it here on GC (not to say there aren't some smart people on this site). It makes for an interesting discussion though.
|

04-14-2005, 03:19 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2002
Location: A dark and very expensive forest
Posts: 12,731
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by KSig RC
I was referring mostly to federal law - obviously the 'rape and assault' portion moved from there, but regardless, a few random state laws created far after the framers does not a point disprove, no?
I'm assuming you're not arguing the central point, which was that the laws were based more on 'infringing upon others' than 'what the Bible says is wrong'.
|
Not arguing at all. I agree completely, with the caveat that the laws (and there were, I think, more than a few random ones) were, to some degree, pulled in from the English common law many states inherited and otherwise based on "infringing on others." As for federal law, laws of this kind are (or were until recently) typically state laws, not federal, unless some federal issue, like crossing state lines, was implicated.
__________________
AMONG MEN HARMONY
18▲98
|

04-14-2005, 03:27 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2002
Location: A dark and very expensive forest
Posts: 12,731
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by KSigkid
Also, the Founders/Framers were very good politicians; after the experience with Great Britain, they weren't going to start alienating people on the basis of religion.
|
At the risk of throwing a monkey wrench into this discussion, I'm not sure this is totally accurate. What they weren't going to start doing was getting the federal government involved in alienating people on the basis of religion. This was partially due to historical experience and partially due to the belief that any "establishment" question was for the states, not the federal government, to decide. Some states -- Massachusetts comes to mind, if my mind is working correctly -- had established churches well after the adoption of the First Amendment.
That Amendment, of course, only provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It wasn't until the passage of the 14th Amendment, after the Civil War, that the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses were made applicable to the states.
Just to muddy it up a little more.
__________________
AMONG MEN HARMONY
18▲98
|

04-14-2005, 03:58 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 9,328
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MysticCat81
At the risk of throwing a monkey wrench into this discussion, I'm not sure this is totally accurate. What they weren't going to start doing was getting the federal government involved in alienating people on the basis of religion.
|
Sorry, that is more what I was thinking. I just didn't express myself as well as I would have liked.
Collin
- I knew that history degree would come in handy some day.
Last edited by KSigkid; 04-14-2005 at 04:44 PM.
|

04-14-2005, 04:40 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Who you calling "boy"? The name's Hand Banana . . .
Posts: 6,984
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rudey
the issues of today were not around at the time of the framing of the constitution.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally posted by Rudey
People can beat this all they want but what is the discussion about at this point? Does Connie disagree that the US did not have Christianity as its official religion?
|
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.
Quote:
Originally posted by Rudey
Do you and others disagree the character and policies of this country are influenced by Christianity? (*subjective term removed by me*)
|
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.
|

04-14-2005, 04:56 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Taking lessons at Cobra Kai Karate!
Posts: 14,928
|
|
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.
|
Last edited by Rudey; 04-14-2005 at 05:37 PM.
|

04-14-2005, 05:32 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Who you calling "boy"? The name's Hand Banana . . .
Posts: 6,984
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rudey
It relates in that you can't look at one point in time and judge a nation by that one single point in time.
|
OK, fair point. No disagreement at all.
Quote:
Originally posted by Rudey
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?"
|
Wasn't assigning the hijack to you - just pointing out that we're in the middle of an intense hijack (which is immensely more interesting than the original topic).
Quote:
Originally posted by Rudey
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.
|
I won't disagree - influence is an acceptible term, but to quantify the influence in such a way as to take such drastic steps as Connie and others have seems harsh, and a bit quick on the trigger.
For myself to reach the conclusions she has, the influence would have to reach the levels I inquired about - which would, to my mind, seriously violate the vision that the nation was founded upon (to tie this into a hypothesis).
|
 |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|