Church and State in the U.S.

[Xmo1]

The important thing to remember:
The ethics of a civilization are the binding agreements that people have among them. The U.S. has adopted the Christian (as the predominate religion of the day) model of an ethical life in its constitution. Regardless of what individuals believe that model must be held intact. The Constitution clearly defines and delineates the relevance of the Christian model in social action as it applies to law in the U.S.

Church, as an institution, and state can be separated in part in law, that is the doctrine, rituals, and so forth that comprise the religious social institution can remain separate, but the model of an ethical life contained in the Constitution, and derived from the Christian religion, cannot be separated from the law of the land in the case of the U.S. else the civilization fails without foundation by definition.

My view is that we may, in government and law, praise the ideals of the Christian model of an ethical life, and indeed erect symbols that reflect our shared ideals whether religious or governmental, as with the American flag. If people, especially lawyers, separate out the Christian model, then they are leaving the ethical model open to definition by things other than the Constitution of the United States, which is exactly what is happening in judicial findings regarding corporate personhood and power, and in other venues as a direct result of the misanthropic dialog that has been allowed to rise to the top of the society. Again, civilization without a clear ethical model fails by definition, and that model is written into the Constitution of the United States.

 

[spidergoat]

Incorrect. The US Constitution is not based in any way on Christianity. In fact, the United States could not exist in it's present form if it was based on Christianity, which does not allow lending money with interest, so... no capitalism.

 

[quadraphonics]

The U.S. has adopted the Christian (as the predominate religion of the day) model of an ethical life in its constitution.

What is this "Christian model of an ethical life," and where can I find it expressed in the Constitution? How does the "Christian model of an ethical life" differ from, say, the "Buddhist model of an ethical life" or the "atheist model of an ethical life?" Please provide specific references to the actual text of the Constitution where I can see this stuff expressed. Thanks.

 

[gmilam]

From the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - which received unanimous approval from the Senate...

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

 

[superstring01]

From the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - which received unanimous approval from the Senate...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

Well, yeah. There's that. Then there's--you know--the CONSTITUTION with the nifty 1st Amendment and all.

~String

 

[Telemachus Rex]

The important thing to remember:
The ethics of a civilization are the binding agreements that people have among them. The U.S. has adopted the Christian (as the predominate religion of the day) model of an ethical life in its constitution. Regardless of what individuals believe that model must be held intact. The Constitution clearly defines and delineates the revelence of the Christian model in social action as it applies to law in the U.S.

Church, as an institution, and state can be separated in part in law, that is the doctrine, rituals, and so forth that comprise the religious social institution can remain separate, but the model of an ethical life contained in the Constitution, and derived from the Christian religion, cannot be separated from the law of the land in the case of the U.S. else the civilization fails without foundation by definition.

My view is that we may, in government and law, praise the ideals of the Christian model of an ethical life, and indeed erect symbols that reflect our shared ideals whether religious or governmental, as with the American flag. If people, especially lawyers, separate out the Christian model, then they are leaving the ethical model open to definition by things other than the Constitution of the United States, which is exactly what is happening in judicial findings regarding corporate personhood and power, and in other venues as a direct result of the misanthropic dialog that has been allowed to rise to the top of the society. Again, civilization without a clear ethical model fails by definition, and that model is written into the Constitution of the United States.

What you have to remember is that the Christian model of ethical life was the *only* model of ethical life that the governments in western Europe were based on after about the 8th century or so. Despite that Christian purity, our ancestors fled those regimes to settle here. Partly, that was because the Christian model seemed at the time to include persecuting those who believe in different things, even if the one being persecuted maintains he's "Christian" too. It was also common to harass, torture and even kill Jews.

The Constitution is more of an Enlightenment Age document, that wanted in part to separate religion and government both because the State has a tendency to co-opt the machinery of religion for its own purposes, and because religion (co-opted or not) had an historical tendency to be aggressive and anti-social. The founders were very much concerned that too much religion leads to things like "burning Catholics" and "expelling Jews," which the founders viewed as a bad thing.

That said, the Constitution originally applied only to the federal government, and the founders stayed out of meddling with the State-level churches (which did exist). The States certainly favored Christianity expressly. As far back as the Puritans there were laws which made it a crime to teach any version of Christianity but theirs within their colony, and Quakers in particular were hard hit by that law. (They had all kinds of wacky laws, including laws that made it a crime to celebrate the birth of Jesus...Christmas.) Whereas the Constitution doesn't even mention God.

