From: johnsd2@jec315.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: America & Xianity
Date: 21 Jan 93 08:49:04 GMT
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec315.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.

In article 657@geneva.rutgers.edu, REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov () writes:
>In article <Jan.19.01.02.05.1993.2237@farside.rutgers.edu>
>REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov writes:
>clh follows:
>>[I've seen these arguments in other groups, and there are just as long
>>sets of quotations (sometimes from the same people) indicating the
>>reverse.  My conclusion from this is that people in the 18th Cent.
>>were no more unanimous in their intentions than people are now.  I am
>>certainly convinced that many people saw the U.S. as in some sense a
>>Christian enterprise.  Thus I think the complete and radical
>>disassociation between Christianity and the State that is sometimes
>>advocated now is not what they had in mind.  On the other hand, it's
>>also clear that they had seen entirely too many religious wars and
>>religious tyrannies in Europe, and thus that they did want to make
>>sure that no specific church or creed had authority over the State.
>>
>>In the current debates, the choices presented seem to me generally too
>>extreme on both sides. 
>
>I would agree whole heartedly with this statement.  However, when one is faced
>with the far left position, one counters with a far right position.  Sort of
>the pendulum effect.  Actually, Chuck, you are right in saying that a more
>moderate approach should be taken.  
>

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.

>
>>It is clear that some Christians want to use
>>the State as a vehicle to enforce their Christian ideas on everyone.
>
>Yes, and with good reason.  But not to enforce a theocracy. It is to set up a
>society with rules that will work and honor the author of right-ness.

In a practical sence, there is no difference. This is mainly because
of your hidden assumptions, namely that there is an "author" and it
should be honored; that this author is your God, and that you can tell
what it wants by some means. But SOMEONE will have to interpret what
God wants, and they will have great power this way. This is what theocracy
is about.

>  This
>offends some because their reference point is different and any reference to a
>different reference point causes them to "swing like a pendulum do" to the far
>side without giving full appreciation to the effects that it causes.

:)

Indeed.

It offends others because it SCARES them to hear you say "we need to build
the moral claims of my religion into the law"; Sure scares me.

>
>>This seems to me exactly the sort of thing that the Bill of Rights was
>>intended to prevent.

People from believing extreme things, or being offended?

>>  On the other side, it is also hard to envision
>>that the Founding Fathers would have wanted a situation where one
>>can't mention God in any publicly sponsored forum, for fear of having
>>the State appear to support religion, which seems to be the goal of
>>others.

I suspect you are right here.

This is a bit much.

>>  Somehow, between alternating volleys of quotations from
>>devout Founding Fathers and anti-clerical quotatios from Tom Paine,
>>we've got to find a better approach. 

:)

>I did not in anyway mean to play "quotation volleyball."  As  Voltaire said, "A
>witty saying proves nothing."

This is true. But it so fun to send megabytes of spam around the world
like that! :)

>  But it is an important point that needs to be
>settled for the very interpretation of our constitution depends upon it.

That is true. But remember, we can control our destiny; we can do whatever
is right. At worst it requires a constitutional amendment.

>  The
>present day sociological pressures will crush to death a standard that is
>raised on relativistic ideals.

Why? (just curious, this don't sound too relevant.)

>  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?

>  Anyone with half an open mind will see that is exactly
>what we are seeing in our land today.

I don't. I see a lot of different interests pushing various laws
and morality codes based on different ideas of what is "right";
I see no unified theme.

>  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.

> *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.

>Christians are not called to be "panty-waists."  We were not called "to watch
>the earth be scorched," rather, we were called to be ambassadors  of THE King. 

That is fine. Just remember- NO King has legal authority in the U.S.A. at this
time. If you God wants to rule, he'll have to convince people to amend
the constitution for him (right now he can't even be president, as he was not
born American :) ). And the constitution reserves ALL power to the Federal
Government and the various governments and individuals BELOW it.

You don't have to like this, and you can certainly try to get it changed,
but right now that's the way it is.

[deletia- various quotes]


---
			- 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.