any "nice" conservatives out there?

[KSigkid]

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.

[MysticCat]

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.

[MysticCat]

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.

[KSigkid]

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.

[KSig RC]

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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

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.

[KSig RC]

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.

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).

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).

[Rudey]

Originally posted by KSig RC
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).

Given that each of the Great Awakenings is tied to such important changes, how can anyone deny the strength of the influence?

-Rudey

[madmax]

Originally Posted by non-greek newby

Hi Everyone,
I go to a pretty small school with a large liberal population. I find that many times the conservatives on this campus have been very unreceptive and plain nasty to anything that's liberal. I myself am probably somewhere in the middle, leaning towards the left. And I can say that I'm pretty tolerant of people, no matter what their political viewpoint. But, personally this is getting to be a little much. Has anyone experienced this at their schools? And are there any conservatives out there that can say they are not like this? Please help me believe you still exist.

We're all nice. Get a job.

[shinerbock]

Haha, I'd never read what this thread was actually about. That being said, try being a conservative on a liberal campus (or message board...) and you'll probably be labled a hate filled racist war monger who slaughters animals.

[Exquisite5]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Haha, I'd never read what this thread was actually about. That being said, try being a conservative on a liberal campus (or message board...) and you'll probably be labled a hate filled racist war monger who slaughters animals.

...and you're sure to be if you act like one.

[Rudey]

How is the government "creating" a right an action that small government would undertake? I've never quite understood this. And conservatives don't believe the government should simply finance highways and not have any other roles in the lives of its citizens. Those are those people that don't get elected but are proud of some lady who writes idiot books.

-Rudey

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Rudey

How is the government "creating" a right an action that small government would undertake? I've never quite understood this.

This is my entire point - shouldn't this be entirely a state issue?

And, by proxy, isn't that aspect of state's rights a hallmark of traditional conservatism?

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Exquisite5

...and you're sure to be if you act like one.

Yeah, I guess not liking rap music and being against affirmative action is doing just that...

[_Opi_]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

try being a conservative on a liberal campus (or message board...) and you'll probably be labled a hate filled racist war monger who slaughters animals.

Hey, there are worst things to be called than that.