 

[spidergoat]

Right, they killed Jews, women, and cats. Too bad about the cats, that led almost directly to the plague.

 

[chimpkin]

The important thing to remember:
The U.S. has adopted the Christian (as the predominate religion of the day) model of an ethical life in its constitution.

You want to prove me wrong?

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Show me the text where it says Christianity is our official religion.

The first amendment specifies a secular government:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I would like to point out Christianity was popularly used to justify chattel slavery...when personally I can't think of anything much less loving to one's fellow man.
Admittedly, many of the abolitionists were motivated by Christian ideals too.

Nowadays people in my state would like to make making love to my wife a crime. I'm sure they think of themselves as good Christian people.

 

[wellwisher]

The Christian model, although not the basis for free enterprise, makes free enterprise more able to function. To function perfectly, free enterprise needs people to have enough self control and social concern so the system will not break down.

As a contrast, say you had a culture without ethics or morals. This will allow criminal and unethical liberties to be part of the free market system, causing it to break down. Thou shall not kill or steal sort of takes away unethical options. You will need to more skill and work on the fence, instead of over the fence.

Liberals are closer to atheism. They tend to like big government. This is because their morality is looser and would create extra chaos in an open society. They project and extrapolate through their own eyes, and see the need for more control over their flock to prevent chaos. Christians/conservative see the need for less government since they project social self control and morality that allows creative chaos.

I remember going to a college graduation and the speaker talked about this subject to graduating MBA's. He told a story about a Carribean country he visited. The person he spoke with maveled at the US, how they can be so competive yet so cooperative. He said in his country their form of capitalism was very corrupt. His conclusion was the connection to Christianity made the American family tighter, therefore able to compete very hard, yet all pull as a team.

 

[spidergoat]

Liberals favor more governmental regulation because we know the nature of humanity is towards profit and corruption. Theists like less regulation because they figure god will make those profit who deserve it and make evil people fail. Obviously liberals are correct.

 

[billvon]

As a contrast, say you had a culture without ethics or morals. This will allow criminal and unethical liberties to be part of the free market system, causing it to break down.

I don't understand.

You claim this culture works well based on Christian ethics and morals, yet it's clear that criminal and "unethical liberties" are a big part of our free market system. Examples abound (Enron, Standard Oil, Bernie Madoff, Ken Lay etc.) What stops them are not Christian ethics, but secular laws. Indeed, some of the most egregious criminals of our time - Ken Lay, Anders Breivik, Jeffrey Dahmer, Timothy McVeigh, David Berkowitz etc - were either Christians or raised Christian.

(Note that this does not mean that Christians are all criminals, of course - it just means that they can be as evil as anyone else.)

Thou shall not kill or steal sort of takes away unethical options.

Again, I don't understand. Over a million Americans are paid to serve in the armed forces; their job is to kill on command. It's probably a good thing that they don't believe in "thou shalt not kill."

Christians/conservative see the need for less government since they project social self control and morality that allows creative chaos.

So liberals are bad because they create chaos, and conservatives are good because they allow chaos to be created?

 

[Xmo1]

responses

Before I go to answering the responses, I want to remind myself of the difference between the Christian church as part of a social institution, its doctrines, activities, and rituals, from the ethics that it expouses.

To deny the upbringing (intellectual background) of the members of the Constitutional Convention is probably the first step in denying the viability of the Constitution itself, and that in my opinion has been the folly of lawyers through the last 200 years, saying that the 10 commandments are not written in stone, but as everything else are open to argument. I am not talking about the actual commandments, but of the arguments of religion in general, especially of the ethics which have been adopted by the civilization. If you denigrate the ethical base of a civilization, then you have taken a step towards its failure. That is my point. To say that Christianity was not the prevalent system of beliefs of the day is to say that you do not know history, or would disregard it for your own favor. Not uncommon as people in power will to stay in power.

So onward I go.

 

[Xmo1]

response to spidergoat

Incorrect. The US Constitution is not based in any way on Christianity. In fact, the United States could not exist in it's present form if it was based on Christianity, which does not allow lending money with interest, so... no capitalism.

No response. You missed the point entirely.

