From: johnsd2@jec315.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: America & Xianity
Date: 25 Jan 93 05:35:29 GMT
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec315.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: not Sun Microsystems

In article 5871@athos.rutgers.edu, REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov () writes:
>In article <Jan.21.03.49.03.1993.17187@athos.rutgers.edu>
>johnsd2@jec315.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>
>>I disagree with this, as its my feeling that a strong separationg
>>is a good thing, as it prevents the Church and State from having
>>power over each other. (I dont want the State telling me what to believe,
>>and I rather expect you don't either!)
>>
>>Quite honestly, I dont see why the Churches in the country require
>>the help of the government.
>
>That is not what the originators intended.

Hmmm... "origionators"?

Not sure what this means. Do you mean "Founding Fathers"? If so, please
explain why they explicitly prevented the government from helping out
churches. The Federal Government, that is. (at the time, State governments
were free to do almost anything they wanted.)

Also explain why I should care what the "origionators" think.

>  Some states supported certain
>Churches but it is a much more pregnate issue that you present.  To say that
>you would have the Church devoid of influence over the state is naive.

It is unrealistic, I agree.

But this is not what I want, exactly. I feel the government should
not promote any kind of religion in any way. Let the religion promote
it self, if it wishes to be promoted.

This doesn't mean (say) that your Friendly Neighborhood Church can't
deal in politics. If your Church is, say, for the death penalty,
let it say so and tell its congregation so and argue so. Etc.

I wouldn't mind it if they financed candidates and such either, except
that they are tax exempt, and that seems a bit unfair to me. Other than
that, they are no worse than a political party. Maybe better; they don't
exist for the sole purpose of gathering power!

>  The
>reason the West has the freedoms that it does is because of the Churches
>influence upon the governments from the reformation on.   

This seem extremely dubious. Please defend it. Also, this seems to
imply that the Churches were the ONLY cause, or the most importand
one at least. Defend this too, or say that you didn't mean that.

You see, I don't see it. Looks to me like our freedoms mainly came
from rebellion AGAINST the Church. The people who did it went and
founded their own Churches for the most part, starting the cycle
off again. Also, I might go so far as to trace part of it back
to Roman law- this form of law did some things that resemble our
"rights" a bit. Ex: It was against the law to execute a roman citizen
wo/ trial. It was against the law to crucify a roman citizen, period.

>>>  But it is an important point that needs to be
>>>settled for the very interpretation of our constitution depends upon on.
>
>>That is true. But remember, we can control our destiny; we can do whatever
>>is right. At worst it requires a constitutional amendment.
>
>Can we really now!

Yup.

>  Man control his own destiny!  THis is humanistic. 

Not by your definition. It is almost atheistic but not quite. It
is compatible with any God that does not interfere with humans.

> What is right anyway?

Hard to say. Different people have different answers. Perhaps
it is better not to have governments mucking about in the "gray"
areas, where there is controvercy.

>  Is it what an elite tells us whether it be from the scientific
>community or from the acedemic community or, God for bid, the political
>community.

For some it may be any of these things.

Some others even consider it to be whats written in a book. (Which book
varies, of course)

(guess what: I'm not a moral absolutist. You'll never get a universal
moral code out of me.)

>  Or are you thinking more along the line of the 51% vote.

Not I. I'm just posting a knee-jerk responce. :)

I am thinking of minimalist legislation.

>>>  If they do not ground themselves in the
>>>infinite/personal as a reference point, as a base, then they will surely not
>>>stand the test of time.
>>
>>Again, why? This time its relevant- how can you ground anything into
>>the "infinite/personal", whatever that means?
>
>Simple, as our founding fathers stated, the decalogue was a basis for our
>constitution.

Post evidence that a majority of our Founding Fathers felt this
way. And explain how it is reasonable, since the decaloge is radically
different from our constitution in just about every way.

For instance, it establishes a God as its first order of business;
the Consitution prohibits this entirely. It establishes a list of
laws that Thou Shalt Not break. The Consitution instead defines
the role and mechanics of government, and prohibits certain
actions from it.

(Federal Government for the most part, tho)

>  Have you ever wondered why democracy has failed, and failed
>miserably, when we have imposed it upon non-"Christian" based societies. You
>should.  

Except Japan of course. Oh, and India. And probably
lots of other places I dont know abou offhand.

:) You gotta watch that. Hurts your credibility and all that.

Of course, if you count the nations we DIDN'T try to impose it on,
its much broader. You got your Ancient Athens and your Republican
Rome (for awhile) for instance. Long before Christianity even
existed.

>>>  No longer are the Christian ideals, that
>>>set of laws and precepts that our country was founded on, shoring up the
>>>freedoms which they gave rise to.
>>
>>They never did. Show me where Christianity advocates the precepts this
>>country was founded on- like the idea that all authority to rule
>>comes from those being ruled. That's an important one.
>
>     Judeo-Christian teaching has never been perfectly applied, but it has laid
>a foundation for a high view of human life in concept and practice.  Knowing
>biblical values, people viewed human life as unique because each individual is
>created in the image of God.

This is not even remotely close to being unique to Christianity. Its
a fundamental assumption most humans make. (well, except
the 'image of God' part, which is irrelevant) But practically
everyone thinks humans are special and distinct from nonhumans.

Hell, even most atheists do. We just don't see this as a
"greater/lesser" thing. We are intelligent; this is an adaptation,
no more or less. But it does set us apart at the moment. (on the
other hand, excellent organization sets apart army ants.)

But you sidestep my point. The authority to rule, according
to centuries of Christian tradition, comes from God. He is
the one true authority, anyone not claiming to have power devolving
from him is a usurper. He is the Lord of all, period. This is
totally incompatible with "inalienable rights".

And yet our society has done this. It takes authority from annother
source, as I pointed out.

>     Why has our society changed?  The answer is clear:  The consensus of our
>society no longer rests on a Judeo-Christian base, but rather on a humanistic
>one. Humanism makes man ''the measure of all things. It puts man rather than
>God at the center of all things.

Hang on. You are assuming the Judeo-Christian base again. Please
defend this. It CAN be done, you know. This country WAS and IS mostly
Christian. But most of the aspects of it we go on about so much are
not very Christian, so if you want to call THOSE Christian, you must
show it.

Your idea of humanism does not match the philosophy I see out there. It
may be a good definition- I dunno- but I would not accuse this society of
being like that. The view you seem to be worried about out there-
the secular view- does not even HAVE a center of the universe, and
man does not measure anything (whatever that means).

Perhaps you should get more specific. That might help me out here
to see how your "humanism" appears in society. Maybe I misunderstood you.
That seems most likely. Do excuse me if I spew total garbage
based on misinterpretations of your meaning, but I am going
to plow on. :/

>     Today the view that man is a product of chance in an impersonal universe,
>results in a secularized society and in a liberal theology in much of the
>church.

What the Church things does not bother me at all. I'm an atheist after
all.

I think you are right however so far.

>  The Bible has been set aside and humanism in some form is put in it's
>place. Much of the church no longer holds that the Bible is God's Word in all
>it teaches.

Definitely.

I mean really. If it were the direct word of God, it would not
contradict itself or reality. So I tend to sympathize with the liberals.
They are trying to be coherent. It aint Biblical tho. The bible clearly
and directly states things like "Judas died by a spilling his guts all over
a field that he had bought" and also "Judas hanged himself.". To
claim otherwise is unbiblical. To claim this in inconsistant. It's
a nasty bind.

>  It simply blends with the current thought forms rather than being
>the ''salt that judges and preserves the life of its culture.

Right.

Personally, I prefer it this way. IMHO, the Church is a bad thing
to have as the "salt that judges and preserves the life of its culture";
its too easy to corrupt. Also, I don't like some of what some Churches
say; what if one of them because said salt?

>  Unhappily, this
>portion of the church simply changes its standards as the secular, humanist
>standards sweep on from one loss of humanness to the next.

Pardon me? 

This requires MUCH defence. I simply do not see this.

Start by defining these things:

	"secular, humanist standards"

	"humanness"

In such a way that the above sentence both makes sence are
reflects reality. Until you do, I wont be able to even clearly
understand it.

>  What we are
>watching is the natural result of humanism in its secular and theological
>forms, and the human race is being increasingly devalued.

Really?