 

[Xmo1]

From the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - which received unanimous approval from the Senate...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

I am not interested in the litigation or interpretations of politicians regards foreign policy as they are for the most part self serving in territorial matters. My concern is the near total lack of ethical consideration in legal matters pertaining to the Constitution of the United States and the citizens of the United States. To secure these ethics is of utmost importance.

 

[Xmo1]

What is this "Christian model of an ethical life," and where can I find it expressed in the Constitution? How does the "Christian model of an ethical life" differ from, say, the "Buddhist model of an ethical life" or the "atheist model of an ethical life?" Please provide specific references to the actual text of the Constitution where I can see this stuff expressed. Thanks.

I would expect that in a religious forum that you would be familiar with Christian ethics.

 

[Xmo1]

What you have to remember.Christmas.) Whereas the Constitution doesn't even mention God.

I made plain the separation of the church (Christian denominations), its political activities, and the ethics that it expouses, as being the intellectual base of law found in the Constitution. Regardless of the fact that Christ is mentioned in the document or not,religion is fundamental to the core of any civilization. In the United States, during the writing of the Constitution, that religion was Christian.

 

[chimpkin]

I would expect that in a religious forum that you would be familiar with Christian ethics.

Ethics are ethics. Christians are Christians.

The two ain't necessarily the same thing...Kinda like a Venn diagram.
Some are one, some are the other, some are both.
People who tend to be very showy about their Christianity often are the worst underneath.

Some Christians love God above all and their fellow humans as themselves...others are happy that many of the people around them are supposed to fry and find reasons to exclude people like socioeconomic status and skin color.

Plus a lot of the founding fathers were Deists, and Tom Paine was pretty much an atheist.

The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense.
-- Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine (which contains no pagination or source citations)

 

[Xmo1]

response

You want to prove me wrong? http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html Show me the text where it says Christianity is our official religion.

Hope you read my previous responses.
The Sermon on the Mount given by Christ is probably the best source of an ethical doctrine that would have influenced the writing of the Constitution, in my opinion. If those precepts are not considered in law, then we are lost as a civilization. That is my point. Religion has real importance and impact in society. Today, probably more than at any other time in the history of the United States, should that be recognized. I think the success or failure of our civilization depends upon it, and I think that the courts are the first cause of our legislative and executive problems in government.

 

[Xmo1]

The Christian model, although not the basis for free enterprise, makes free enterprise more able to function. To function perfectly, free enterprise needs people to have enough self control and social concern so the system will not break down.

I am against free enterprise. We should manufacture not service. Having said that, the commandments are old testament.

Having lived on the West Coast I have seen fields of vehicles entering the U.S. That would be steel, plastic, rubber, engineering, and the support systems of those activities given over to Asian nations, rather than to the people of the United States who at the same time desire to purchase those items. We needed statesmen to say no to foreign products when the economic system was at risk. Having lived on the Southern border, I have seen the desperation of a people who want to give proper care to their children, and do it through their labor. That is an aristocracy, a plutocracy exercising its will for its own benefit, much the same as in the United States today. The impact is somewhat slower in the U.S., but the effects are increasing. At the heart is a lack of American statesmanship, and a predominance of special interests who are the arms of the American Aristocracy.

 

[Xmo1]

Liberals favor more governmental regulation because we know the nature of humanity is towards profit and corruption. Theists like less regulation because they figure god will make those profit who deserve it and make evil people fail. Obviously liberals are correct.

You have fallen prey to the terms (words) put forward by social groups in an effort to further their own agendas. I am not a laborer. I am not a worker. I am a human being. I should share in the profit produced by my activities. I should be able to retain the rights to my own identity, and of my own creations. This is not China. I should be able to wear the cloths that I find comfortable, and look (in appearance) as I choose, because I am a mature adult and citizen of a free country, a freedom that has been earned by blood sacrifice. To think otherwise is to submit to the ideals of special interest groups, and to the idiotic aristocracy in the United States.

Theism simply takes a position on the question of whether or not there is a God who is said to have created the known universe. It says there is a God. They are known to go off the deep end because they themselves are asking basic questions (problems or arguments) about the universe, and religion offers them a solid answer that they recognize as being real within the context of the society in which they live. They cling to it, and investigate it, and adopt it as their own. No problem with that I think. Are they a political force? Sure, but they should be focused on the courts I think, and less on legislative or executive matters. God helps those who help themselves.