Well, if you consider humanity the pinnacle of creation, I suppose
you might see the view that we are just annother critter such a thing.

On the other hand, if you see it as target practice for God, secularism
make it look more important.

If you see it as the Center of the Universe, then secularism makes it look
bad, since it takes away the spotlight.

If you see humans as doomed and inadequate, secularism is great. Sez
we can do stuff. :)

At least if you mean by secularism what I think you do.

>     In our time, humanism has replaced Christianity as the consensus.

Sounds good to me. "Man as the measure of all things" isn't terribly
good imho but its better than "Serve God or Else. But we aren't threatening
you, far from it. We're, ah, warning you... ah.. that's it.."

I'll take my atheism to this near-"man is God" thing you keep talking about,
tho.

> This has
>had many results, not the least of which is to change our view of people and
>their attitudes toward other human beings.  
>    For a while, Western culture-from sheer inertia- has continued to live by
>the old Christian ethics while increasingly embracing the mechanistic,
>humanistic world view of people

I'll buy this.

>      Only recently has a new generation risen to take these theories out of
>the labs and classrooms and into the streets.  Its members have carried the
>reduction of the value of human beings into everyday life.

Here you go again. Looks to me like they are raising humanity
out of the shadow of God and saying "It's your life- go do something
with it. Something real. Something that will last! Something
that matters! You can do it if you try!"

That's reduction?

>>> *And these very freedoms are the hammer blows
>>>which are crushing us to bits* now that the basis for them has been put
>aside.
>>
>>They are?  Please provide support for this.
>>
>Simple, individual rights.  THe Judeo-Christian teachings gave significance to
>the individual.

The do GIVE significants, but they are NOT the only thing which does.
Also, they do not give authority to individuals. All authority
comes from God by this view, so how can any rights be inalienable?
If God withdrawls them, they are gone.

>  In the constitution certain rights have been made
>"inalienable."  The problem lies in that when you remove the base that gave
>form to these freedoms, the freedoms them selves become the end.

Right. Well, I think so. Depends what you mean by "the end", but I think
I agree.

I just think they are a better end for a morality than "enforcing
God's will".

But I still don't see how the base has been removed. Looks to me
like the rights concept was ALWAYS meant to stand on its own, NOT
promote any particular morality.

>  THe saying is
>simple, yet profound:  Freedom without form becomes form without freedom.

Simple, yet silly. Just cuz it rolls good off the tongue doens't make
it true. This is just plain old fashioned meaningless, in context anyway.

To help me out, start by defining "form" so it actually works in this
case and does not involve equivocation.

>  ANy
>student of history can see that.

Well, I am a student of history if not very great or
dedicated, yet I do not see it. (yet)

>  The freedoms will only be as high and as
>great as the strength of the form that governs them.

Why? (this probably depends on "form")

Also, I STRONGLY object to saying that freedoms are "governed"
If they are, they are no longer freedoms in the western sence,
they are concessions from the governor. You don't have
inalienable rights, you have priviledges. They can be
curtailed.

Perhaps this can be rephrazed or modified slightly so I can
buy it, but I very much doubt it.

>  The entire west is in
>moral decay as it has ensposed humanism and divorced it self from the
>Judeo-Christian base.

This is your proposition, but I do not agree.

The "moral decay" part is totally out of the blue for one thing.

>  And what is happening, the frightful inhumanity of man. 

Show me. Show me its worse than ever so Christian life in the Middle
Ages. That's about the most Christian environment you can get.

>That which was unthinkable a few years ago is now not even considered a topic
>of discussion.  For instance, abortion or homosexuality.

All the better.

I am not afraid of discussion.

If you religion forbids discussion of these things, then I want
no part of it. (but most Christians seem willing to discuss it,
so I wont panic yet. :) )

>Enough, I'd like to continue, but this is long enough and I'm out of time.

Its enough for me to chew on for awhile.

>One must either live by God's authority or live by human reason -man can not
>serve 2 masters.

Ignoring the fact that litterally everyone DOES server >2 masters (just
not all to the same degree), I'll just assert (just as baldfacedly)

One must either live by human reason, or human tyranny. God does
not rule; when his self-proclaimed servants do, it quickly
becomes human tyranny, even if it once was human reason.

I'll take reason thank you.
---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.